Frank Calloway, Attorney (1977; #3 of 5)
Frank Gets Fired from his Law Firm for Focusing on Justice at All Costs
On matriculating from Stanford for a second time, this time with a law degree, Frank Calloway was hired by a local firm that specialized in defending the interests of insurance companies in court. Frank’s enthusiasm for the work was based on his conviction that if those who attempted to commit fraud against insurance companies (by torching their own places of business or home, staging accidents, selling and then claiming their valuables were stolen, etc.) were exposed and punished, everyone would benefit: obviously, the insurance companies wouldn’t have to pay out these fraudulent claims, but even more important from Frank’s perspective, insurance rates would be reduced for the majority of the insured, who didn’t deserve to be forced to indirectly subsidize payment of claims to the fraudsters and, of course, justice would be served. Additionally, reports of the failed attempts to falsify events and the consequences to the perpetrators of such attempts would dissuade at least some others from following in their footsteps.
Sometimes, that’s exactly what happened: those with criminal intent were exposed as cheats, Frank won his case, his employer was happy, and their client was thrilled. Occasionally, though, Frank became convinced that the plaintiff was not trying to pull a fast one and was, in fact, due full compensation for the damages they suffered as a result of their burned-down house or business, wrecked car, stolen Monet, or whatever the case was. In these instances, rather than just keep his opinion to himself, Frank came right out and said in open court that he was dropping the case, as he no longer held the plaintiff to be at fault in any way.
The first time this happened, on becoming convinced that the lady accused of burning down her house for the insurance money was innocent, Frank told the court that in the interests of justice, and to prevent the conviction of a person who he was convinced was innocent, he was discontinuing prosecution and ceding victory to the plaintiff.
Frank’s employer was not happy with this, and told him so in an unmistakably forthright manner, but not before first telling him that they appreciated his integrity and love of justice. “But Frank, the client is upset, to say the least; they are threatening us legally and even if they back down from doing that, we have lost them as a client, probably forever. We can’t have this sort of thing. This is, after all, a business.”
Frank was unapologetic and even told the firm that he would do the same thing if he had a second chance in the courtroom. They again patiently expressed their respect for his principles, but reminded him of the high costs of running the business, and that they must win cases, not forfeit them.
The firm then tried to spin the matter (publicly) by claiming to espouse the same love of justice that Frank had, even when it meant a loss for them. They were also able to convince their client, the insurance company, of the mutual benefit of this approach (claiming to be in favor of what Frank had done out of a warm regard for seeing justice done). Thus, the insurance company called a press conference, and in it purported to be pleased that Frank had discerned where justice lie in this case, and that they were happy to pay the plaintiff’s insurance claim, after all.
In private, though, their view of the matter remained the same: they did not want to lose future cases just because the attorney wanted to play judge and jury himself. Realizing how it would look if they sued Frank’s firm, or broke off their connection with them, the insurance company decided against suing the law firm for malpractice and, in fact, retained it as its representative in future cases.
Although Frank was publicly supported by his firm and the insurance company, privately it was made clear to him that further courtroom mavericking by him would not be tolerated. They advised him—off the record—to view the courtroom struggles, not as a means to obsessively pursue justice at any cost, but as a contest to see who could prevail. “Think of it as a debate, where you try to prove the assertion you’ve been assigned as the one most likely to be true. Sow doubt in the mind of the jury. It’s about defeating the other attorney, doing the best you can for your client. Leave justice to be determined by the jury and the judge,” they told him.
It happened again, though. A lady who was claiming whiplash after being involved in an auto accident was suing the driver of the car who rear-ended her as she was waiting at a stoplight. At first Frank believed her claim to be false, as X-Rays showed no damage to her spinal cord that would indicate she should be suffering from the debilitating headaches and seizures that she claimed were now her lot. The lady didn’t help her case by showing up in court dressed flamboyantly and, while on the stand, fluctuating between bouts of fidgety mumbling and emotional outbursts directed at Frank as he questioned her. She gave the impression of being the sort of person who would want to take advantage of the situation and “sock it to” the defendant for an easy payday.
But Frank eventually came to the conclusion that, rather than being a sly and cynical shyster, the plaintiff was simply an unsophisticated straight-shooter who gave little thought to appearances; she felt that how she dressed not only shouldn’t matter, as far as influencing the jury (which was true, in theory), but also that it wouldn’t influence the jury (which was not necessarily true in practice, especially once Frank was able to cast doubt on her testimony and surreptitiously cast aspersions on her apparent attitude toward “fat cats” such as insurance corporations).
To quickly bring a long story to a conclusion, Frank, on doing some additional research into just who this person and her brash and flashy husband were, decided to drop the case—he wasn’t sure she was suffering these seizures and migraine headaches, but he had been able to draw out from the doctor who testified on the case that the X-Rays did not preclude such: it was indeed possible to suffer those symptoms without the cause showing up on the film. Frank became skeptical enough of her faking it that he couldn’t conscientiously pursue the case further.
That was it for Frank at his firm. The partners reiterated to him that, although they applauded his “fanatical” affection for justice, and wished that they could afford to only take on cases where they knew their client was in the right—and certainly preferred to do so—they simply could not afford to subsidize his “overly sensitive conscience” or his “rogue antics.”
These events (the two court cases that Frank flipped on) and his subsequent dismissal became well-known and something of a cause célèbre in Fort Bragg. Tiago “Tigger” Fonseca, a local building contractor who had many business as well as political connections in the town—a sort of one-man political action group—thought that Frank’s much-admired unassailable integrity would make him an excellent mayoral candidate.
Frank Calloway, Football Coach (1957; #1 of 5)
Frank Calloway, Teacher (1967; #2 of 5)
Frank Calloway, Mayor and Governor (1987; #4 of 5)