Martinez, Raphael Fernand C.

Legal Counselling

2017400067

“ And Justice for All”

The movie revolves around the protagonist Arthur Kirkland which Alpacino

flawlessly portrayed, a skilled lawyer who struggles with his senile grandfather,

staying on the good side of the suicidal Judge Rayford, maintaining a relationship

with his girlfriend who sits on a committee that unsuccessfully probes corruption,

and providing unintentionally false hopes to his clients that rot in prison. He

remains the underdog throughout the film, being stepped on by Fleming, falling

victim to unfortunate timing, and even being shorter than his combative girlfriend.

And the first impression of Arthur is seeing him in a jail cell after being held in

contempt of court for assaulting a judge. These devices allow the contrasting

climax, in which he’ll finally, publically exclaim his suppressed beliefs, to be just

that much more powerful and poignant. “Being honest doesn’t have much to do

with being a lawyer,” Arthur admits during a discussion with his grandfather

Arthur Kirkland, a defense attorney who struggles in the practice of legal

profession due to the injustices that were rampant among the legal system and his

colleagues. For example, he first appeared in the movie with his client who was

wrongfully accused and was put to jail for a year. Another instance would be when

his colleague, Jay, who suffered problems from doing his best for the accused to be

acquitted from crimes which he fully knows that they should be convicted of. Due to
his breakdown, he ended up throwing plates at people, Arthur was approached by

Judge Fleming whom he was not in good terms with. Judge Fleming taught the

appointment of Arthur as defense attorney would tilt the favor in to his own

As the trial opens, Judge Fleming casually and unethically makes statements

about rape which angers Arthur thus affecting his clients case. Due to the anger he

felt it caused a sudden outburst of emotions that caused him to be escorted out of

the courtroom, feeling devastated after comprehending its outcome in his law

career.

Applying the case in Philippine setting one may wonder if this would be

favorable to the accused or detrimental on his part. According to the Rules of Court

129 Judicial admission – An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the

course of the proceedings, in the same case, does not require proof. The admission

may be contradicted only be showing that it was made through palpable mistake or

that no such admission was made.

Furthermore jurisprudence shows that, “...an attorney who is employed to

manage a party’s conduct of a lawsuit...has prima facie authority to make relevant

admissions by pleadings, by oral or written stipulation...which unless allowed to be

withdrawn are conclusive”.

In fact, “Judicial admissions are frequently those of counsel or of the attorney

of record, who is, for the purpose of trial, the agent of his client. When such
admissions are made...for the purpose of dispensing with the proof of some

fact,...they bind the client, whether made during, or even after, the trial.”

Such revelation by the defense counsel which was assumed to be an

extension of his client’s is a substantial evidence to prove the guilt of Judge Fleming

and his conviction.

Arthur’s outburst regarding the justice system to be out of order may

constitute uproar against the speedy execution of the defendant and could lead him

to be guilty of contempt and thus he may be sanctions and as a officer of the court

Arthur should show respect towards the judges in the court.