法网边缘

A civil action，在法律专业的词典里解释为“民事诉讼”，我的专业是新闻学，对法律的了解很有限，但在我看来，这部影片虽然在一些法律程序和相关知识上很专业，但其所反映出的与人性有关的内涵却具有普世的价值。金钱与良知、利润角逐与职业道德，这些二元体的对立在影片中所处可见，所以我认为与其说这是一部法律电影或是环保电影，倒不如说是一部揭示人性的电影。

作为贯穿整部影片的主人公Jan Schlichtmann，他身上所体现出的在金钱名利与职业良知间的挣扎和抉择是我印象最深的部分。最初Jan接下这个案子是因为看到了这背后可能为其带来的巨大的金钱和名声，但随着时间的进展，困难与阻力层层出现，使得现实与预期南辕北辙，Jan和他的公司也因此到了入不敷出甚至是一文不名的地步，这时候Jan的坚持就与金钱和名利毫无关联，他所坚持的是一种道德良知和职业准则，是对公平和正义的追求，是一种真正令人感动的人性。我想Jan的转变是一种在现实压力下对职业价值的重新思考和认识，这种转变也成就了Jan作为一个律师所能体现出的真正的职业价值。因此这篇文章我想着重探讨的就是在金钱最大化这种浪潮下律师真正的职业价值。

影片的开头给我留下了很深刻的印象，体现了Jan Schlichtmann在一个案件中追求金钱最大化的表现。被告为了求和解一点一点地往上加赔偿价格，而Jan Schlichtmann却一次一次地摇头，直到感觉到对方不会再往上加才喊停。这组镜头淋漓尽致地展现了基于律师自己的利益与原告利益的捆绑这个基础，Jan Schlichtmann最大化追逐金钱的表现。当然律师作为经纪人的一种，其收入的来源主要是在最大化被代理人利益的基础上收取一定比例的利润。Jan作为一名负责人身伤害代理的律师，理所应当地会不停地要求被告提高赔偿金，因为只有这样他才能为自己和公司收获高额的利润。这是律师这个职业的一种特殊性。

但在这个案件中Anne等多名丧子的家庭一再地强调他们不在乎钱，他们需要的只是一个道歉，因此才会出现当四名律师将和解的钱数告知他们时，Anne的转身离席。因为在这里，原告利益的体现不是金钱，而是一种道德上的索取。我想这也是让Jan他们所一直无法协调的地方，因为被告方的金钱和解对追求利润的律师来说可能已经足够，但对于心灵受到严重创伤的家庭来说这根本毫无作用。所以在这里出现了影片中一个最重要的矛盾。继续做下去，Jan则会面临没有后援没有朋友没有经费的窘境；不做，Jan无法面对丧子的家庭，更无法在良心上说服自己。

有些职业注定是与公平和正义捆绑在一起的，比如警察，法官，新闻记者，政府官员，因此这些职业的深层价值可以说也是一种普世的道德价值。律师这一职业也是如此，因为法律本身就是一种基于维护社会正常秩序的公平与正义的制度化，律师作为原告或被告的代理人，他们本身所承担的就是一种正义和公正。尤其在这部影片中，Jan所面对的对手是两个实力雄厚的大集团，但却为了自己的经济利益不惜以牺牲环境为代价，不论怎么说它们在道德上都是缺失者，因此在这里道德的天平是毫无意义的偏向Jan一方的。但在各方面证据都难以搜集的情况下，如何让道德体现为法律上认可的公正，是Jan的难题。他一直在作出努力，包括对地质和水文等相关专业知识的研究，而且在面对两大集团私下里对他的贿赂，他毫无动容，始终不同意和解。在这里，Jan作为一个律师，已经向我们展示了这个职业所应具备的道德良知，同时也在启迪着我们思考律师这一职业真正的价值所在：捍卫社会的公平与正义。

影片的接近尾声时，Jan在给EPA写的信中这样说道：“我有证据，但是不再有资源，不再有赌博的力量…在指控比亚特里斯公司的案子上，我没有钱，没有搭档。我还能说的是，我也没有客户…我把这些笨拙的东西都转寄给你…我甚至知道你可能不会去采用…不会像我开始时的那样去关心它。如果你决定要采用，我希望你能在我失败的地方取得成功。如果你要用钱来计算我的成功和失败，而完全撇开人们的苦难，这种算法表明…是完全失败的。不能说明的是…如果我能再知道些，现在不知道的东西，知道我失败的地方，如果我卷入这些人之中…知道所有的数字、所有的几率，所有的看法…我还会去做的。”这段话让我至为感动，从这段话中我们已经能够看到此时的Jan已经开始思考法律的价值和人性的意义，所以，在面对“你用什么来证明自己的生活质量？”这样略显嘲讽的诘问时，他才会回应出一个坦荡的微笑。
 
Jan最后的微笑和结尾时那首节奏明快幽默的Take me to the river让我从影片开始就十分沉重的心终于放松了下来。我想这才是这部影片所想真正表达的东西，有关人性，有关选择，有关律师的价值。

从电影角度很有价值。镜头的拍摄，对话的表现方式。情节设计很巧妙，猜不透最后的结果。很爱financial advisor~最好笑的一段是：勇敢点，把脚放上来~

表现出很多。社会等级，律师道德观职业观，measure of life，是与非对与错。

老师让我们看的时候prepare answers for three questions:
1. Would you have taken the case?
2. Would you have settled? When? How would you have addressed this issue with your clients?
3. Would you want John Travolta's character or Robert Duval's character to be your lawyer? Why?

My answers would be:
1. Yes. Because the case is definitely profitable, given the fact that two large companies: Beatrice Food and W. R. Grace are involved.
2. Yes. Out of the court room, waiting for the jury's decision. I would say that I have tried my best, but I can no longer afford the huge expenses of investigation. This amount of money is a result of cost-and-benefit analysis. Though monetary value can never compensate and redeem your loss, we have tried our best to match up.
3. Robert Duval. I don't know how much a degree says, but in this movie, a lawyer from and teaches at Harvard is certainly more chill. He knows the rules, and manipulates them sometimes. He adjusts well and 扮猪吃老虎 in the legal world. 食物链中的上游. His personality and versatility speaks for everything. I don't like a lawyer who is too easy to read, and who is too eager for cases. His ignorant pride, so to speak. 身段不够柔软。

this movie is sort of disappointing, cutting short what is intriguing in the book, e.g., well-planned interrogatory, installing a team of expert witnesses, how to finance a personal injury case, etc. sometimes justice simply can't be done, which is a depressing dose of the reality.

however the cast is impressive, from Travolta to Duvall, and of course William Macy, compensating the shortness of the adoption.

BTW did you guys notice the shots of Fenway Park? I was getting excited! Go Sox!

   Civil Action is, I think, one of the best movies about how American law really works. The movie is based on a book (the same name)—and the book is based on a true story.
The movie tells the story of pollution in a small town in Massachusetts. In this town young children get sick and die of cancer. The mothers and fathers think that maybe they are dying because a factory’s polluting the water in the town. A young lawyer (played by the actor John Travolta) becomes the lawyer for the families.
The lawyer brings a lawsuit to ask a U.S. court to order that companies that were responsible for the pollution stop the pollution and pay the families damages. The kind of lawsuit is called a “toxic tort” lawsuit—because the plaintiffs say that they were harmed (tort) by poisonous chemicals (you du de).
There are many interesting and important things that we can learn about and discuss from the movie. These things include:
(1) Career Model: “Plaintiffs” John Travolta is a “plaintiffs lawyer.” He represents people who do not have the money to pay for lawyers. He spends his own (and his small law firm’s) money to do the work. In exchange he hopes to get paid well if the lawsuit is won.
 
In watching the movie, think about: (1) why is John Travolta being a plaintiffs lawyer (to become rich or famous, to help people, both?) (2) what strategy do the lawyers for the defendant companies use to oppose John Travolta? (3) what are the moral issues John Travolta has when the lawsuit becomes very expensive and John Travolta’s law firm has little money left?
 
(2) Tool: Discovery.
 
As we have discussed, one of the most important and special features in American law is “discovery.” The American rules of civil procedure (Federal and state) provide that before the parties go to trial, they should be able to get all the information they need about the case. In many cases, including probably the most complicated civil cases , the parties do not go to trial—they settle the case after they take discovery and find out how strong (or weak) their case is, and how strong (or weak) the case for the other side is.
 
Basically, in discovery, a party can get information from the other side in three ways:
 
a) Deposition. In a deposition a party gets to ask questions of people. The people can be the defendant (including officials of a company or of the government, if the defendant is company or government) or a “third party.” The testimony is like court testimony—the witness has to tell the truth, and a record is kept. But there is no judge or jury present.
 
  Depositions can be very very useful and powerful. The court can order that even the most important people (government or companies) have to make themselves available for deposition. (As you may recall, when he was being sued by a woman, President Bill Clinton had to testify at a deposition). In depositions about environmental pollution by a company, a plaintiff’s lawyer can find out things that the government (or the newspapers or public) do not know.
 
b) Documents. In addition to asking questions of witnesses, parties conduct “documentary” discovery. They can ask the other side (or a third party, though court approval may be needed)) for documents that may be related to the case. (Today, of course, documents include emails and other “e-documents.”)
 
c) “Interrogatories.” Finally, in discovery parties can ask each other to answer—in writing-written questions.
 
In the movie we will see how depositions work. You will see how John Travolta tries to get information from the company witnesses, and how the company lawyers try to depose the families of the children who died. This is an example of the way it really is.
 
(3) Tool: Expert witnesses.
                The families live near polluted water. The children die. The families and John Travolta have a simple argument-- the companies polluted the water, the children drank the water, the children died.
The companies have lots of money for lawyers and experts. They argue that it is much more complicated. The companies did not pollute the water. If they polluted the water, the children did not get sick and die from the water –the children had many other reasons to get sick.

(4) Strategy. I will not tell you how the movie ends, but the movie—again based on a true story—shows that in real life sometimes things work out differently than what lawyers plan for.
 
(5) Settlement and settlement strategy. As the Movie explains, most cases do not go trial—but are settled before the judge or jury has to decide. In many cases this is because in discovery the parties can learn about each other’s case, and see how strong or weak the cases are. A good part of the movie is about the way in which both sides go about trying to settle the case. Watch carefully
 
(6) Lawyer personalities. A great part of the movie is watching the differences between the key lawyers-“Jan,” “Mr. Cheeseman” and Mr. Facher. In America lawyers have many different styles. Watch these different styles-see what you like and what you don’t. Is what you like most effective-or maybe what you don’t like?
 
(7) Moral Questions
   The movie presents very good examples of moral questions. They include:
~~What kind of methods can or should lawyers who oppose “public interest” lawyers use?
~~What should a “public interest” lawyer do when his/her interest in survival (having enough money) comes in conflict with client interest?
~~What should public interest lawyers and clients do when the defendant offers to settle the case—and the settlement may help lawyer or client, but maybe not the larger public interest.

        每次看这样的法律片都能把人看得热血沸腾，如同前段时间看的《因父之名》也是一样。但是恰恰法律是不能热血沸腾的，庭审尤其如此，不能因为情感而控制自己的理性思维。律师不能这样，法官更不能这样。而律师尤其永远不是正义的化身。经验丰富的确是律师的一大优势，这是年轻律师无法相比的。

     看完以后，一边感慨，一边也在警醒自己。很多人在接触法律的时候，都心怀远大理想，可法律实际上呢，真和医生，技工一样只是掌握技术的专业人才而已，把律师来当做救世主，很多时候也许是不行。但是作为民众，作为观众，当然还是希望正义得到伸张。看电影的时候看到许多非常警醒的话，想来编剧竟然如此厉害，最后发现原来也是由原著改编。也许看完原著，会有更深的体会吧。