法网边缘

因为理工科属性在骨子里，在首次观看后，我没法放弃用一二三四来阐述自己

1. 看这部电影之前，个人已经有幸看过十二怒汉，造雨人，都是关于法律，正义，和自身的信仰。A civil action，剧情没有那么多跌宕起伏，结尾也并没有大快人心，恰如我们身边的这种压抑氛围。去看这部冗长电影，也要直面眼前的沉痛与黑暗

2. 很多人玩麻将，片中的打官司让我浮想联翩，律师们在围绕当事人的痛苦和烦恼中，相互博弈，他们有技巧，有胆魄，虚张声势，步步紧逼。博得更多的赔偿与降低到最少的付出，双方都是胜利。法院此时就像极了一个棋牌室，代表的不是公平与正义，只是提供博弈与协商的庄家

3. 整部戏有很多场景，一方提出一个数字，几个零，一方摇头或点头。个人的立场随时随地都可以因此瓦解，何况是众叛亲离之时与穷图陌路的那一刻。主角在最后一场谈判里，心中可以接受的和解赔偿是对方永远不可能给出的，我觉得他不是在看到河水被污染时醒悟的，也不是想起那个家庭在去诊所的路中丧失孩子的时候醒悟的，他去谈判后被合伙人一通指责，随后挂起了执照，收拾了名片。他知道之所以他可以接受的赔偿对方不可能支付，是因为他心里已经确认，痛苦不可能是金钱能够安抚的。所以在最后，只有14美元在身，依旧坦然

4. 孩子的弥足珍贵，这是一个家庭的最宝贵财产，环境的肆意破坏，这是所有人类的损失。看着窗户外的一片灰蒙蒙，出了小区路口的幽绿色河水，相比于一份工作，个人的财产，业绩的刷新，国家的富足，到底孰轻孰重？我想请我们可爱的执政团队，不要把这么称重的问题抛给我，抛给一伙人，一个什么机构，更不要为了维护自己那点可怜的利益无视它。做一些什么吧，制定一些什么吧。二十年后的蓝天与绿水，不会为你们立碑颂扬，但足可以洗刷这之前的所有屈辱

5. 算教育类别的影片了吧，下一代都看看吧，不能改变什么，不过等他们长大了，或许会做出一些特别的事呢，绝不对现实报以绝望。

末尾了，影片可观赏性没有那么高，放在这个时代，满分并不算高

从1998年，到现在，快25年了

这么多年里，不知道看了多少遍

翻来覆去的看

我也不知道这部片子到底有何魔力

卡司阵容，极其精良；选角精湛。首先启用屈伏塔，本身就非常大胆，歌舞片出身的演员，几乎没有正剧；赫布（《神探阿蒙》）、梅西（《无耻家庭》）那个时候还都是三线，尚未绽放光芒。

光线，打光，太漂亮了！

节奏、剪辑切换；转场、配乐....所有一切，几乎都是妙到毫巅

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。

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。

所以，有时我们不要过分的要求律师，因为那样，或许会给拥有正义心的他们带来灾难。就像主人公，他最后申请了破产保护，远居夏威夷。

The Aberjona River was actually well known to have been contaminated since the mid to late 1800s, well into the 1980s with many tanneries and chemical plants. Even in the late 1890's reports from the State Board of Health documented death from cholera and typhoid from drinking water supplies contaminated with wastes from the tanneries. Hard to believe that the town used well water from near that river. The wells were closed, but after children died, and before the lawsuit.

This film is essentially about Massachusetts pre-trial procedure. To my knowledge some American professors have built the whole dispute resolution course on the legal manoeuvrings of this case.

About Causation

The essential substantive problem with this case is causation. The rule for causation is that, a plaintiff cannot succeed unless she shows as a matter of fact that she would not have suffered the loss “but for” the negligent act or acts of the defendant.It's much more difficult than it seems to be because the test is not always about facts and the court is not always doing what it claims to do.

If taking together, plural defendants past the “but for” test and caused the accident, but the plaintiff is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or “but for” cause of her injury, then a plaintiff may succeed by showing that the defendant’s conduct materially contributed to risk of the plaintiff’s injury. But the concept of material contribution is not illustrated clearly. In this case exists an indivisible liability that causes leukaemia.

About Role Morality

I've wondered for long whether should counsel’s own moral perspective impact on the professional decision-making. If the answer is yes, how can an individual’s operative moral perspective be articulated to another person, especially in the context of a relationship founded on the pursuit of that other person’s, which is the client’s objectives?

It’s part of a counsel’s job to consider the options available, research the law and advise the client of the feasibility of their claim and the chance of success. The significance of being a counsel is to commit yourself to facilitate your client, take the client’s instructions and to resolve client’s disputes with honest and full competence. But sometimes reflecting on my factum from the perspective of an outsider I sensed subtle moral condemnation for myself. Do I believe my arguments without any shadow of doubt? Did I go in for rhetoric, make conceptual shifts and manipulate the law for the benefit of my client? Am I misrepresenting the facts, misleading the court and acting in contravention of the rules of professional conduct?

We turn the messy facts of human interaction into legal terms and shape the way disputes are understood and portrayed. Disputes are social constructs with various complexity. We have chosen to reduce and translate such constructs into pure legal disputes without any moral consideration.

There's a famous line in this film: "Whoever comes to their senses first, loses." Mr. Facher is an old, smart, vicious and most importantly, an experienced lawyer. His first reaction to the poor families' testimony is "They can never testify", because he knows the narratives would move the jury so deeply that they would be determined to allocate the loss on the big companies.

We seldom consider these questions in law school. Althoughstudents may believe that they should achieve something greater than enrolling in a law school to solve other people’s legal problems for pay, they are often immersed in semester-long focus on regulatory standards of conductand heavy academic pressure. Students are also hoping to advance or even incarnate certain ideals of political and social justice, or todevote themselves to a career that will lead to systemic change, but the training mode of amoral legal technician would only cultivate legal professionals without personal-professional integration like productions from an assembly line.

About Damages

In assessing damages to plaintiff who suffers personal injury, the important principle is putting the injured plaintiff in the position he would have been in if he had not sustained the injury.

The features of the common law of damages for personal injury, particularly the calculation framework, is a reflection of the choices we, as a society, have made. The framework mainly includes two main categories: pecuniary loss (mainly includes future health care and loss of earning) and non-pecuniary lose. We have chosen to reduce and translate living plaintiffs into assets with a price tag. The result is we know the price of everyone and the value of no one.