Just a few weeks after the release of "A Civil Action," the Robert Redford film based on the 1986 landmark court case Anne Anderson, et. al v. W.R. Grace, et al, the real-life cast members gathered at the Harvard Law School (HLS) last Saturday to discuss the continuing importance of their case as a teaching tool in classrooms.
"It's a wonderful experience to have a book and a movie about you," joked Jan R. Schlichtmann, counsel for the plaintiffs. "I encourage all of you to have it."
The case garnered national attention following its release as a best-selling book by Jonathan Harr and later as a major motion picture, starring John Travolta, Robert Duvall and Kathleen Quinlan.
The 1986 case involves six families living in Woburn, Mass. who accused two major companies--W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods Co.--of contaminating the town's well water with toxic chemicals that cause leukemia. The families alleged that the chemicals caused the death of five children. Eight years later, the plaintiffs settled out of court for $8 million.
The main attraction of the symposium--which attracted about 150 educators from around the country--was Schlichtmann, who was the focus of "A Civil Action." Schlichtmann--played by John Travolta in the film--spoke about how the case changed him from a hotshot, Porsche-driving lawyer to a proponent of compromise and mediation.
"Litigation is like war," Schlichtmann said. "My war lasted nine years and after it, like any veteran, I asked, 'Why war?'"
Schlichtmann stressed that the best way to deal with problems like theone in Woburn is to forge a partnership between community, government and companies, rather than to go to court.
"Truth is revealed through consensus. The answer is talking about [a problem] rather than fighting over it," he said.
Harr spoke about the unique opportunity he had in writing "A Civil Action." "I knew journalists rarely got access to this kind of case," he said. "I am not an environmentalist or a zealot about causes...I had no agenda, so that really helped me get access to witnesses."
Other participants included Michael B. Keating and William J. Cheeseman '65, attorneys for W.R. Grace; Jerome P. Facher, attorney for Beatrice Foods; Anne Anderson and Donna Robbins, plaintiffs; Weld Professor of Law Charles R. Nesson '60, another attorney for the plaintiffs; Harriett Clarke, juror; and Dan Kennedy, a writer for the Boston Phoenix who covered the case.
Attorneys for the defendants also told their side of the story. For example, Facher said the book portrays the judge in a "particularly unfair view."
"In every important aspect of this case, the judge kept the plaintiff in the ballgame," he said.
Facher added that the characterization of the case as a David versus Goliath saga is a myth as well.
"[The attorneys for the plaintiffs] matched us expert for expert, deposition for deposition, motion for motion--they did it better and more expensively," he said.
Cheeseman and Keating both sought to justify defending major corporations accused of large-scale pollution.
"It's a lawyer's responsibility to represent whatever party comes to you. If everyone is fairly represented, then justice will be served," Cheeseman said. "The unpopularity of a client is not a factor."
The afternoon panel, moderated by Bromley Professor of Law Arthur R. Miller, was dominated by the attorneys, as Facher condemned the motion picture as falseand misleading. "About 80 per cent of the movie was fiction;all of the great scenes never happened," he said. Ironically, the voices of the families werelost in the discussion, similar to what some sayhappened during the trial itself. At the promptingof an audience member, however, Anderson discussedher views of the case. "The truth did not come out at this trial. Itwas not allowed to come out," she said. "Thechildren have been forgotten in this, and this wasall about the children.
Read more in News
HEP Receives $5500 Grant For Seminars on Harvard
