Breaking NewsLaw.com and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
It has been 40 years since the publication of Harper Lee’s elegiac novel, “To Kill A Mockingbird.” Written in 1960, it evokes a small southern town called Maycomb, during the height of the Depression. Amid the slow, sultry days of an Alabama summer, a drama of race relations, the American judicial process, and family love are played out. We see these events through the innocent eyes of a young girl named Scout, whose father, Atticus Finch, a small-town lawyer, is called upon to defend a black man against a charge of raping a white woman. In taking the case — and doing his utmost to try and win it — he subjects himself to public rebuke, and nearly loses his children to the thirst for revenge by the lowest strata of Maycomb society. The book is many things to many people — a coming-of-age story, a novel of Southern manners and the peculiar social hierarchies of small, inbred towns, an honest depiction of unbridled racial prejudice in the pre-Civil Rights Act South. But it is above all (to this writer, at least) the story of a lawyer who reluctantly, but inevitably, becomes a hero. The book is worthy of our attention again on this 40th anniversary of its publication — not only because it demonstrates the changes we have undergone in society as a whole, but because it is one of the most enduring, and positive, portraits of a lawyer in American literature. There is much that we can learn by looking at Atticus Finch now, and by considering how the legal profession, and the image of the lawyer in our culture, has changed since he walked the fictitious streets of Maycomb, Ala. For one thing, Atticus Finch is poor. Everyone in Maycomb is poor, to one degree or another. It is, after all, rural Alabama at the height of the Depression. Atticus Finch takes his fees in firewood, or crops, when his clients cannot pay cash, and he sustains his family by serving on the state legislature. When was the last time anyone depicted a poor lawyer in a novel who was not a loser or the victim of some cruel twist of fate or injustice? His relative poverty does not, however, impact the slow, deliberate and erudite manner in which he practices law, the cases he takes, or the moral choices he makes. To the contrary, he accepts his poverty with the same sense of patience and forbearance that informs his relations with angry townspeople, or his two mischievous children to whom he must be both father and mother. The novel, having been written 40 years ago, was able to make a believable character out of a lawyer who did not seek wealth or bemoan its absence. Readers in 1960 could accept this, since being a lawyer, even then, was not necessarily a road to fame and fortune. Atticus Finch was set apart from his neighbors not because he had the potential to earn more money than they did, but because he had read more books than they had. Stripped of the social trappings of wealth, power and glamour that seem to go hand-in-hand with the ideal of the American lawyer today, Atticus Finch is a distilled vision of the very essence of lawyering — that is, advocacy. Indeed, that is the only thing he can give to his client — his keen mind, his courtroom instincts, his eloquence, his willingness to stand up to bullies, his faith in the truth of his client’s story, his passion to see justice done. There is no big budget for investigations and experts, no jury consultants, no public relations campaign. There is simply him, as the corporeal embodiment of justice, to stand between his client and the lynch mob. Indeed, Atticus Finch quite literally does this, in one of the most memorable scenes in the book. He is informed that his client, Tom Robinson, will be transferred to the local Maycomb jail the night before the trial, and a lynch mob is in the making. Atticus, a man who goes to great lengths to avoid violence and guns, sees it as his duty, quite simply, to keep his client alive until the trial. He takes an extension cord, a light bulb and his office chair, and positions himself on the front steps of the tiny local jail, where he intends to stay up all night, reading a book. The situation is diffused through Atticus’ calm and steady manner, and the unexpected appearance of Scout, who, not understanding the nature of what is happening, starts to talk with one of the mob, reminding him through her childlike chatter of how Atticus had been that man’s faithful lawyer, too. The men, suddenly embarrassed, depart:
As they had come, in ones and twos the men shuffled back to their ramshackle cars. Doors slammed, engines coughed, and they were gone. I turned to Atticus, but Atticus had gone to the jail and was leaning against it with his face to the wall. I went to him and pulled his sleeve. “Can we go home now?” He nodded, produced his handkerchief, gave his face a going-over and blew his nose violently. “Mr. Finch?” A soft, husky voice came from the darkness above: “They gone?” Atticus stepped back and looked up. “They’ve gone,” he said. “Get some sleep, Tom. They won’t bother you any more.” 1

AN INTERNAL MORAL COMPASS Atticus’ character has another lesson to teach lawyers today — the process by which he made ethical decisions. We live, and practice, in a time when ethical choices seem intensely complicated. Lawyers speak about rediscovering the “moral compass.” Reformers want to bridge the gap between what lawyers believe in their hearts to be right, and the demands of modern practice, which require lawyers to zealously defend clients to the very limits of ethical behavior, no matter how socially, emotionally or even morally repugnant that behavior might be. Atticus’ moral compass comes from within. He does not consult the Disciplinary Rules, the Ethical Considerations, case law, law reviews, disciplinary opinions or any other outside source to determine what his obligations are to Tom Robinson. He takes the case, and tries to win it (despite the opinion of many in the town that he should do as little as possible to defend Tom), because if he did otherwise, he does not believe he could ever face himself or ask his children to listen to him again:

Atticus sighed. “I’m simply defending a Negro — his name’s Tom Robinson. He lives in that little settlement beyond the town dump. He’s a member of Calpurnia’s church, and Cal knows his family well. She says they’re clean-living folks. Scout, you aren’t old enough to understand some things yet, but there’s been some high talk around town to the effect that I shouldn’t do much about defending this man. It’s a peculiar case … “ “If you shouldn’t be defendin’ him, then why are you doin’ it?” “For a number of reasons,” said Atticus. “The main one is, if I didn’t I couldn’t hold my head up in town, I couldn’t represent this county in the legislature, I couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do something again.” “You mean if you didn’t defend that man, Jem and me wouldn’t have to mind you any more?” “That’s about right.” “[W]ell, all I can say is, when you and Jem are grown, maybe you’ll look back on this with some compassion and some feeling that I didn’t let you down. This case, Tom Robinson’s case, is something that goes to the essence of a man’s conscience — Scout, I couldn’t go to church and worship God if I didn’t try to help that man.” 2

IT WAS NOT SIMPLER THEN The natural reaction to this kind of moral decision-making is to say that things were simpler back then. The modern legal world is bigger, more high-stakes, and more complex than it was 40 years ago when the book was published, and far different than it was in 1935, the year the story takes place. I would argue, however, that the opposite is true. Atticus Finch found himself in an enormously complicated situation. He was a white man, from a distinguished old southern family. He had young children who were taunted at school because of his decision (and later nearly killed for the road he takes). He was representing a client in a capital case. His client was a black man, in the deep South, accused of that most incendiary crime — raping a white woman. The trial pits Tom’s testimony against that of two white people, one of whom is the victim — a hopeless case in that social setting. Members of Atticus’ own family disapprove of his decision, after the local judge assigns the case to him, to actually work hard to defend Tom. He is pressured at his home by a local mob to drop the case. He defends his client’s life from another mob the night before the trial. He is in a no-win situation. If he loses the case, Tom will die. If he wins the case, he faces social ostracism, or worse. It is hard to imagine a modern dilemma, given the wealth, resources and relative social power of lawyers today, that could equal Atticus’ quandary. And finally, Atticus takes the case and pursues it with all his heart, knowing full well that he will lose. There is no glory to be gained through his hard work. He is not motivated by money, a political agenda or fame. Winning, and only winning, could possibly reward his sacrifices, and yet he does his utmost, knowing full well that the cause is hopeless. He forges ahead because it is his job and he sees his duty as the unswerving pursuit of the truth. He knows that he can never win an acquittal for Tom, but his hope is to at least expose the truth, and in doing so begin to crack the stone facade that shields the racial hatred in Maycomb: “[T]hat boy might go to the chair, but he’s not going till the truth’s told.”3 Like most real heroes, Atticus did not ask for the battle he is called to, nor does he revel in it. But once there, he relies on his own deep sense of right and wrong to see him through it. Forty years later, he is as compelling as he must have been in 1960, when this country stood poised on the brink of the civil rights movement. Far from being a quaint relic of the legal profession’s days of yore, he is a model of the best and most noble traits any lawyer can embody. So when you find yourself enmeshed in one of those prickly modern problems of lawyer ethics or life decisions, such as what job to take, or what case to defend, take a deep, sobering breath, and ask yourself, “What would Atticus Finch have done?” Carla T. Main is an associate editor/legal at The National Law Journal and a freelance writer. FOOTNOTES “To Kill A Mockingbird,” by Harper Lee (Warner Books, Inc., 1960), pages 154-155. (2) Id. at pages 75 and 104. (3) Id. at pages 75 and 104. (4) (3) Id. at page 146.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.