This movie scene from "The Verdict" has been posted to give a clear example of how a lawyer may violate ABA Model Rule 7.3 (a) which involves solicitation of clients.
It should be noted that, given that the judge hijacked the trial and took over questioning, the verdict would be reversed on an appeal by the defense and the big judgment would be in limbo.
Also, the judge blatantly offers his opinion of the case in front of the jury. It would come back like a rubber ball on appeal, even though the judge was blatantly pro-defense.
No matter how much I've100% loved this movie ever since seeing it when it first came out in '82, the film's actual legal credibility falls apart entirely barely mid-way through, when Attorney Gavin (NEWMAN) makes the decision to refuse the $210,000.oo settlement, unilaterally. ... ...An Attorney CANNOT decide for his client(s) the acceptance or refusal of a settlement offer. Only the Client can accept or refuse a settlement payment offer.
Movie is a primer on how not to practice law. Besides ambulance chasing, Frank Galvin neglects his one actual case until the last minute. He fails to communicate a settlement offer to his clients, which is his duty. He doesn't disclose the nurse's own copy of the medical report to the defense in a timely manner. At trial, he doesn't even mention the facts of the case to the jury in his closing argument! For all his nobility, Galvin is a horrible lawyer.
@@steelers6titles He did say that if he took the offer he would be lost. He probably would've taken his share and drank himself to death. Also you can't blame Galvin for the things you mentioned because they weren't in the script.
@@brianwalsh1401 Well, yeah. It's a movie, after all. Of course, the client confronts Frank about the offer, so the failure to communicate is there. But, presuming that the movie depicts Galvin's entire closing argument (maybe it doesn't), I've never seen a closing argument yet that didn't even mention the facts. I'm an attorney myself.
@@brianwalsh1401 At the end, despite his big courtroom win (and whether that verdict would hold up on appeal by the defendant is questionable), you wonder if Galvin is still lost anyway.
No matter how much I've100% loved this movie ever since seeing it when it first came out in '82, the film's actual legal credibility falls apart barely mid-way through, when Attorney Gavin (NEWMAN) makes the decision to refuse the $210,000.oo settlement, unilaterally. ... ...Isn't it the case that an Attorney cannot decide for his client the acceptance or refusal of a settlement offer, only the client can?
I the client gives the lawyer the right to do so then he can make a unilateral decision. The retainer is actually more concerned about protecting the lawyer from the client unilaterally accepting a settlement without his approval.
You are correct. But in all honesty, if I had been Frank Galvin, $210,000 is still not that much money, maybe in 1981 ($795,991.75, according to my online research) but I would have insisted on doubling it. Then the church would probably have offered more and then I would have shared the amount with the client, who most certainly would have accepted it.
![จบจนได้ ! | Black Myth: Wukong #007 [ตอนจบ?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSqvWndF0sw/mqdefault.jpg)
Another picture Paul should have won the academy award for.
It should be noted that, given that the judge hijacked the trial and took over questioning, the verdict would be reversed on an appeal by the defense and the big judgment would be in limbo.
Also, the judge blatantly offers his opinion of the case in front of the jury. It would come back like a rubber ball on appeal, even though the judge was blatantly pro-defense.
No matter how much I've100% loved this movie ever since seeing it when it first came out in '82, the film's actual legal credibility falls apart entirely barely mid-way through, when Attorney Gavin (NEWMAN) makes the decision to refuse the $210,000.oo settlement, unilaterally. ... ...An Attorney CANNOT decide for his client(s) the acceptance or refusal of a settlement offer. Only the Client can accept or refuse a settlement payment offer.
I know but he didn’t want a mistrial
What a great movie
Movie is a primer on how not to practice law. Besides ambulance chasing, Frank Galvin neglects his one actual case until the last minute. He fails to communicate a settlement offer to his clients, which is his duty. He doesn't disclose the nurse's own copy of the medical report to the defense in a timely manner. At trial, he doesn't even mention the facts of the case to the jury in his closing argument! For all his nobility, Galvin is a horrible lawyer.
Galvin was also a hopeless alcoholic who hardly drew a sober breath.
@@twofiveb I would hope that he took his percentage of his big win and retired.
@@steelers6titles He did say that if he took the offer he would be lost. He probably would've taken his share and drank himself to death. Also you can't blame Galvin for the things you mentioned because they weren't in the script.
@@brianwalsh1401 Well, yeah. It's a movie, after all. Of course, the client confronts Frank about the offer, so the failure to communicate is there. But, presuming that the movie depicts Galvin's entire closing argument (maybe it doesn't), I've never seen a closing argument yet that didn't even mention the facts. I'm an attorney myself.
@@brianwalsh1401 At the end, despite his big courtroom win (and whether that verdict would hold up on appeal by the defendant is questionable), you wonder if Galvin is still lost anyway.
First and great part of the movie!!!
The undertaker’s line would have been better if he had added “…even if you’re dead” at the end of the first sentence…
You can't drink all day unless you start first thing in the morning.
Ask me how i know.
No matter how much I've100% loved this movie ever since seeing it when it first came out in '82, the film's actual legal credibility falls apart barely mid-way through, when Attorney Gavin (NEWMAN) makes the decision to refuse the $210,000.oo settlement, unilaterally. ... ...Isn't it the case that an Attorney cannot decide for his client the acceptance or refusal of a settlement offer, only the client can?
That is correct, in both civil and criminal matters. Client's decision. Offers must be communicated. Attorneys can only advise as to what to do.
I the client gives the lawyer the right to do so then he can make a unilateral decision. The retainer is actually more concerned about protecting the lawyer from the client unilaterally accepting a settlement without his approval.
You are correct. But in all honesty, if I had been Frank Galvin, $210,000 is still not that much money, maybe in 1981 ($795,991.75, according to my online research) but I would have insisted on doubling it. Then the church would probably have offered more and then I would have shared the amount with the client, who most certainly would have accepted it.