A Civil Action Movie Review

As Jan Schlichtmann navigates himself throughout the case, he finds himself changing his mindset from where he once stood in the beginning. At the start of the movie, we see a lawyer who is “too good” for this case, but once Schlichtmann saw the town of Woburn and the families impacted by the damages done from W.R. Grace, he believed that taking the case was the moral choice. Eventually, Schlichtmann becomes consumed by the case, and his ego causes him to continue to fight for as much money as possible, when the concern of the families represented, was an apology. Schlichtmann had the belief that the partners in his law firm were to act in a way that would pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. The ethical framework that describes this is utilitarianism. A utilitarianist believes that we can act in any way we choose, as long as it makes more people happy than unhappy. To Jan, attaining as much money as possible would satisfy the greatest good for the greatest number, because that is the premise of injury law. A utilitarianist would agree if that is what happiness is defined as in the Woburn case, but unfortunately it is not.

With utilitarianism in mind, Schlichtmann had many possible routes he could have taken with this case. The law firm could have decided to not take the case entirely, like they were deciding on before Schlichtmann saw the damages done to the Woburn community. Schlichtmann and his team could have dropped the case all together when money was low and running out, instead of scrambling for funds. If the case was dropped, they could have presented it to the EPA earlier, which could have provided a solution to the families quicker. The two potential options that will be further analyzed are the option to bring the case to the EPA sooner and the option to drop the case when funds were low for Schlichtmann and his team.

With a utilitarianist lens, presenting the case to the EPA earlier is the most ethical decision. Instead, Jan’s law firm and the clients were constantly given undesirable responses and by the defense. There are potential risks in giving the case to the EPA sooner. For example, the case may not have had enough traction yet, so the EPA may not have taken on the case. The EPA may not want to do the difficult work that Schlichtmann and his team had done. Though the risks are imminent, the benefits to the EPA taking the Woburn case heavily outweigh the risks. The citizens of Woburn would have received peace of mind early on instead of many years after the case had begun. The EPA also has a superior chance of handing out the maximum possible enforcement action against W.R. Grace. The greatest good is produced by giving the case to the EPA because the citizens impacted were not as concerned with money, rather they were concerned with how W.R. Grace will apologize to them. Another potential option Schlichtmann could have taken is to drop the case entirely when funds were running low.

Dropping the case would benefit Schlichtmann’s team and W.R. Grace. In this case, more people would be happy if the Woburn case was dropped when the cost of legal fees continued to rise. A utilitarian would agree that although this option is not the most generous option for the clients, it is making more people happy, so it is ethical. The risks of dismissing the case, is wondering how much money is this worth? At one point the law firm was talking about how the case was costing them $1.4 million (46:40). Is $1.4 million a justified number to keep the case?