My point is that he probably had nothing to do with the newspaper story. He would be out of business if he is known for exposing his clients and their business in a newspaper routinely without their consent.
At the point when Evelyn and her lawyer confront Jake, she has no way of knowing he had nothing to do with the newspaper story. All she's worried about is the exposure of Katherine, whom she's trying to protect. Whether or not she filed against the paper as well is simply not mentioned, because it's of no importance to the story. And she quickly realizes the ill-advised nature of the suit, a realization brought home to her (literally) when Jake visits her and states his intentions to investigate further. She wanted to scare him off, and has done just the opposite.
To me the legal dialogue in both movies is unintentionally funny and campy. I don't believe a skilled lawyer would act as these clowns do.
Chinatown doesn't really portray any "legal dialogue;" all we hear her lawyer say is,
"Here's something for you, Mr Gittes. I suppose we'll be hearing from your attorney." Evelyn's wealthy, and can easily afford lawyers who'll do pretty much anything she wants. Happens all the time, to this day.
As to
The Two Jakes, the proceeding we see is described by the judge as an
"evidentiary hearing," and at the end of the proceeding, the judge agrees with you:
"I have no idea what you thought you could do with this kind of evidence, Mr Hannah. It has no place in my courtroom. Do yourself a favor: the next time, you be sure you've got a case." When the wire recording and Jake's testimony don't produce what the police hoped, they try to discredit him. That still happens too, but the judge in
TTJ is having none of it.
So: questionable actions by private attorneys; sleazy courtroom tactics by cops and prosecutors. Both still common and entirely credible.
Poe! You are...avenged!
reply
share