Trials Are A Drug

The premise of the 2009 film, The Hurt Locker, is that “war is a drug.”

The protagonist of the film, SFC William James, is serving in Iraq. His job is to disarm improvised explosive devices or IEDs. Obviously not everybody assigned to this specialty survives a tour of duty. But James does and so he returns to the United States and civilian life.

But civilian life does not agree with him. One day he is shopping in the supermarket. He stands in the cereal aisle. “Muzak” plays over the loudspeaker. He is bored. He decides to return to Iraq.

I think something similar happens with trial lawyers. We talk about seeking justice for our clients and there may be some truth to that. But trials are also a rush. Trials are a battle. Trials are war.

By the time a plaintiff’s lawyer takes a case to trial, he has invested at least tens of thousands of dollars into the litigation expenses: filing fees, depositions, transcripts, experts. And if it’s a medical malpractice case, the chances of obtaining a plaintiff’s verdict, of any size, is only about 25%. The odds are better playing blackjack. Many trial lawyers tap huge credit lines in order to fund their cases. Sleepless nights are the rule rather than the exception. To non-lawyers, this may not make a lot of sense.

And so, a trial lawyer may reach a point in his or her 50’s or 60’s where retirement looks attractive. There is money in the bank, the kids are through with college, the house is paid off and there is no credit card or other debt.

“Why risk putting money into a trial?” the lawyer may ask. “At this stage in my life I will have a hard time earning it back.”

Why? Because retirement is boring and trials are in the blood

Trials are a drug.

An Older Person's Film

Last Sunday night was the Academy Awards. There were ten best picture nominations, but everybody knew that it was really going to be a two-horse race. The winner was either going to be (a) The King’s Speech or (b) The Social Network. Both were based upon true stories. Both were excellent films.

After The King’s Speech won the academy award for best picture, I received a Facebook post. The person making the post described The King’s Speech as being “an older person’s film.” An older person’s film? What’s that?

The more I thought about this quote, the more I became disturbed by it. I felt that The King’s Speech had a universal appeal. It was about a good, but insecure man struggling to overcome a stutter. And because of his social position as a member of the British royal family, he could not withdraw or hide from his problem. He had to confront this adversity and either defeat it or be defeated by it.

The Social Network, on the other hand, was about America’s youngest billionaire. There really was not a likable character in the film. But the story, about an individual who amassed an incredible fortune while stabbing both his friends and enemies in the back, was nonetheless fascinating.

And so, if The King's Speech was an "older person's film" was The Social Network a “younger person’s film?”

Was this year's Academy Awards a vicarious contest between generations?

Just sayin'