法网边缘

   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。

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。

<A Civil Action> 1998年的老片。

与其说这是一部环保题材的影片，倒不如将其看为是一部法律题材的影片。环保在这个故事中只是作为那个争议的扮演者。

故事改编自真人真事，19世纪80年代，马萨诸塞州的EAST WOBURN在15年内有8个孩子死于血癌，居民们怀疑是因为当地两家工厂排放污水导致儿童患病。于是，其中一名丧子的母亲便找到了民事诉讼律师Jan Schlichtmann作为控方代表律师，指控两家工业巨头。起初，Jan是因为看到胜诉后巨大的经济利益与宣传作用，才答应做控方的律师。但是，在那样一个环保法还一穷二白的年代，漫长的民事诉讼程序使得Jan从一个年轻有为的钻石王老五，变成了一个一无所有的穷光蛋。控诉，驳回，上诉，直到解决，8年的时间，他失去了当年的合作伙伴，失去了所有家当，只为了打赢这个官司。虽然电影的最后并没有拍出正义得到伸张，而是在无尽的努力中落幕，但我依然觉得这是一个值得铭记的影片，不仅因为这个案子在环保事业上巨大的意义，也因为它所还原的法律世界的真实，律师既不是万恶的骗子，也非万能的救世主，从某种程度上说，他只是帮当事人解决问题的雇佣劳动力而已。他尽忠职守那是责任，也是义务，但是如果他无能为力，也不是罪过，没必要永远把律师与正义绑在一起。毕竟，如果每一个当事人的正义都要赔上一个律师的一生，这代价不仅太大，对律师也是不公平的。

关于这部影片，说说三点感受

1．关于律师的职业道德
众所周知，事实真相与法律事实是有严格的区别的。真实发生过的事情，即使在人的记忆中都有可能被歪曲，更何况通过逻辑推理，证据证明而得来的法律事实。任何方式的重演都将是失真的，而法庭上兵戈相见的目的并非拍一部跌宕起伏的纪录片。双方各自带着损伤来到法庭，希望通过正当程序解决问题的时候，一个公正的法庭能做到的就是尽可能了解更多的信息，以期还给受到相对不公正待遇的一方正义。这是法律，甚至法庭，之神圣的所在。而非律师存在的意义。律师并非通过自己悲天悯人的情怀来工作。就像电影中所说得那样，“如果一个律师具备同情心，就像一个医生晕血一样可怕”，没有任何一个病人希望得知自己的医生晕血，但是却有很多的当事人至少希望自己的律师同情，怜悯甚至伸出援助之手。而这恰恰是律师职业道德中最具挑战的事情，因为同情往往会“clouds the eyes”。律师靠的是专业，是理智，是对当事人负责的态度。而这种敬业精神，在某些情况下可能会和作为一个人所具有的良心是背道而驰的。往往这才是考验一个律师是否具有职业道德的关键时刻。没有必要把社会道德的沦丧放在对于一种职业的批判上，毕竟，无论原告还是被告，都有着法律所规定的权利，律师要做的并非去歪曲公理，而是最大限度的去为自己的当事人争取其依法享有的权利。这也是律师这个行业一直吸引我的一个重大原因，理智与情感这种二选一从来都要在最严酷的考问下才能找到答案。

2．关于名字翻译
这个片子有多种译名，禁止的真相，民事诉讼，公民行动，法网边缘等等。似乎各大网站也比较青睐《公民行动》这个名字。我觉得翻译的最好的应该是《民事诉讼》，而非什么法网边缘等等，《公民行动》也只能说明翻译的人不懂法律而已。首先，本片英文名为《A Civil Action》。学过法律的人都知道，在英语里a civil action指的就是民事诉讼，是一个法律专业词汇。同时，这个片子之所以有这样的剧情发展，很大程度上就是因为，这不是一个刑事诉讼，也不是一个行政诉讼，而是一个民事诉讼。如果是刑事诉讼，坐在控方位置上的将是以政府作为后盾的检察官团队。而这些检察官团队，是由政府出资进行调查取证，所以也就不会出现官司打着打着检察官自己倾家荡产的情况。翻译为《公民行动》，大概是因为片中15个丧子的家庭联合在一起起诉要找出污染水源的元凶，所以翻译的人员会将其理解为公民们揭竿而起的壮举。而公民，相对应的就是政府。可这个影片讲述的并不是一个公民向政府要求宪法权利的故事，而是15个家庭像当地被怀疑排放废水的两家工厂索赔的民事诉讼案件。就像电影中所说的，损失赔偿案件最关键的就是赔偿额，这也是Jan一直受到辨方律师攻击的一个主要点。正义与金钱，其实并不相斥。但是似乎正义若与巨额的经济利益相联系的时候，正义看起来也没有那么纯粹。于是，Jan费尽心力先要证明，Wuborn这个地方的污染确实是这两个工厂所为。而正事这证明的过程，拖垮了这个信心十足的律师。一个八年又一个八年，当Jan摆脱了所有的激愤和不平，自然也丧失了自己已然拥有的一切，应该说此时的他才又恢复了一个律师应有的理智，所以他再次看到水倒在桌上的情景，才会恍然大悟。民事诉讼的魅力就在于此，在大部分案件中，并没有哪一方是绝对正义的，有的只是双方据理力争，自负盈亏。所以说只有《民事诉讼》这个名字才算是圆满的表达了电影的主旨。

3．环境保护
环境保护方面的法律，各个国家林林总总也早有涉猎，大多是一些原则性的规定。如果说美国尚有EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)这样的组织机构来监管，那我们国内的情况如何呢？在中国，乡村生活中那种田园牧歌式的情怀是很难实现的。如果太偏远，那么定然交通不便，生活水平过低。如果是稍有一些发展的，又充满了城市淘汰下来的工业垃圾。本片中这样的情况应该会时时发生在中国的小城镇中。但是法律在中国，现阶段来看，似乎只能解决个人的问题。我们在污染，这众所周知，但是没有人能以任何理由阻挠我们国家的飞速发展。有人说这是世界第三次大发展，如果中国这一次再赶不上的话，就永远赶不上了。那到底是牺牲几代人呢还是不发展？这个问题太难回答。

最后，说说故事的结局。电影在Jan写信的场景中落幕，这封信的内容让我感动。因为Jan在写给EPA的信中说，希望你能从我停下的地方继续前进。此时的这个律师已经完全没有对于利益，名誉的渴望了，他并不成功，却很真实。现实生活，甚至还没有电影中这般美好。一个优秀的律师，碰上了一个并不公正的法官，于是战斗就这样不公平的开始，不公平的延续，直到耗干了所有战士的鲜血。如果你期待在这部电影中看到法律的全胜，那你一定抱憾而归。这部电影中的法律，是无能的。但是，这是法律的一面，很重要的一面，大家都要知道的一面，法律在很多时候就是无能的。永远强大的角色只能出现在电影中，比如007。

现实生活中，那个律师输得更惨，他最后申请了破产保护，远居夏威夷。曾经和社会上强大的势力斗争过，并没有成功，可能是对一个自信的人最大的打击，但也定是最好的生活阅历。我很钦佩他，不只因为他的勇敢，还因为他最终没有成功，也没有选择宣传自己，只是离开而已。
　　
我觉得每一个学法律的人都要在内心中早早的知道，有些东西是法律很难战胜，但是我们的道德让我们知道什么是对的，即使我们可能永远也看不到正义实现的那一天。只要我们离那个正确的目标每进一步，就是一分成就，所以，电影没有拍到成功欢庆的时刻，算是一种明智之举，正像律师的信中所说得那样，希望你在我停下的地方继续前进。

（推荐一篇读书笔记，是这部电影的原著小说，作者是著名的法律题材新闻纪实作家Jonathan Harr。其中很多观点我很认同，并且写于2004年，颇有一种怀旧的韵味。
http://my.donews.com/dani19/2004/06/22/读书笔记：a-civil-action/）

脑残博文 http://hmilypty.blogbus.com/logs/32415610.html