ABSTRACT: "Every lawyer, in every case, crosses a line he didn't mean to cross. It just happens.

And if you cross it enough times, it disappears forever. Then you're nothing but a lawyer joke. Just another shark in the dirty water." These lines are the most that struck me as I went along the movie since it would perfectly describe the journey of a lawyer. Although at this point I could hardly affirm to it anyhow it's an indubitable fact that is existent in the real world, which I eventually may adhere. For at this point I could not totally relate to the bone of contention of this matter at least until I get to the actual practice of law in God's time.

BRIEF BACKGROUND: 'THE RAINMAKER' is basically a story about a legal underdog versus the well-heeled sleazy insurance company. An inexperienced lawyer in the

person of Rudy Baylor against the seasoned practitioners spearheaded by Leo Drummoned. Rudy Baylor went to law school because he believes all the myths about helping people and bringing justice to them. But because his family had no high connections, graduation found him waiting tables to pay off his student loans, rather than going to work for a prestigious firm. Eventually, Rudy hooks up with the Memphis-based ambulancechasing outfit of Bruiser Stone, where he's partnered with Deck, a "paralawyer" who knows the ropes but has failed to the bar exam six times. To cut it short, Rudy works on his first case, suing an insurance company for failing to make good on a claim owed to his client, a leukemia patient,

Donnie Ray who in the long run died. It was a hard battle since the key witness is gone, nevertheless, thanks to Rudy's single-minded

determination and skillful cross- examination of Great Benefit's cynical president, the Jury finds for the plaintiff with a monetary award far exceeding all expectations. A tremendous triumph for Rudy and Deck, at least until Great Benefit declared bankruptcy, thus allowed to avoid paying punitive damages to the plaintiff. They were totally unqualified to try the case of a lifetime... but every underdog has his day." PERSONAL RUMINATION As I ponder the morals and virtues invoke in the story, I find this four vital characters in the plot that dawned on me which represent actual characters of different kinds of lawyers in terms of practice depending on their preference at their own discretion. The first and major character for me is Rudy Bylor who has his heart in the right place. He may be an ambulance-chaser, but definitely he's one of the few who doesn't allow the realities of practicing law to corrupt his sense of ethics. To me he is a prefect epitome of a ' Lawyer with Conscience ' kind. Admittedly, I've gotten so engrossed with his choice of track, who does not mind the amount of money he can get in the end, instead he winds up taking the case as a matter of principle. In the actual sense, there is this common notion that most of the lawyers, if not all, would put monetary consideration on the top of the list, and let principles and ethics take the backseat. Rudy Baylor's character is a fair reflection of

how the practice of law must be guided by good fundamentals and take it as a basic ground in every course of action. Second significant character that illustrates an actual practitioner in the real world is Bruiser. A flashy fraud with charm where his morals should be. He is a kind exactly opposite from Rudy, as he works primarily for practicality regardless of how it is done as long as it brings money to him that's perfectly fine. "This would be a great place for you to work, Rudy. A great place. You'd see what real lawyers do. It ain't exactly a salaried position." One of the lines he uttered in the movie, it does demonstrate which track and what kind of lawyer he prefers to be. I couldn't just lay down my biased and partial judgments towards his preference. Reality wise, some lawyers practice law on the same manner as Bruiser does, they may have personal reasons of doing so or they just play it the way that is beneficial to their individual needs. And for that no one has ever given the right to point a finger to anybody not even the most righteous lawyer can. However, am not trying to imply that I concur to this kind of practice, of course I still despise inefficient, unprincipled practitioners and condemn any amoral acts. But we cannot rule out the harsh reality of life that may have led them astray or simply it all boils down to that doctrine of ' it's a matter of choice', discernment is the key.

The third character I consider of weight and very material is Deck's character with "A lawyer should fight for his client, refrain from stealing

money and try to tell the truth.'' as his credo.

His portrayal of an

unfortunate barrister who may be a good and efficient one but cannot officially practice law. A heart-rending reality that certainly many can relate. It reveals to me that sometimes even if you are well equipped with knowledge and skills if it's not yet your time it means it's not yet your time, compared to Rudy's one take in the Bar. It made me realize that each of has our own distinct time to shine and fulfill our dreams. And failure is not a justification to give up one's dream and endeavor in life. Deck is one of the persons I put my hands down and salute to. Given his numerous times of failure is not detrimental for him to serve the people who cry for justice. REALIZATION/REFELCTION: Head full of ideals and an insatiable thirst for 'making the world a better place, one case at a time' and to serve justice especially to the impoverished. An ideal principle that must be inculcated in the minds of the lawyers in the practice of profession, as much as they are expected to be fair and equitable in all cases. However, as I've mentioned above it is a much different scenario on the actual occurrence especially in the context of pragmatic and commonsensicality. Consider the human factor, the external force that may prompt the law practitioners to do it the contrary of moral standards to cope up with the societal pressure. Real life does not turn out the way movies do, we have to accept the fact that not all may conform to the idealist's perspective of noble, saintly and

impeccable practice at all times because in the course of the process one may subconsciously reach to the point of total diversion of what is moral unintentionally or incidentally. Thus, neither I commend nor submit to the idea of being socially undesirable and personally unbearable manner of practicing law when I eventually become a lawyer in God's time. With all the factors and scenarios I have laid down above for the purpose of neutrality and even-handedness, I still would prefer to cling on to the character of Rudy Bylor who is an ethical, talented and inexperienced attorney taking on and out wittingly powerful and corrupt opponents. It won't hurt to have a right positioned heart in doing our job, hence perform our call or profession with compassion and in accordance with generally accepted norms of serving justice as the primary recourse. Not because of hypocrisy or and just for the purpose of being counted as one of the virtuous lawyers but simply because it is the right thing to do and it in that way I would be living a conscientious, upstanding and a decent life.

CRITIQUE PAPER on the movie

" THE RAINMAKER "
by: John Grisham

INTRODUCTION TO LAW SILIMAN UNIVERSITY

2011-2012

Atty. Sheila Catacutan Besario Professor Divina Eloise C. Timagos Student