The Castle and Brilliant Lies
by Stan Ross, University of New South Wales School of Law (January 1998)
Late last year I was given by a former classmate, Michael Asimow, his latest book. The book, Reel Justice: The Courtroom Goes to the Movies (1996) by Paul Bergman and Michael Asimow published by Andrews and McMeel and distributed by Penguin Books in Australia, looks at 69 trial movies. It gives each one a rating from four gavels (a classic) down to one gravel (ask for a new trial). Among the thirteen with a top rating is the famous Australian film, Breaker Morant (1980). Another Australian film, Prisoners of the Sun - known in Australia as Blood Oath (1990), also received a high three gavels rating. The book is written for lawyers and non-lawyers. For the latter there is a special section to help clarify the complicated legal doctrine on the hearsay rule and for lawyers and non-lawyers an interesting one on the prejudice against women lawyers.
The book outlines the plot for each film and does an analysis of the accuracy of the legal doctrines and arguments presented by the script writers. I found as its most interesting aspect the discussion of ethical and moral dilemmas which are often most vividly portrayed in trial movies. As the authors state: "Should a lawyer represent a client that the lawyer thinks is guilty? What if the client might kill again? Must a lawyer represent a client who is extremely unpopular or who has a repulsive personality or who can't pay a fee or who doesn't even want a lawyer?"
Many Australian lawyers who see trial movies will comment on the accuracy of the legal analysis, but I believe few will look closely at the ethical and moral issues. Two recent Australian films present a number of these issues. They are Brilliant Lies (1996) and The Castle (1997). In Brilliant Lies the complainant is seeking compensation for being sexually harassed by her boss. Her main objective is to receive an unusually large sum in compensation for this type of case. We are shown in detail the mediation system that brings pressure on the litigants to reach a fair and harmonious solution, but doesn't work in this situation because of the hidden story. Both the complainant and the defendant lie to their lawyers and the true story is only revealed during the administrative tribunal hearing. There are interesting insights into the lawyer-client relationship, showing how clients can manipulate their lawyers. The film has broader social moral and ethical issues and it has an excellent script based on a play of the same name written by David Williamson (co-scriptwriter: The Year of Living Dangerously)
The second film, The Castle, was a tremendous hit at the box office in Australia. [The film has not yet attracted a distributor in the U.S.A.] It is a wonderful Australian comedy played by the team from the television satirical program Frontline. In Frontline we are often presented with ethical and moral issues faced by a television news program. In The Castle, the Frontline team have turned their critical eye on the legal system. When the family home is threatened by the Commonwealth government’s need to expand an airport, the family solicitor is immediately consulted. The problem is that his practice almost totally involves non-litigious matters such as conveyancing, wills, probate etc.
The solicitor at first rightfully turns down representation because he lacks competence in this area. The Law Council of Australia Model Rules, r 1.1 states: "A practitioner must act ... with competence and diligence in the service of a client, and should accept instructions, and a retainer to act for a client only when the practitioner can reasonably expect to serve the client in that manner...." The client pleads with the solicitor to take the case because his home is his castle and no money compensation can replace its value. The solicitor is persuaded to take the matter and is totally unprepared and inept in presenting the case. Of course he loses.
It is only when a retired Queen's Counsel [a sort of super-barrister] befriends the client and takes over the appeal on a pro bono basis that the client receives competent legal representation. Although this is a very dubious appeal to the High Court, based on the constitutional interpretation of "just terms," it highlights the role of the divided profession. During the hearing it looks like the solicitor is helping the QC by passing him a note, but the note ask whether he wants a glass of water. The Castle depicts the stereotype image of solicitors as being unable to do litigious work. This is no longer true as many more solicitors are doing advocacy work. It also shows the Bar [barristers] in glowing light, with the expert QC saving the family home through his skilled advocacy and legal knowledge.
The rule on competence is not clear as to whether a solicitor who lacks knowledge in a particular area can still represent the client by receiving an advice from a barrister or by briefing a barrister to take over the representation. Obviously, the client will thus receive expert legal advice, but at an inflated cost, as compared to having a solicitor, for example as needed in The Castle situation, who is an expert on litigation.
Films like The Castle are excellent educational tools. They help us define our own ethics and morals not only within the professional relationship but also in the broader context of our society.
Stan Ross teaches ethics at the University of New South Wales School of Law in Sydney, Australia. He is the author of The Joke's on ... Lawyers (Federation Press, 1996), available via e-mail: marketing@fedpress.aust.com.
The Internet
Movie Database for Brilliant Lies
The Internet
Movie Database for The Castle
Comments of other readers
Mailbox for reply to Picturing Justice
commentaries