6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Truth Believer, May 4, 2001
I work in a large law office. All of my colleagues know that many of our most effective trial lawyers are the ones who tell the best stories. As Steven Lubet points out in his cleverly written book, this does not refer to creating a story out of thin air. Rather, it deals with presenting a case to a judge or jury in a way that best represents the client's true position. Through both fictional and real-life examples, the author discusses the inherent difficulties and potential problems a lawyer may have in presenting every single aspect of a client's background. After all, it's not the job of one side's lawyer to do the opposing lawyer's work. But when an attorney presents a truthful account of the client's position in a manner that the court or jury can clearly understand, the likelihood that a particular case may wind up with a just result increases. Lubet's examples include John Brown at Harper's Ferry, Wyatt Earp at the O.K. Corral and Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird," -- great stories in themselves, memorable and instructive to lawyer and non-lawyer alike.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Truth and Lawyers, June 24, 2001
Steven Lubet's new book presents seven entertaining and thought-provoking essays on how lawyers tell their clients' stories in trials. The book is bound to appeal to lawyers, but it deserves to be a hit among the general public too. It is admirably written -- concise, clear, fair-minded, free of legal jargon, and often funny.
Lubet starts with "Bif and Me," inspired by an airport incident. A man angrily told Lubet that he had sat down in a seat the man was reserving for his father. Lubet prepared to move, but as the man continued his aggressive behavior, Lubet made the mistake of saying, "Hold on a minute, mister." The man said, "Don't piss me off" and shook his fist at him, whereupon Lubet skedaddled. Lubet imagines what would have happened if he had consulted a lawyer about suing "Biff" for assault, the legal term for a threat that puts someone in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Lubet explains how his own lawyer would have framed the story, then shows how Biff's lawyer would have framed a very different story by picking and choosing from the same evidence. The result, says Lubet, would have been two competing stories, both of them legitimately grounded in the true facts of what happened, but emphasizing different subsets of those facts.
The humor of "Biff and Me" abruptly gives way to the tragedy of the Mortaras, a Jewish family living in the Papal States. In 1853, a Christian domestic servant secretly sprinkled water on one-year-old Edgardo Mortara, uttered the phrases of baptism, and thereby under canon law rendered him a Christian. When they discovered this secret baptism, Vatican authorities raided the Mortaras' house, seized Edgardo, and permanently removed him from his parents' custody, since canon law forbade Christians to be raised by Jews. The parents hired lawyers to frame an appeal to the Pope under the canon law. The appeal failed, although the case stirred international outrage against the Church. Lubet adds a new dimension to this familiar story by focusing on how the law limits the freedom lawyers have in framing their clients' stories. While most people today regard the case as one of kidnapping, no lawyer in the Papal States in 1858 could have framed the story that way. The Mortaras'lawyers had to resort to technicalities challenging the validity of the baptism and other similarly hopeless tactics.
"John Brown" raises troubling questions of whether lawyers may condone lying by their client in the name of an ultimately just cause. John Brown was tried by Virginia for sedition after his failed raid on Harpers Ferry. As in the Mortara case, the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Knowing this, Brown and his lawyers used the trial to present a story to the country at large about the heroic battle of a peaceloving man against the evils of slavery. The peaceloving part was false, and his lawyers knew it. They helped Brown suppress the truth about his real plans for the raid and about his callous disregard for human life during the raid and throughout his abolitionist career.
"Wyatt Earp" dissects the hearing held in 1881 to determine whether Earp and his companions would be tried for murder after they shot three rivals in the "Gunfight at the OK Corral." Lubet uses this trial to pursue his ideas on the importance of "case theory" and "story framing" in trials.
Lubet next turns to fiction to explore the ethical limits on lawyers as they frame a story that will enable their clients to win the case. In "Liberty Valance," Lubet reinvents the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," imagining what would have happened if a prosecutor had decided to indict the hero, Ransome Stoddard, for murdering Liberty Valance. In "Atticus Finch," Lubet retells the story of "To Kill a Mockingbird" by assuming that the accused black man, Tom Robinson, really did rape Mayella Ewell, his white accuser. If so, was Atticus Finch's bare-knuckles attack on Mayella at the trial within the bounds of proper legal advocacy?
Lubet believes that the adversary trial, and the role lawyers play in it, deserve our respect, and that the framing by lawyers of competing stories in such trials is not only inevitable, but a good thing. Not everyone agrees. In a 1999 book, the journalist Janet Malcolm analyzed the case of Sheila McGough, who was convicted of helping her client defraud a number of companies. Malcolm believes that McGough was innocent. She argues that a miscarriage of justice resulted from McGough's stubborn refusal to play the duelling-stories game that characterizes trials. Lubet disagrees. In "Sheila McGough," he asserts that McGough's downfall resulted not from her respect for the truth but from misguided decisions that prevented the jury from hearing the evidence it needed to sort out the truth. Lubet demurs on whether he believes McGough was guilty, but he clearly believes that if she was innocent, her best chance would have been to let her lawyers do what good trial lawyers do: frame a convincing story through a selective but entirely ethical arranging and presentation of the evidence.
This sketch cannot do justice to the worth of Lubet's book. Trials are important. We resolve great issues and small through them. Yet the adversary trial is an ancient, clumsy, expensive, histrionic device for determining the truth. It relies heavily on lawyers paid to tell stories that favor their client, whatever the real truth may be. As a trial lawyer, I often feel uneasy about whether my trials have arrived at the truth. Many people confidently assert that there must be a better way. Maybe there is. But after reading Lubet's book, I doubt it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thoughtful, thought-provoking, with wide applicability, March 27, 2002
This is a wonderful and delightful book. It contains very enjoyable, digestible, especially well-written, insightful and highly instructive discussions of six real, or almost real or at least fabled or fancied, well-known "cases" from the vantage point and context of the formulation of "stories". These are developed in the context of trial preparation and presentation. The ever-present subtext is "truth," open-textured, informed by and very susceptible to strategy, bias and device.
The development has far wider applicability beyond the strictly "legal," extending to all forms of persuasion. In addition to its very clear value in and relevance to the legal arena-at-large, including advocacy, this book will be of considerable interest to those practitioners of "theory", philosophy, ethics, language and communication, among other intellectual pursuits and disciplines. The introduction and concluding chapters encapsulate and position the text well.
The astute, conscientious and imaginative reader will be amply rewarded with heightened insight into the role of story-telling as a perennial current pervading not only much of Anglo-American jurisprudence, but also everyday forms of human "intercourse", including "he said, she said" conversations, journalism and the media, fundraising, advertising, the pulpit and all forms of persuasive or advocatory writing and discourse.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
