After viewing the 1998 film “A Civil Action” and reading the article by Marc Galanter about “Why the ‘Haves’ Come out Ahead” we see that the framework applied to the American legal system by Galanter in his article at this point in time is held true in the film. What Galanter does is tell us about the two options that sides may be in a legal case. First there are the One-Shotters, which we will refer to as the OSs. These indivduals are often those who are not regulars within the legal system and often are only there once or maybe twice. A fine example of OSs are the husband and wife in a divorce case or the two parents in a custody case. As suggested by the name, these people usually are only in once. When it comes to the results that they expect it is often tangible. Because this is there one and only case, they are not concerned with a reputation in the courts but instead with real, physical, in a way, results. On the flip-side you have the Repeat Players which we will refer to as the RPs. These individuals, again as the name suggests, are those who frequent the courtroom and are often involved the same kinds of cases. These are what one would expect them to be such as the IRS trying people who did not pay their income taxes or a large corporation. Now the goals for a RP are very different than those of an OS. Instead of the tangible goals of the one-shotter, the RPs are out to often establish a reputation and establish relations to shape future decisions made in the courts. Because they are in the courts so frequently, it is a very important to establish a solid relationship with the courts so they will decide in their favor in the future. While this does seem rather troubling that this is the case, it does make sense. Galanter broke down the advantages each party has in the legal system between the OSs and the RPs into four parts, the parties, legal services, institutional facilities, and finally the rules. In this paper I will take each section and apply it to the film “A Civil Action.” First we will look at the subject of parties. May I make an early point as to explain how the case in the film was set up. While it is fairly unorthodox, except in Personal Injury Law which is what was happening in the film, the case was an OS v. RP. The OS was the families whose children had died of leukemia and the RPs were the two companies (H.M. Grace and Beatrice Foods) who were being charged for contaminating the ground water. So the advantages that can be enjoyed by parties according to Galanter are “ability to structure transaction; specialized expertise, economies of scale; long-term strategy; ability to play for rules; bargaining credibility; ability to invest in penetration” He says that these advantages are often enjoyed by repeat players and professional side of the case, this being the companies in the contamination case. This held very true in the film as it was a struggle for the OS and fairly easy for the RPs. The biggest of these issues for the parties was the economies of scale. From an economic stand-point, economies of scale often says that the larger the body, the less expensive it is for them to take on a project because they have more resources which can cut down overall costs. In the case of “A Civil Action” this was the ability to hire lawyers and fund their defense. While Jan Schlichtmann and his partners lost all their money and belongings due to Jan’s deep involvement in the case, it probably cost the companies virtually nothing, outside of the regular costs, to start the case and fund the actual proceedings (not the settlements). Long-term strategy was also an issue for the companies, especially shown by H.M. Grace. When Jan was in the office with the owner, the owner made a very strict point that he was not willing to pay a huge settlement because in the long-run he did not want personal injuries lawyers to feed off this case like “sharks” as he put it. The next issue is legal services. This may be the most obvious issue in the film as a large part of it was about the relationships between the lawyers themselves and the clients that they worked for. The shining example of this was the character of Jerome Facher, portrayed by a favorite actor of mine from his work in “The Godfather” films, Robert Duvall. Character is an excellent word to describe Facher. He was an interesting man who enjoyed his privacy at work (sat in the basement reading his magazine and listening to the Red Sox games on his portable radio) and had an interesting sense of continuity. I personally enjoy his Pink Panther monogrammed briefcase and when Jan asked him if he thought it was time to get a new one, he replies, “Do you change your socks in the middle of the World Series?” Continuity. A point made in the legal services section by Galanter that is enjoyed by again, the “organized, professional, and wealthy.” Facher had obviously been working for Beatrice Foods for a long amount of time as he had quite a reputation at the office. It is subtly hinted throughout the film, that though he is a peculiar fellow, he is very, very skilled in the art of practicing law. It shows clips of him instructing a class at Harvard; he mentions how they gave him a chair with his name on the back; every time he makes a prediction about the case in the film, he is correct; finally, he is a skilled and manipulative interviewer. It is this familiarity and high level of skill that is enjoyed by large companies. Because they have the money, they can hire these individuals and keep them on staff for years, even decades. However, when we look at the families, they end up not being able to even afford the services of Jan, and he is certainly not familiar with them in any way. A fine example of this was when Anne Anderson called on the radio show and he had no idea who she was. Next are the institutional facilities, which include advantages of “passivity, cost and delay barriers, and favorable priorities.” Again, they are enjoyed by the wealthy, organized, and attentive. In many facilities for he OSs and less wealthy individuals, as well as those who do not have continuity with lawyers, this problem arises in the processing. We saw this as an initial problem for the families that fell victim of the contaminated water because they could find nobody to take their case. Most firms did not have time to do it and were passive. This is due to the fact that they are just another individual and in the system, there are so many one-shot individuals that the proper time and interest cannot be taken. This make the case of the OSs harder to be truly delved into. Another issue is the cost and delay barriers. When you are an poor OS and you need expensive research done (geological testing in film), you may be stopped because you simply cannot afford it, making your case less credible. Last is the rules that each experience. The advantages of this are “favorable rules and due process barriers” that are handed off to the “older, culturally dominant” members of society. Once again these are the wealthier, upstanding individuals in the case. The issue here is that the courts will favor the person who is more important to the society and so the rules are more likely to abide by them. Evidence of this in the film was the questions that Judge Skinner developed for the jury. Obviously, he was concerned that this case was not worth it, leaning on the companies because of their influence and power in society rather than those suffering. In the end, Galanter makes a great point as to why the “haves” are coming up as winners in most cases and gives us insight as to, for the most part, why the companies did not suffer too greatly in the film as long as they were dealing with Jan. Once the Environmental Protection Agency came into the picture, it went downhill for them. These more wealthy individuals have the best resources, the most money, and the most influence, which at the end of the day prevails in our society more often than not. While this is troubling, it is true and the film “A Civil Action” was a shining example of, in some regards, the injustices in the American legal system.