|
|
Join us each Tuesday as Bob Ingersoll analyzes how the law
is portrayed in comics then explains how it would really work.
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
THE LAW IS A ASS for 02/26/2002
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 134
Originally written as installment # 286 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 1470, January 18, 2002 issue
It was like Christmas in July. And August. And September. And on. And on. And on.
And all thanks to trade paperbacks.
Trade paperbacks. They're the wave of the future. Comic-book stories are no longer supposed to end in one issue. Indeed, nowadays, when a comic book features a stand-alone story--ou know a story that tells itself in only one part, what we used to call business as usual--it's billed as a special marketing event, a "Done in One" story.
It's because comic-book publishers have finally discovered what has been the bread and butter of the regular book publishers, the back list. By keeping book available in the back list, so that comic-book stories and WaldenBooks and other such retail outlets could always get them, as they needed it, comic-book publishers are discovering a stream of revenue that they hadn't tapped previously and which, potentially, has no end. Kitchen Sink used this technique with their Steve Canyon and L'il Abner reprint books. Now other comic-book publishers are discovering the same, multi-part stories, which can be collected into trade paperbacks, can comprise an effective, and profitable, back list for the publishers. Creators are told to design stories that unfold in four or six or eight parts, stories which are turned into trade paperbacks which can stay forever on the back list at both Diamond Distribution and WaldenBooks. The old-fashioned one-part story is pretty much a thing of the past, having been replaced by the multi-issue story arc which can be collected into a back listable trade paperback.
So, what does all this have to do with "The Law is a Ass?" One of the more recent stories which went this multi-part, wait-for-the-trade-paperback collection route was a story arc in Daredevil called "Playing to the Camera." It's a story that takes six issues to relate how Matt Murdock, an attorney in New York City and also the secret identity of the titular super-hero Daredevil, agreed to represent the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Daredevil for property damage.
Yes, Matt agreed to sue himself.
Now you just know there's going to be column fodder aplenty in such a story. So, aplenty that it took me four columns to cover "Playing to the Camera." What follows this week is part two. Parts three and four will follow soon.
My first four-part column. Do you think I can convince Justin to release it as a trade paperback?
******
THE LAW IS A ASS
Installment # 134
by
BOB INGERSOLL
Last time I started examining "Playing to the Camera," the story arc in Daredevil # 20-25, because someone claimed writer Bob Gale did his homework on the law before writing the story. I have a slightly different take: If this is how Gale does his homework, he needs to go back to the teacher. Okay, Gale didn't get everything wrong. He correctly identified who the judge was. But everything else in these six issues was as wrong as Strip Stratego.
Still, I'm getting ahead of myself by talking about Parts Two through Six. Last time I promised I'd fix a mistake from Part One. It's important I do this. The mistake had attorney Matt Murdock, Daredevil's secret identity, suborn perjury--a serious offense for which Matt could lose his law license.
Matt was defending Benjamin Rosen against allegations that he fired Lloyd Braxton because Braxton was black. Matt argued Rosen fired Braxton, because Braxton was gambling on company time with company assets. The problem was Matt and Rosen didn't learn about the gambling until after Braxton filed his suit after he had been fired. Gambling couldn't have been the reason he was fired. When Matt had Rosen testify he fired Braxton for gambling, Matt had Rosen commit perjury. Put in legal terms, that's suborning perjury. Put in layman's terms, that's a no no.
Now comes the save. If Rosen testified that he fired Braxton because Braxton's job performance had been slipping and finally deteriorated below tolerable levels, that would be the truth. Matt could argue to the jury that Braxton's gambling must have preyed on his mind and adversely affected his job performance. Braxton was fired for poor job performance caused by his gambling. That defense would be fine. No suborned perjury. Just known facts--Braxton's job performance had slipped and he gambled on company time--and proper conjecture from those known facts. Please go back and pretend that's how Matt framed his defense.
Why did I give Matt this out? No professional courtesy. I can afford to be magnanimous. By the end of this story arc--hell, by the end of this issue--Matt does things so unethical not even I can save his license for him.
It all started when Samuel Griggs, wealthy industrialist, asked to hire Matt and his partner Foggy Nelson to sue Daredevil. Griggs claimed on the night of the Eighth, Daredevil and some ninjas crashed through his greenhouse, where they fought and did fifty thousand dollars worth of damage to the glass walls and orchids within.
Matt doesn't tell the man to get out of his office.
Matt doesn't say, "I'm Daredevil, so it would be a conflict of interest for me to sue myself." Okay, he couldn't say that without revealing his secret identity. But he could say, "Daredevil's saved my life and my partner's life, it would be a conflict of interest for me to take the case." Instead he tells Griggs that he'll discuss it with Foggy.
Foggy correctly tells Matt if he signs on to sue himself, it would be an unethical conflict of interests. Matt could be disbarred. Matt counters with several reasons that only prove how right Foggy was.
Matt tells Foggy he was home asleep that night. Whoever was in Griggs's house was an imposter, which they'll prove when they investigate. And they'll be able to investigate better if they're Griggs's lawyers, privy to his information with "total access to everything." Moreover, if they take the case, they can control Griggs so he can't turn the case into an embarrassing "media circus."
All seemingly noble reasons.
And all of them unethical.
Lawyers are required to represent their clients zealously within the boundaries of the law. Lawyers are also forbidden from acting against their clients' interests. What does this mean? It means you can't take a case, so you can use your client's information against him, like, say, as a springboard for investigations designed to prove he doesn't have a case. Remember that working against your client's interests thing? Good, already you're a better lawyer than Matt.
In the same way, an attorney shouldn't take a case simply so he can keep the client from making public information that would be embarrassing for the attorney. If it's in the client's best interests to keep the information private, that's a perfectly acceptable motive. But if keeping the information under wraps isn't in the client's best interests, it's just as unethical for an attorney to take a case, so that he can keep the lid on the information, as it would be to take it so that he can disprove his client's case.
I don't know whether keeping the information secret would have been in Griggs's best interests. So I won't question Matt's second motive for taking the case, other than to say that it might have been improper. I don't need to question Matt's second motive for taking the case. Not when I know that his primary motive was completely improper.
Matt should have turned Griggs down then announced he's representing Daredevil. As Daredevil's attorney, he could make the same investigations without suspicion. He could even obtain Griggs's information in discovery to launch his investigations. But the one thing Matt should not have done was take Griggs's case, so that he could actively work against Griggs's interests.
To his credit, by the end of Daredevil # 20, Matt hadn't taken the case.
Unfortunately, Matt does accept the case before the credits in Daredevil # 21.
Gee, one issue and one page into a six-part story and already we have Matt doing two things which could get him disbarred. Can it possibly get worse?
Well, the story still has five parts to go.
How much worse it can get will have to be the subject of a future column. I couldn't possibly cover the Croesus-like riches of this story arc in the few words I have left.
Who says writing has no job security?
******
BOB INGERSOLL, Cleveland-based lawyer and legal analyst for Comics Buyer's Guide and this very Website, can be reached at P.O. Box 24314, Lyndhurst, OH 44124-0314 or law@wfcomics.com, depending what kind of mail you choose to use. If you reach me, I'll probably tell you a silly joke like: What does an I-Mac have in common with a maid? It won't do Windows.
Bob Ingersoll
<< 02/19/2002 | 02/26/2002 | 03/05/2002 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
