I thought the film portrayed Schlichtmann as a sub standard lawyer. He was completely outclassed by Facher in every court scene we saw, he could do nothing to change how the judge composed the awkward mid-case questions (I couldn't decide if the film was hinting at the judge being biased or that Schlichtmann wasn't able to play at that level) and he never asked the question of who dealt with the waste until the case was over. He never appeared in control of the case, and ultimately went bankrupt because his emotions overcame his reasoning.
Maybe one of the themes of the film was supposed to be how difficult it is to prosecute companies who can afford to hire the best lawyers on the planet. If so it was a little too subtle for me.
I judge the above based on viewing other legal series / films from the US. Perhaps series like LA Law, Ally McBeal, Boston Legal (any David E. Kelley series in fact) glamourise the profession and in fact A Civil Action shows us a much more realistic error-prone scenario?
Maybe one of the themes of the film was supposed to be how difficult it is to prosecute companies who can afford to hire the best lawyers on the planet. If so it was a little too subtle for me.
I judge the above based on viewing other legal series / films from the US. Perhaps series like LA Law, Ally McBeal, Boston Legal (any David E. Kelley series in fact) glamourise the profession and in fact A Civil Action shows us a much more realistic error-prone scenario?