A Civil Action, Uncivilly.

In Jonathan Harr’s “A Civil Action”, Jan Schlichtmann’s actions are portrayed as heroic,

selfless and humanitarian. However, on closer inspection, many of his actions were unethical

and narcissistic, ultimately resulting in a poor outcome for his clients, his practice, and himself.

Had Schlichtmann more faithfully performed his duties, perhaps the overall result could have

been more favorable.

Schlichtmann’s first lapse of judgment lies in his overestimation of his competence for a

case of such magnitude. With little experience, he accepted a case that older, more experienced

firms and practitioners feared, against better prepared, experienced, and funded law firms. He

repeatedly ignored the advice of multiple well established lawyers to drop the matter, yet

accepted the grossly overstated opinions of Charles Nesson almost immediately and without

question. His pride and inability to value opinions differing from his own directly lead to his

ultimate failure.

He further failed his clients by failing to heed their opinions, and in some cases, even

eschewed soliciting their guidance in matters they should have been directly involved in. As

their representative, a collaboration between counsel and client was, in several instances,

ignored. He failed to consider settlement at the onset of the case, due to his desire to see it tried

before a jury, and in later settlement attempts both accepted without discussion and also failed to

discuss the possibility of settlement with his clients. This desire to see what he considered a

landmark case at court ignored both the needs and stated desires of his clients, depriving them of

the quality counsel they deserved.

The incredible ego displayed in several circumstances, including but not limited to his

argumentative confrontations with Judge Skinner, his lack of respect and decorum during the

“special” depositions, and his publicity efforts seeking other injured parties damaged not only his

credibility, but also that of his firm as a whole. Failure to pay his own obligations and the

financial juggling Gordon attempted, failure to pay his own employees, and most egregious,

failure to pay his tax responsibilities, were detrimental to the firm and its employees, their

morale and well-being. Handling of the fees and expenses portion of the case, post-settlement,

were all but insulting to others at the firm.

In the end, Schlichtmann’s weak ethics, while never overtly morally wrong, led to a

preponderance of minute lapses. These lapses, en masse, eventually resulted in failure in the

suit, and heavily influenced the destruction of the entire practice and the lawyer himself.