GRISHAM V GLEESON
August 1999 |
|
In
the beginning
Perhaps this is a confession best made under the cloak of darkness, in the dim corner
of a favourite haunt, but I was well into my adulthood before I realised that the practice
of the law was not an amalgam of LA Law and Perry Mason, peopled by Jimmy Smits
lookalikes in Armani suits, and apparently restricted to office space above the 30th floor
of downtown chrome and glass towers.
Were these merely the musings of an adolescent mindset, I
should not waste your time. But at law4u we have spent many hundreds of hours sifting
through the popular culture in pursuit of the kind of law that can't be found in legal
texts.
Why do we make these determined efforts to include popular culture
in our site? Sure, we think it's entertaining, and we hope it will extend the appeal of
the site beyond customers in search of legal information.
But inadvertently we have happened upon a truism - our users may not
always be captivated by legal issues, but they are certainly willing to investigate and
learn from the adventures of their fictional legal heroes, including the difficult ethical
and technical questions posed along the way.
Popular
culture
Many forms of popular culture incorporate images of law or turn on the resolution of
issues of justice, and overwhelmingly the feedback to our site has convinced us that
Australian consumers are in fact eager to participate in this new popular legal culture.
It would be far too simplistic to criticize our appeal to
popular culture as a diminution of the law. Legal journals and legal fact sheets do not
create an intimate connection with the public. It is popular culture that clarifies the
reality that all law is personal.
Exploitation or education?
Is it inappropriate to make heroes, or villains, out of lawyers? Are we exploiting the
imaginations of our users, fueling expectations that their lawyer will be an Ally McBeal
lookalike in a micro-mini, prepared to charge into battle on their behalf? Imagine their
disappointment when they are greeted instead by a frumpy matron in a tweed twin set, whose
most fervent desire is to settle their action so she can beat the rush hour traffic to her
hideaway in the hills.
So be it! For myself, I would prefer Gregory Peck defending a
falsely accused black man in "To Kill A Mockingbird" than Al Pacino's diabolical
lawyer in "The Devil's Advocate", a parody of "Paradise Lost". This is
because it is the idea of justice, and more particularly its denial, that engages our
emotions. And it is at precisely this point, where disbelief has been temporarily
suspended, that ironically we have the best chance to educate our users about the real
world, and the myriad ways the law intrudes into their daily lives.
Daryl Kerrigan, the father in the Australian movie "The
Castle", is not a loser who prefers to live next to an airport under miles of high
voltage power lines - he is a champion who, with the help of a kindly retired Queens
Counsel, fights to defend the principle that a man's home is his castle. Why do people
doubt the truth of that aphorism? Because they have learnt, to the detriment of community
spirit, that you can't fight City Hall. In the real world, where consumers need to be
aware of rip-offs and short changed service, they may be inspired to seek the information
contained in a legal fact sheet precisely because Daryl Kerrigan has taught them that they
have rights!
You may wonder at my readiness to elevate the dramatization of the
lawyer in popular culture as an educative tool. At law4u we give our readers their due -
we assume, with justification from the feedback we receive, that the public is able to
distinguish between parody and realistic portrayal. In television shows like "The
Practice", even the parody is useful to epitomize ethical dilemmas - for instance,
how to skirt the legal niceties without breaching ethical requirements in pursuit of a
justified acquittal.
You can try to tutor the public on the niceties of the Constitution,
but the referendum on the republic will always remain an issue apart from its source -
yes, the Constitution - because people don't care to be educated by boffins whom they
suspect have a self-interest. But they sure as hell care for the fate of Daryl Kerrigan
and his devoted family in the movie "The Castle". And what do they learn? That
his fate is in fact in the hands of a barrister who is a constitutional expert!
Grisham or Gleeson?
And so we come to that most ubiquitous of popular legal icons - if you want to know the
name of the person with the power of public persuasion in his hands, it is not Chief
Justice Gleeson of the High Court, let alone a Richard Carleton snapping at the heels of
yet another recalcitrant lawyer - no, instead we invariably turn to the indefatigable,
prodigious and prolific John Grisham.
He's got all the bases covered - insurance lawyers in
"The Rainmaker", tax attorneys in "The Client", personal injury
experts in "The Runaway Jury" and probate specialists in "The
Testament". None are too ethical - but I'll bet my last dollar that 99% of readers
would beat a path to their doors the moment the handcuffs are slapped on their wrists. And
that's why his books sell by the container-load. They affirm our suspicion that the law is
sometimes an ass, in my opinion a healthy disposition in a functioning democracy.
Like the Henry Fonda character in "Twelve Angry Men", the
public knows that something is wrong with the system - you may remember that in that movie
we never really discover whether the Hispanic defendant is guilty or not - it's simply not
the point. What is revealed, and all to the good, is that the legal system deserves the
closest scrutiny, and that we must be prepared to try our own prejudices and fears as well
as the facts when seeking justice.
Try teaching that in the Sydney Morning Herald!
Read this: The legal information contained above is
intended to be general information about the law. It is not a substitute for legal and
other professional advice. Lawscape Communications P/L does not accept responsibility for
loss to any person, who either acts or does not act because of this information.
Want us to
tell you when we put out another news item?
|