Small Law Firms

A Review Of Roman J. Israel, Esq.: Idealism vs. Having Enough Money To Eat

In our own practices, could we have achieved better results if we were motivated by doing the right thing instead of doing a cost/benefit analysis?

By  
on

Over the weekend, I had a chance to see Roman J. Israel, Esq. The protagonist, attorney Roman J. Israel, was played by Denzel Washington and his performance earned him a nomination for the Best Actor Oscar and other prestigious awards. As a self-employed lawyer, watching the movie made me think about how we sometimes have to balance our moral idealism against the realistic needs of earning a living.

The opening scene shows Israel drafting a notice to the “Supreme Court of Absolute Universal Law” where he sues himself on the grounds of “being a hypocrite and turning his back on EVERYTHING he ever claimed to actually stand for.” While we don’t know yet why he is doing this, it signals that the movie is about Israel suffering a crisis of conscience. That and he also might be insane.

Israel was an employee in a two-lawyer criminal defense firm in Los Angeles. For 26 years, he did the legal research and drafted the briefs while his partner met with the clients and went to the courtroom. One day, the partner suffered a heart attack and fell into a coma, which meant Israel had to pick up the slack.

From this point, we see why Israel stayed behind the scenes. His near encyclopedic knowledge of statutory and case law couldn’t make up for his apparent lack of people skills and tact. His attempt at negotiating a plea deal fails after he insults a prosecutor because she wouldn’t give him what he wanted. His persistent attempts to get a judge to change his mind on an adverse ruling results in a finding of contempt. When invited to give a presentation on the rights of protesters, he not only goes off topic, he gets into an expletive-laden argument with a female audience member because she interpreted his attempt at chivalry as a form of sexism. And as a new employee at an established firm, he calls the managing partner a cockroach when he jokingly said that a tempura restaurant was a shelter for lightly battered women. While calling the managing partner a cockroach is well-deserved in this situation, it does not leave a good first impression with your boss and the matter could have been dealt with more effectively through his superior.

While Israel worked in criminal defense his entire career, his décor suggests that his passion was activism. His office and home is surrounded by pictures of prominent social activists. He spent seven years drafting a plan for a court challenge to the current plea bargaining system. At one point in the movie, he inquired about working for a public interest legal organization, but could not take it after learning that it was mostly staffed by volunteers.

As an attorney, there were some moments in the movie that made me cringe. At first, it came from watching the bad interactions with people I mentioned above. I was also annoyed at Israel’s initially cavalier attitude towards the business of law and a lawyer’s need to make a living. Since Israel has practiced for 26 years, I assume his college and law school tuition was equivalent to the cost of a used car, so his student loan burden is low or nonexistent. When Israel was offered a job at an established firm, he initially turned it down because he thought the owner was only in it for the money. But when he couldn’t find jobs in those places, he reluctantly took the position and later ended up compromising his principles.

But after some reflection, I felt differently about Israel’s perspective on things. Perhaps he was right to be more aggressive with opposing counsel and the judge without resorting to personal insults. He might have lost now, but persistence might have been successful with a different judge or opposing counsel. In our own practices, could we have achieved better results if we were motivated by doing the right thing instead of doing a cost/benefit analysis?

Sponsored

The answer is, as usual, it depends. Our legal strategy partially depends on who we are dealing with. Past experience with opposing counsel and judges can help us make better decisions, but even that isn’t perfect. It also depends on the client. If you have a pleasant, well-paying client who does everything you tell them to do, you may be willing to go the extra mile (or even stick your neck out) for them. On the other hand, if you have an ungrateful client who wants you to do the impossible and as a result makes your life miserable, you may be inclined to either not take the case or wrap it up as soon as possible.

But only a few clients are the “perfect” ones. Similarly, only a few clients are the pure nightmare-inducing spawns from hell who seek endless free consultations. Most are in the middle. In theory, we are supposed to treat every client equally and give them the best representation possible.

Another thought worth pointing out is that lawyers do not need to have an activist mentality as Israel does. Not every client has a case that is destined to go to the Supreme Court or inspires national protests. A lot of times, litigation settles before trial and transactional work is fairly straightforward. Some clients may be impressed with a lawyer’s activist zeal but at the end of the day, they want you to solve their problem or at least minimize the damage.

Roman J. Israel, Esq. was to me an average film despite Denzel Washington’s performance. It might be worth watching if you are stuck in a plane for several hours and you don’t want to watch the latest Star Wars or Marvel film. As a lawyer, Israel’s activist mentality may inspire you or make you cringe.

Sponsored

Shannon Achimalbe was a former solo practitioner for five years before deciding to sell out and get back on the corporate ladder. Shannon can be reached by email at sachimalbe@excite.com and via Twitter: @ShanonAchimalbe.

Topics

, , ,