It's not that I'm trying to take sides--one CBG columnist sticking up for another--but if, as Terrell Hardcastle said in Comics Buyer's Guide# 1456's "Oh, So," "[Bob] Gale has done his homework [for the story he wrote in Daredevil 20-25] and has created a realistic, litigious world for Daredevil to navigate," then exactly where did Gale do his research? Watching the Bloopers reel marathon from ABC's The Practice? I'm sorry but Gale's story arc in Daredevil was to realism and the law what Gale's movie Back to the Future was to time travel theory--pure fantasy. There was so much wrong with this story it's difficult to know where to start. But, as "the very beginning" was good enough for Julie Andrews:

In the beginning... No, a little after that, Matt Murdock (the secret identity of Daredevil, the titular, but blind, super-hero with the hyper senses) is representing Benjamin Rosen. Rosen's ex-employee, Lloyd Braxton, is suing Rosen for wrongful dismissal, claiming Rosen is a racist and fired him because he is black. What's wrong with that? you ask. Surely, as a lawyer, Matt Murdock does represent people in lawsuits. But the problem was how Matt represented Rosen.

(As an aside, let me first address another problem with this suit: Braxton hired Claude Unger an attorney who, according to the story, "has yet to lose a case." That's a standard cliché in fiction: the lawyer who has never lost a case. They only exist in fiction. In real life, if you ever see a lawyer who has never lost a case, I suggest you check his or her bank accounts for large and unexplained withdrawals, because somewhere there's got to be a jury that got its Christmas bonus early.)

Matt represented Rosen on the theory that Braxton wasn't fired for his race but for, "gambling on company time," with company assets. After three hours of deliberation, the jury returns its verdict. "We the jury find the defendant, Benjamin Rosen, not guilty," which is the wrong verdict. Not because Rosen is a racist, but Braxton filed a civil suit seeking damages because he, the plaintiff, was injured by Rosen's wrongful act. Civil juries don't find their defendants not guilty. "Not guilty" is a verdict found only in criminal trials. Civil juries would simply find for the plaintiff or the defendant and award (or deny) damages accordingly. It's a minor point, but anyone who has "done his homework" in lawsuits should have known this.

Before you get the idea that I'm going to nitpick this story to death--though there will be a few more nits to pick before I'm done with this whole long story--let me move on to the major problem of this lawsuit. After the trial, Unger, whose office tried to hide Braxton's gambling, asks Matt how he learned about it. Matt doesn't tell Unger, but his thought balloons reveal to the reader that he learned about it while taking Braxton's deposition. When Matt asked Braxton whether he had any bad habits like gambling, his super-sensitive hearing detected Braxton's irregular heartbeat.

Remember earlier how I told you to suspect Unger of buying juries like Armani suits? Well, now we know how Matt maintains his win-loss record: He suborns perjury.

There was only one way Matt could prove that Braxton was fired for gambling on company time with company assets: putting Rosen on the stand to say that. Yes, Matt could have brought in the books and accountants to explain how assets were missing and presumably embezzled. Yes, Matt could have brought in Braxton's employee evaluations to show his on-the-job performance was deteriorating. But the only way Matt could prove Rosen fired Braxton for gambling was to have Rosen testify and say he fired Braxton for gambling.

Actually, Matt would have done this in cross-examination. To prove his case, Unger would have to call Rosen first--defendants can be called as witnesses in civil suits, since there is no possibility of self-incrimination--and asked him his alleged racism. After that, Matt would cross-examine Rosen and have him explain about the gambling.

The problem is Rosen couldn't testify he fired Braxton for gambling on company time with company assets. He didn't know about the gambling, when he fired Braxton.

This is a given. The story itself makes it impossible for Rosen to have known about the gambling. Matt first learned about the gambling when he deposed Braxton. Depositions are part of what lawyers call discovery, a pre-trial process by which opposing sides in lawsuits share their information so that neither side is surprised. (Discovery is so important that satellite TV systems have seven Discovery Channels.) In depositions, each side gets to question the witnesses the other side intends to call while under oath. It was when Matt deposed Braxton that he, thus Rosen, first learned about the gambling. (Come on, if Rosen had known about the gambling earlier, don't you think he would have told his attorney?)

Because depositions are part of the pre-trial discovery process, they can't take place before the lawsuit is filed. This isn't the Thought Police. You don't get to depose people, learn their secrets, and then decide to sue. So, if Rosen didn't know about the gambling until after he was being sued--which couldn't happen until after he fired Braxton--he couldn't have fired Braxton for gambling. And that means, if Matt had Rosen testify that he fired Braxton for gambling on company time with company assets, he had Braxton perjure himself.

Suborning perjury is a serious offense. It looks pretty bad for Matt. But don't worry, I'll rescue him this one time and explain how he could have successfully defended Rosen without suborning perjury.

If Rosen testified that he fired Braxton because Braxton's job performance had been slipping and finally deteriorated below tolerable levels, that would be the truth. Matt could argue to the jury that Braxton's gambling must have preyed on his mind and adversely affected his job performance. Braxton was fired for poor job performance caused by his gambling. That defense would be fine. No suborned perjury. Just known facts--Braxton's job performance had slipped and he gambled on company time--and proper conjecture from those known facts. Please go back and pretend that's how Matt framed his defense.

Why did I give Matt this out? No professional courtesy. I can afford to be magnanimous. By the end of this story arc--hell, by the end of this issue--Matt does things so unethical not even I can save his license for him.

It all started when Samuel Griggs, wealthy industrialist, asked to hire Matt and his partner Foggy Nelson to sue Daredevil. Griggs claimed on the night of the 8th, Daredevil and some ninjas crashed through his greenhouse, where they fought and did fifty thousand dollars worth of damage to the glass walls and orchids within.

Matt doesn't tell the man to get out of his office.

Matt doesn't say, "I'm Daredevil, so it would be a conflict of interest for me to sue myself." OK, he couldn't say that without revealing his secret identity. But he could say, "Daredevil's saved my life and my partner's life, it would be a conflict of interest for me to take the case." Instead, he tells Griggs that he'll discuss it with Foggy.

Foggy correctly tells Matt, if he signs on to sue himself, it would be an unethical conflict of interest. Matt could be disbarred. Matt counters with several reasons that only prove how right Foggy is.

Matt tells Foggy he was home asleep that night. Whoever was in Griggs's house was an imposter, which they'll prove when they investigate. And they'll be able to investigate better if they're Griggs's lawyers, privy to his information with "total access to everything." Moreover, if they take the case, they can control Griggs so he can't turn the case into an embarrassing "media circus."

All seemingly noble reasons.

And all of them unethical.

Lawyers are required to represent their clients zealously within the boundaries of the law. Lawyers are also forbidden from acting against their clients' interests. What does this mean? It means you can't take a case so you can use your client's information against him, like, say, as a springboard for investigations designed to prove he doesn't have a case. Remember that working against your clients' interests thing? Good, already you're a better lawyer than Matt.

In the same way, an attorney shouldn't take a case simply so he can keep the client from making public information that would be embarrassing for the attorney. If it's in the client's best interests to keep the information private, that's a perfectly acceptable motive. But if keeping the information under wraps isn't in the client's best interests, it's just as unethical for an attorney to take a case, so that he can keep the lid on the information, as it would be to take it so that he can disprove his client's case.

I don't know whether keeping the information secret would have been in Griggs' best interests. So I won't question Matt's second motive for taking the case, other than to say that it might have been improper. I don't need to question Matt's second motive for taking the case. Not when I know that his primary motive was completely improper.

Matt should have turned Griggs down, then announced he's representing Daredevil. As Daredevil's attorney, he could make the same investigations without suspicion. He could even obtain Griggs' information in discovery to launch his investigations. But the one thing Matt should not have done was take Griggs' case, so that he could actively work against Griggs' interests.

To his credit, by the end of Daredevil #20, Matt hadn't taken the case.

Unfortunately, Matt does accept the case before the credits in Daredevil #21.

Gee, one issue and one page into a six-part story and already we have Matt doing two things which could get him disbarred. Can it possibly get worse?

Well, the story still has five parts to go.

How much worse it can get will have to be the subject of a future column. I couldn't possibly cover the Croesus-like riches of this story arc in the few words I have left.

Who says writing has no job security?