Court Movies Don’t Mimic Life

Now that those Oscars are safe on the mantelpieces of Kevin Spacey and Co., Hollywood can take a deep breath and turn its attention to next year’s possibilities. And one of the surest things has to be today’s hottest movie--”Erin Brockovich,” a feel-good story about a little person who takes on a big corporation. (The little person in this case is actress Julia Roberts, earning a not-so-little $20 million, but that’s show biz for you.)

Following in the footsteps of “A Civil Action” and “The Insider,” “Brockovich” makes entertaining use of the David and Goliath cliche--portraying plaintiff lawyers as Luke Skywalkers fighting the Evil Corporate Empire. The trouble is that, entertaining as they are, films like these unfailingly mischaracterize the legal process, glamorize plaintiff lawyers and demonize the corporate world. In a society that’s already far too litigious, this only adds fuel to the fire.

Obviously, no TV or movie producer could build successful entertainment around an accurate portrayal of the daily courtroom grind. In the real world, courts are preoccupied with establishing dry facts and dealing with the usually unsexy matters of legal standing and legally actionable claims. Audiences would last about 10 minutes before the mass exodus began. And, of course, hopes of Oscar nominations would disappear in the stampede for the exits. Which is why every good legal drama applies large doses of poetic license to what actually goes on in and outside a courtroom.

But modern legal films take extra liberties with the truth. For one thing, they promote the view that every accident or tragedy is the result of intentional wrongdoing for which somebody must be made to pay. They either gloss over the essential question of whether the defendant has acted illegally or they simply assert the illegality, no proof necessary.

And there is another glaring difference between now-quaint dramas like, say, “To Kill a Mockingbird” and current courtroom fare: The villains of those early pieces were individuals, endowed by their scriptwriters with some human complexity, and the same can be said for the lawyers. Today’s villains, on the other hand, are invariably greedy corporate entities conspiring to poison women and children for the sake of money. The plaintiff lawyers who take on the corporations are noble, selfless souls standing up for the little guy.

Now, spicing up what is actually a fairly dull procedural affair is one thing; creating a whole new mythology around avenging angels of the trial bar is another. If the truth about real courtroom drama is that it is dry as toast, the truth about plaintiff lawyers is that they are neither noble nor selfless. They are in it for the money, plain and simple--money that pays for their mansions and private jets, and often funds new lawsuits designed to net them yet more money. Avenging wrongs against the little guy is low on their priority list.

In fact, the annals of modern-day torts are filled with cases where that little guy ended up with pennies, while his lawyer walked away with millions. They are also, by the way, filled with examples of harm the trial bar’s abuse of the tort system has caused innocent businesses, worthy causes and society as a whole: The Girl Scouts needing to sell 87,000 extra boxes of cookies just to pay their litigation-driven insurance bills; manufacturers of football helmets shutting down because of fears of liability suits; schools cutting back on sports programs to avoid getting sued over injuries.

No one who likes going to the movies would want to see faithful reenactments of legal proceedings on the silver screen. Yet surely even the demands of lively entertainment could accommodate a more balanced view of the system and the trial lawyers who are milking it for mind-boggling fees. Would it be too much to wish for a film where a crusading Julia Roberts brings down the wrath of the little folk on the lawyers basking in the sun on their luxury yachts while their “clients” still struggle to make ends meet?