problem and if our best minds, zuckerberg and the great minds of usc, maybe a few faculty come in a world where we have seven to 9 billion people anticipating major challenges and anticipating there will be a market as folks are using their blackberry right now to text my exciting points, and a in a world where there is climate change innovation that demand, creates a place of my optimism is not naïve wishful thinking but if we anticipate that unlike the titanic come if we can see the iceberg ahead, if we are afraid of the iceberg this is the beginnings of lead time to take proactive actions that will help many of us adapt to this very scary scenario. >> thank you, matt. >> you can watch this and other programs on line at booktv.org. >> next john grisham accepts the price for legal fiction. after accepting the award, the

author speaks about being a lawyer and the role that law plays in contemporary fiction with a panel of the national press club in washington d.c.. this is a little over an hour. >> everybody got quiet so i guess we can begin. that's my cue. good afternoon. i am very pleased today to welcome all of you to the nodule celebration and preservation of the harper lee prize for fiction. nell harper lee of monroeville alabama attended our law school in the 1940s and published "to kill a mockingbird" in 1960. and empowered them to represent the wrongly accused. census publication "to kill a mockingbird" has influenced generations of college graduates, aspiring to practice law like atticus finch to go to law school.

last year on vacation of the books 50th anniversary we contacted harper lee who graciously authorized this award to honor an author whose work best exemplifies the positive role of force in society and their power to effect change. the price is grounded in the character of atticus finch and his principled and courageous representation of tom robinson. on september 21, 2010, u.s. attorney general eric holder honored our law school when he came to tuscaloosa alabama to help celebrate half a century of "to kill a mockingbird" and to help us to establish this award. our law school has a very special partner in this award in sponsoring it, the aba journal which is read by about half of the nation's lawyers monthly. let me now call upon jack rice to make some remarks. jack is it -- executive director of the aba. [applause]

>> thank you, dean. it will surprise you i know but occasionally the american bar association does think it's controversial. undressed by the university of alabama to partner with them in this award we were able to do something that is totally uncontroversial. honoring harper lee is a great idea. choosing the right or who highlights the role of lawyers in society as a great idea and so we were able to define a role for this with the university of alabama school of law. we were honored to do so and it's especially fitting that the first winner v. john grisham who could have won the award and number of years ago had award existed at the time. is a very deserving winner and we are delighted to present it to them. we know they're going to be many future winners who are going to be quite deserving as well and we hope people are inspired to write the good stories. the particular book he wrote, the confession, i know many of you have read it is especially timely. it was a remarkably good job and

does tell a good story. the american bar association is the world's largest voluntary professional organization and this is one of those good things we do that we are delighted to partner with sowed teen thank you at the university of alabama law school thanks you too. [applause] >> as you probably know our ceremony is occurring this week at the same time as the national book festival here in d.c. which is sponsored by the library of congress so we are now going to ask roberta schaefer from the library of congress to make some remarks. >> thank you dean and other distinguished guests. i'm delighted to be celebrating with you today the inauguration of the harper lee prize for legal fiction. and i will note that today is situated between two other important events that happened close in time. one was the celebration last week of constitution day and

saturday in addition to kicking off the library of congress's 11th national book festival, we will also be kicking off the annual banned books week and as many of you know "to kill a mockingbird" has had a high place on the honor roll of banned books for many many years. i am here representing the library of congress but i think i'm actually representing libraries in general. when all the honors are given and all that book tours are over, though i guess for some they never stop. [laughter] exactly. books, along with other intellectual treasures, come to libraries to live long and rewarding lives and to offer explanations of the past and inspirations for the future. they sit on shelves today either physical or virtual, alongside works in other media and by other writers whose ideas may support or challenge the ideas

in these fantastic knowledge capsules. and these collections of knowledge challenged us to consider and studies myriad subjects, looking at topics of class, color, code, legal or social code, communication, and even our clothing as young scout and "to kill a mockingbird" offered protests what women have to wear. books of fact or fiction or though somewhere in between ask us to look at ourselves and our society every day. and many may even ask, are we killing the mockingbirds at the very same time that they try to entertain and educate us? our libraries personal, public grieving congressional, are constant reminders to our

children, our judges, our lawmakers, our fellow citizens and even our adversaries of their cultural values and of the legacies that we want to be remembered by. this afternoon we are honoring two great authors, harper lee and john grisham. they can be assured that as long as we have libraries, their work will continue to be a -- thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you roberta. looking around this room we could recognize many special guest today. i know we have members of the federal judiciary. you onerous with your presence but i want to single out we have many representatives from random house. geena centrale out and the rest of the publishing team and we want to recognize you with a round of applause as well. [applause]

we had an outstanding committee that selected this book. we had so many books nominated. we had a group in tuscaloosa and elsewhere that narrowed the field down to three books and then we had an outstanding selection committee. i'm going to go in alphabetical order. david baldacci to my right was a best-selling author. his first novel absolute power was published in 1996, was an immediate bestseller. he has since published more than 20 novels and seven original screenplays with his wife michelle, is known for their philanthropic work and we have -- wisher will foundation promoting adult literacy. to my left and my dear friend maurice dees a graduate of alabama law school, co-founder and still remains chief trial counsel for the southern property law center in montgomery and probably of anyone else come the state of alabama single-handedly shut down the kkk and alabama.

also i want to recognize mr. robert grey a graduate of washington and lee law school who has worked with us on several projects. we are going to claim unison honorary alum. robert of course is the former president of aba and part of the prestigious firm of putting one's. to members of the committee could not be with us, jeff toobin who has worked with us on other things on our maurice dees justice award and entry widget to "new yorker" magazine. just a few days ago we learned that linda fairstein could not be with us. she is also a best-selling crime novelist and former prosecutor so let's recognize this election committee. [applause] in a few minutes david baldacci will lead a panel discussion of the book we are honoring today so i want to take just a few minutes to tell you about the author of the confession mr. john grisham although i am just repeating facts. as you know them more famous

verse in the shorter the introduction. john grisham is originally from arkansas, graduated from the university of mississippi law school in 1981 and practiced law for nearly a decade, specializing in criminal defense and personal injury litigation. he also served in the mississippi house of representatives from 1983 until 1990. as difficult as all of us lawyers know notice to practice law, he somehow wrote every morning before the crack of dawn and published a time to kill in 1988. his next book, the firm, spent 47 weeks on "the new york times" bestsellers list and was a best-selling novel, the best-selling novel of 1991. to more of his books immediately claimed the number one spot on that list, the pelican brief and the client. mr. grisham is written about one legal fiction book a year, nine have been turned into movies and he is also written about other diverse subjects such as

baseball and aging football quarterback and christmas. mr. grisham's nonfiction book, the innocent man, symbolizes and as i understand that galvanize his commitment to the goal of exonerating the wrongly convicted and inasmuch involved today actively in the innocence project nationally. in 1996 mr. grisham took a break from writing to fulfill a promise he had made to represent the family of a railroad brakeman who was killed when pinned between two cars. he earned his client jury awarded $683,000 it reminds us of of us of some of the best lawyering in his books. is now my great honor to present the inaugural prize for legal fiction to john grisham. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you dean randall for this award in thanks also to the university of alabama school of law. to the aba's journal for cosponsoring the award. thanks to harper lee for giving her blessings to what we what we are doing here today. i especially thank the incredibly intelligent, insightful, well read, and a student panel of judges that show my book. you guys are really sharp. [laughter] many of us, especially those from the south, can remember the first time we read "to kill a mockingbird." for me i if i was in ninth grade in ms. topps english class. i was 15 years old in 1969 when we read the story and the first time that class had black kids

in it and it prompted some discussions that were not always comfortable. as a child come as a kid reading the book, i was entertained by the adventures of scout, and jim and watched surreptitiously the trial of tom robinson. reading the book as an adult, i was more impressed with the dignity and courage of tom and his lawyer, atticus finch also known as gregory peck. and i was astounded by the injustice of that era. that trial was 75 years ago. for those of us who observe the legal system and write about it, we are still confronted with injustice and inequality in a system that often can fix

innocent people, sends them to prison and even executes them. unlike many, i cannot say that atticus finch inspired me to go to law school. i don't know what i was thinking when i went to law school. but i do recall 30 years ago stand in a courtroom in a small town in mississippi, a rookie lawyer way out of my league, defending a black man charged with murder looking at an all white jury. and i kept thinking, what would atticus do now? what would atticus do now? a few years later when i began secretly writing my first novel, i was drawn back to "to kill a mockingbird" for the incredible storytelling ability of harper lee, for the timeless themes of injustice of and the loss of innocence, for the humor but

most importantly at least for me, for the character of atticus finch. a few years later after my first book was published in several other books, i received a package one day unmarked, opened it up. it was from harper lee and it was a copy of "to kill a mockingbird." it was not the first edition. that book is still in print so there are still the additions on going but it was an early edition and she inscribed to john grisham, best wishes, harper lee. it is a prized possession. i have a place for it on the wall and today i will add it next to this award here. now that i have to. earlier dean randall gave me a signed copy of "to kill a mockingbird." i have two kids and i love to collect old books. they are constantly bickering about who gets what so they been worried about who gets the copy

of "to kill a mockingbird." now i have two. thank you all for this award. [applause] >> thank you john. it's now time for a panel discussion comparing the two books on exploring their place in legal literature and their impact that will be moderated by david baldacci. we have introduced a few panels but we have two other panels to introduce to you. dhalia lithwick a contributing editor at "newsweek" and slate where she writes supreme court dispatches in jurisprudence as has been a guest for "the new york times" op-ed page. and the distinguished lecture in lawn tractor of a forum on law, culture and society at the fordham law school and himself offers several highly-regarded author so i will turn it over to david.

>> i want to add my congratulations to john. was one of those literary minded astute judges who picked the confession as a book and was much deserving this award. it was a stiff competition but i think all the judges agreed and we had our conference call and went over the books in detail, the john's book rhett -- rose head and shoulders above the books. there is a book eminently greeted both terrifically entertaining and deals with substantive issues in a way i think that makes everyone or should make everyone who reads the book think about it. in a shameless plug, the next event john and i will be end in october next year or next month at yale university to feature and highlight another iconic figure in american literature, mark twain. to find fund find ways or for mark twain museum. jody will john -- join john and myself. if you are in a part of the country want to go to it please do. all the funds go to mark twain

house museum. in this country we can't celebrate others like harper lee and mark twain than there something wrong. if we get things wrong he will let us know i'm sure. i have a series of questions here but really i left the questions and we will have a free flow of dialogue. i won't call in any one person on the panel to answer. please feel free to jump in. i like this question and i'm going to start with it. how is the lawyer portrayed in popular fiction changed in the 50 year since atticus finch? atticus finch is the lawyer we used to all have at least one time in our lives when we are accused of a really bad crime because he is the guy that will be there for us. he stands for what is good and pure and he seems to be ideal and you know in a sense that it's hard to understand how a real person can be that so the question is how is the lawyer per trade in popular fiction changed in the 50 year since we

have had atticus finch? please go. >> well, for one thing, atticus finch is a flawless character. and for many people who read "to kill a mockingbird" that is on the complexity of the book is that you have a character who is just too good, so good at the end that he is willing to have his own son prosecuted for the voluntary manslaughter of the most evil man in all of alabama. overly righteous and now we see characters with much more complexity, characters who have flaws, who are in fact using the law. many john grisham characters qualities are using the case as a way to redeem themselves, is a way for them to find themselves in the law. atticus answers quite clear who he was as a father, who he was as the town legislator, who he

was as the native son of alabama. you know if you look at art today, the characters are at a loss with their clients and we find them struggling with divorces and alcoholism and real human struggles and that makes it a huge difference between the last 50 years and we see characters with much more texture and much more true humanity. >> maurice? >> what i have seen is the campaign against lawyers especially trial lawyers by the lyrical right in america and the u.s. chamber of commerce and others finding its way in fiction. back in the time that i started practicing law we didn't see lawyers condemned as -- they were honored people and in fact when you had a capital murder case, in the country, the person was usually indigent and the

finest lawyers in town would be appointed and/or volunteer to represent this case here. i think the legal profession is really condemned today in many ways and i see that creeping into fiction also. you know i speak to a lot of law students around, and i always tell them you know that if they read henry the sixth, they would read that you know, if tyranny is to prevail, you must first kill all the lawyers and the first part of that shakespeare play is emitted today. i think john grisham has helped put it back in place. >> i might just add and maybe it's a hybrid of the two points that have been made but i think that there is a sense that lawyers of fiction today are working against in the edible machines anyway they didn't used to be. i think one of the things you don't see anymore is lawyers who

feel that their firm is a good place to be. lawyers who feel that the government is a good place to be. there is a sense that there is this leviathan structure that is fundamentally corrupt and i think that goes to some of the points about the real questions about the integrity of the legal system, but i think in addition to always having a drink in their hands, in modern fiction every lawyer has a drink in their hands, male and female but i think they're also just very very disaffected and frustrated and broken and hopeless. i think it goes to the sense that the legal system isn't reified the way it once was. >> i would put a positive spin on this. >> that would be helpful over the last 50 years. actually i think one of the really good and positive

attributes of fiction and the timeframe we are talking about is an appreciation understanding the legal system. it is a complex but very critical part of our life in this country. it's the foundation for democracy. and to have authors who understand it and put it into context of real-life situations makes it appreciated but more importantly, it's an educational tool. i find those who read the book or not lawyers, way with a much deeper understanding and appreciation of our legal system, and it is pretty good. more so and in many ways we can be critical of it because we expect so much from it. as we should.

but by the same token i think that we are, we benefit a great deal from the honesty that surrounds the purpose for the legal system. when you think about the use of juries as well you understand that it exists is our system. it's not somebody else's system and beyond the system and to the extent that it is a system that judges pass judgment on very complex and sometimes life altering situations. i think what we have learned from the books is that it's better to have it than not. >> that covered about the other nine questions i had listed on my paper. bob we will start with you and worked his way. a follow-up question to that but i have, thrillers and legal thrillers in general are very

popular with mass audiences. even though a lot of people seem to have disdain for the legal profession, think we have seen that, they're fascinated without world. and we see that in movies and with books. if you could talk to why you think that fascination aside from the fact that we learn things about the legal system, what is built and the illegal system that they want to learn more about it and watch books and movies about it? >> well, articulately the ones that we choose to exemplify, they are game changers. their game changers for society, for attitudes in the way we see ourselves. and they in many cases, when you see an outcome that goes against the grain, but preserves the institution, h.s. system, you want to root for it. you want to save yourself, that

is this country. that is our country and i'm proud of the fact that in this environment, in this society, you can still root for the underdog and when. it's the only place that the president of the united states has the possibility of being tried. you don't see that in other countries, and if it does happen, it's a rare occasion but in this country, if you choose to break the law, you are just as susceptible to being tried as anybody else. this is the statement that chesterfield smith made the was the former president of the abaapa, no person is is above the law a ring street and the examples we see, the movies we see in the and the most important thing is that even without means, there is preservation of civil liberties and civil rights in the system.

>> well, legal narrative, legal novels, legal dramas are particularly an american cultural touchstone. they are very much like, legal dramas are very much like the american westerns in terms of the public fascination. westerns as we know take place in it. they deal with lawlessness, but they are essentially about the search for good and righteousness and to do what is just and to make things right. and the legal system is a natural location, trials for good versus it evil. you see, you no cowboy some horses in you see lawyers strutting in courtrooms, delivering some nations. you know they are are even movements in courtrooms like john grisham is the master of having people to interesting things including pouring a glass of water. all of a sudden this idea that there is an action that is taking place, but it's an action that really is the same kind of

dramatic tension that there is some injustice that is taking place and the audience can't sit still until some resolution takes place. the courtroom setting does it in a way that is much more closed budget desert with the same kind of dramatic tension and excitement. anyone who has read the confession, this novel, it really is a page-turner and you know who knew that like a legal trial, it would become so fascinating to american culture that in fact even during the day, all television soap operas are off, lost their places in favor of you know judge judy and judge alex and the people's court. are obviously obviously there is some consumer demand to see, to see human resolution, the conflict and to be able to make

distinctions between right and wrong. people are obviously longing for this. perhaps they are not actually seeing it in the law and a seat on daytime tv and reading david and john's book. >> i would probably double down on the spaghetti western and say it's also the morality play. is the religious treatise. i think that to the extent that we have a church in this country, it's the supreme court to the extent that we have a foundational religious texts which is the constitution and i think sometimes in our peril we look at those things as substitutes for religion. and i think that this is just us. this is morality. and this is you know the trial or even you know, think even csi and hunting down the criminal and beating him about the head until they confess us. that is all part of an art about morality and we hope that this

is a system that you know in the absence of the magnificent god is the next best thing we have is the judge who will do the right thing and make moral choices and vindicate justice and make the world fair. so it just seems to me that you know, i have always said and maybe it's because i covered the supreme court, think we are the most religious, secular society in the world. we pretend to not be religious but we revered the law in place of religion so it seems to me that arc that we trace over and over even on judge judy, even on nancy grace, even on law and order, that is the arc of some system that is going to make a world makes sense and make justice prevail. >> maurice? >> when i was in law school i was reading the the old cases and i was struck with how the history of the united states has been decided in many ways after the constitution by legal cases,

it dragged v. scott at the board of education. h. made distinction. i think that still happens today. i mean we just got through witnessing detroit a the situation and i don't know what is going to be the next that. president carter finally came out opposed to the death penalty and we saw all the machinations that went into that and it could see hopefully the beginning of the end of the death penalty in the united states, hopefully. then you have you know, i guess reality television with the case anthony case and nancy grace. it's amazing that those people obviously are in it for the soap opera thing too. but i think that the u.s. supreme court that you covered, we are waiting for every decision whether it is roe v. wade or whether it's the rights of an indigent to have counsel so it's i think in many ways part of the whole legislative

system that we see acted out in court. >> you noda said that fiction is only bound by possibility. and people can suspend disbelief but you have to have the element of it. not that it did happen but it could happen and it seems in popular fiction these days that the evil has gotten bigger and conspiracies have gone broader and what people are willing to believe might happen at least in fiction -- fictional situations has gotten bigger. i guess the question is and i will start with you maurice, is that a reflection on the legal system or a society as whole that they will accept many things that could happen in fiction and maybe in real life more so than the population might have accepted that impossible 50 or 60 years ago. >> i think it has a lot to do with -- i'm not sure if that is really true.

i've liked to tell you there is a lot of disbelief and does and i still think there haven't been any books written since then, no disrespect to you and john. these go back to stories and what i recently read cleopatra that was affirmed. i do think though that with the advent of reality television and talking heads and with this two-minute commercials that can make war heroes into cowards like we saw in the presidential election. if you spend enough money, church can be suspended or disbelief. i'm really proud that we have great writers and in fact if there was any way to, i would be voting as a panel panel member and i to hold can this because i don't know how you got ahold of john betts i sent you an. i said let's give john the lifetime achievement award

because he can't take any of these books and so the contributions they made for the cause of justice. >> i see time also going to place a hypothetical if that's okay. here you are being non-syncretic and i'm going to place a hypothetical but i think that it's in fact the case that fiction and the enormity of the kinds of things that john writes about seem like they can't possibly be true are in fact true, and that looks that look like this can't possibly happen. i had the great fortune of reading this book this week while i was trying to cover doing bug in troy davis for slate. can you imagine toggling back-and-forth between a fictional work about a possibly innocent man being sent to his death by a judicial system in the prosecutorial system that's just doesn't care? and watching it happen in front of your very eyes.

they mesh to the point that i literally could not remember from day to day as the week went on and i confess i didn't have to muchly but i could remember what i've read from the trial transcript and what i had read from the confession. i think that one of things that john does so well as he takes these extraordinary questions. what if you bought a state supreme court justice and turns them into things that seem like they are beyond all belief until you watch the court, the supreme court, here that very case. so it seems to me that problems have gotten huge and the real i think problem isn't the reader suspending disbelief. is trying to persuade readers that this may have just happen. i think that is the real problem. >> but it is true that we are living in a -- culture where people no longer feel shocked by anything. we live in a shock was, shot or of society. cnn very shortly within an hour

or so after the fall of the world trade center stop shoveling the fall of the two buildings, falling down. i don't know if you remember but the first hour you sod all the time. now you never see it any more. somebody must have called up cnn and said cut it out. the more you show this the more you make people desensitize and as these to be outrageous. needs to be atrocious. it can't be something as if it seems you've seen it in a film. i think the culture is made is much more cynical and much more you know willing to believe anything because we are really no longer shocked when we deal with say for instance john grisham's novels. i think it is true that you are, you are getting much closer to what morris dees said about conventional baird is about good, evil and orality plays and in that sense, the legal system with all do respect to my good

friend robert, does not, is not featured in its best way, that is a perfect setting for a cynical culture to look as dahlia said at the legal system as a machine, as the bogeyman, the ultimate bo radley. no good can come to it once you get an index number and want to become part of the system. you can never leave and that is the perception that we all have about the legal system and i think that it fits into a cynical culture where we don't believe in our institutions. we feel that everyone has failed us. god has failed us, government just failed us in our judges and lawyers as well. >> i am not sure i can add to that particular observation. but, i think each one, each panelist as broad a perspective that i believe is true. i think by the way david that's a good question that you asked.

in that we have changed as a society. we are never going to be the same, not just because of things like 9/11, but because everything is real time, and so you see the underbelly of a problem or a conflict immediately. there is no time to spend it. there is not a lot of time to wait and recast it or do some revisions -- revisionist history there. it is there. it's right in front of us and that think people are a lot more you say cynical, think it's realistic that this could happen. i think you can draw a very interesting scenario, set of facts, circumstances and people will say, that's possible. i mean i can analogize in my mind as a person that to something i saw her just read about on the internet. it's not that while. it's not that far out anymore as

it used to be. i mean, it was interesting, i saw an episode of the twilight zone, which was a sitcom that one time. that is not crazy. that was really, that's like somebody made that in a shoebox and put it out, but back then it was, are you kidding me? that is really fantastic and blood, the desensitization is true. we really are in a much more real and -- world that when things are real time, the way we analyze problems in the way we look at circumstances is so much different than when we first went "to kill a mockingbird" first came out and over the years, we have learned that anything is possible. just anything.

>> sometimes it's almost a race to the bottom because one lamented here in the publishing industry is what well thrilled even five years ago doesn't necessarily thrill people anymore and you are sort of constantly pressured to come up with more outlandish situations. a good story comes from elements that have always existed. and you tell it well. and you tell the story about people and situations that are under pressure and high stakes are there and it makes people care about what is going to happen to them but this gets into the next question. in both the confession and "to kill a mockingbird," there are issues of faith and how that connects with social justice. the minister and the confession and there is a line in the book and "to kill a "to kill a mocki" where atticus tells scout that he couldn't go to church and worship if he didn't defend tom robinson. so the question is what role does faith or should faith play

a role in lawyering for social justice? robert, we will start with you. >> adding starting in the middle. [laughter] >> i either give you too much time to think were no time at all. >> well, you know, we are a faith-based culture and i think it has a lot to do with how we view our role particularly i think lawyers. there is a very high bar, very high expectation that notwithstanding the opportunity to take advantage of the situation, that there are certain principles and ethical standards and that people have faith in the fact that you will act on those for the preservation of justice. and i think by and large that works. there are clearly exceptions to that rule and there are situations that have bad results as a result of prosecutors doing bad things, defense lawyers not

doing good things, judges being indifferent to do things that change the outcome and affect people's lives in very adverse ways sometimes, but when you look at bat in the totality and that is what i think the book does or the stories do, is they put you in a position of saying well yes there can be bad things that can happen, what principles that we stand for as a country and that we expect our lawyers to adhere to involve a degree of faith that once given, is usually transformed into a just decision, an opportunity i think for us to write wrong in this country. and by and large, you know i

must be the internal optimist eternal optimist on this panel but i think that is why the system has stayed intact as long as it has, vis-à-vis other systems around the world. >> you know i think it is beyond faith. goes to broader notions of morality. is not just that atticus tells scout that he can't go to church if he doesn't represent tom robinson. he tells her numbers of things. he said i can't parent you, can have you do your chores. you know i couldn't walk down the street. i wouldn't be able to function as the son of this day. i couldn't represent the town and the legislature. you know law students are taught to achieve the correct legal result. they are not taught to think about fundamental distinctions between right and wrong and courtesies and decencies. that is what atticus is about. he transcends what he learned in

law school. i guess he did go to the university of alabama law school, just assuming he went beyond what he taught him and he said no, i understand what the correct legal result is that it is also more important for me to do what is right and i think that idea is also what drives so much of the fiction, the john grisham characters when you think about one of my favorite books, the rainmaker. these are people that argue no tireless, energetic crusaders. morris dees real-life people who just do the right thing. they just do the right thing and if you don't teach law students to do that, it's beyond today. it's asking them to go beyond what the law is into just fight for the right things and those righteous crusading causes. that is why people, that is why these characters stand out and that is why real-life heroes like morris subsisting -- dees stands out.

>> i do think there is, get know it's interesting that atticus is a man of faith, is a man who goes to church and you know, in the confession we have i think one of the characters, the two characters who don't go to church are the lawyers and i do think it goes to, so now i am -- atheist lawyers what a nightmare but i do think it goes a little bit to this vague generational shift where you know i went to law school not that long ago and religion is something you don't talk about. religion has them completely couple from both the practice of law and the ways we think about the law and i think in ways as dave points out are very profound in terms of the effect they're having on how we practice but i do think it also goes to this idea that lawyers are outsiders now. that man of faith is the one who was the outsider who drags to the execution to witness it,

just the way scout witnesses it. that is how we are witnessing a through the outsider so i think it is that the linking of the lawyer and his or her faith. that's a really interesting shift generationally and i think it is layered over that, there is a whole lot of people who go to law school seeking the kind of moral outcome that they may have once sought from their faith. so they believe i am going to use this mechanical legal system to make the world good and fair and just and away they may have thought about religion and i think that same point is exactly right, which is the legal system cannot, today deliver you the kinds of outcomes you might seek from a religious system. ...

starting at the university of alabama when they tried to implement it and i said i am sure they didn't want me to be there when i said this but i read chapter for his john how can you say you love not and never seen him but you hit your fellow man who you have seen. i should know of of campus they took me off the job as a percentage next sunday but i have tried 50 death penalty

cases myself. it is a traumatic thing to me and even though a spend more time at the unitarian fellowship in note synagogue than i do at the baptist church appreciate my beginnings. i don't think i ever closed an argument in a case that i don't talk about the fact that the jury is sitting in the temple of justice. i use that idea your earlier stated in trying to get them to understand that is what the justice system is all about. no question that for the lawyers -- thank you for the compliment but get buried with a lot of other good people do and they have all the time to do it and release. my own employees, especially in the legal session we protect the ten commandments that alabama supreme court in the middle of

the night. and a lot of people, in my neighborhood thought i was doing something sacrilegious. i see the church i go to as southern poverty law center and go there every day and i watched this on sunday morning -- thank you. >> abacus finch was a lawyer from the south. many of john grisham's characters from the south. how is the lawyer particularly the trial lawyer perceived differently in the south than in other regions of the country? will start with you this time. >> because i'm from and northern jewish -- [laughter] [talking over each other] >> let's start with that guy. well. will, david.

look. i am saying this as a no. jewish-. the southern lawyer is a more flamboyant character. perry mason is humorless. we don't even know what he likes to week. he is in l.a.. does anyone realized that he is actually in l.a. and the car he drives is all pre l.a. law? but matlock is an interesting guy. there is a guy who tells you a lot. they're the kind of wisdom, folksiness, and one can see that in the dramatic presentation of the lawyer at work, up a corporate lawyer staring at boxes of governed material or securities regulation but the court room wisdom of how far as to relate to a jury, how to function as a human being as opposed to a card in a machine, cultural perception is that the

southern lawyer does it better. more interesting at it and more likable and more wheat, more like us. i think the presentation of being the lawyers is they are more mechanical, more thorough, less presenting their own personal style. and yet when you think about other aspects of great fiction like richard wright's native son who was born max, chicago portrait. you get a sense he represented communists. you don't get a sense -- matlock a hot dogs all they? something about the way we see southern lawyers that they are of watching the baseball game and more human to us and for that reason much more interesting characters.

[laughter] >> you did a good job. >> is best moment was in the south. >> that is my point. that is good. it has always been the case that if you are going to try a case in the south you better get somebody from that town to try it with you. it was always the case that the northern firms would come in which two partners, three associates and four paralegals and take up that half of the courtroom against the southern down home lawyer whose tar look wreck it had a supper on it and a few buttons missing off of the shirt and may be mismatched socks and the like and he just said i just am going to try to

do the best i can against the army that is sitting over there. and the jury got it all in that one statement. david against goliath. always a set up. it was always fascinating. it always warmed our hearts and it always gave us this idea of the underdog. the southern lawyer who is uncouth and very little sophistication had to go up against the wall street lawyers at the end of the day ended up with the verdict and always scratching their heads. how in the world does that happen? and when you saw of the jury listening to the lawyers, they were always when the southern lawyer was talking was talking about experiences they both had. and you would get this nodding

of the head. the no. lawyer would get up and say this is a very complex case that involves all these different things. heads would go the other way. i don't think so. we had a great -- this has been a great cultural experience in talking about the law and depicting lawyers as a great example that you raise when you do that about the differences of culture, professionally in our country and you would get the same legal education but whole different outlook. >> i grew up in the south. when i went into court with a name like mine had to go to court with another southerner with me because it did not count. i got used to being called mr. baldwin over and over by the judge. that is okay. >> two quick responses and i will try to make some quick. one reason we are so fascinated

by the southern lawyer is it is a portal into talking about race. it is an incredible god-given plot device to talk about these huge issues of tension between the law and mob values and what a community thinks about itself and what a community values. there is no better way to do that than to map it on to a southern lawyer and let it and spool and this is one of the reasons both these folks are so good at talking about things that all these years later we can't talk about but we can write about it if we have a southern lawyer to light the way. the other thing i am speaking as a jewish canadian on the panel. in my vast experience of living in charlottesville which is kind of the south, is not just north/solve the big city/small town.

this goes to what robert is saying that is so fundamental which is i think it is one of the reasons the concession is a powerful book. big city lawyers are different creatures that role lawyers. this is a book about a bunch of people who all know each other. they have known each other all their lives. they have repeated relationships with each other over and over and over and you will see in small towns that is how the bar functions. it is a very different thing than how the bar functions in big cities where you may or may not ever see the person across the course from you ever again. this is a really interesting and powerful way of talking about people who have relationships with each other. not just north/south. a lot more to do with communities where there are repeat players who have stereotypes about each other, longstanding trust issues and

doubt issues but friendships. that is really what lights up in this book. these are people who love each other and hate each other because we live on top of each other. >> if you watch watergate, a character named richard nixon but probably sam irving would stand out and most people's eyes as the hero of that book. i had a case in oregon and a lawyer and my co-counsel said they won't get your southern accent idea and i said let me try. and so we did the case and i think one of the things i picked up from other small town courtroom lawyers that are my heroes that i watched is that they are great storytellers and they will tell stories and those stories resonate all over the united states. not just in the deep south. this case was against the arian nations and i have a british

partner, richard:who went to the best law school in columbia and he also -- he says the same words i need to know and all the objections but during the case a lawyer for the area nations had beaten up innocent people going by to take a compound away from them in idaho. i got objected to every time i tried -- i just kept on going. the judge gave up. what ended up with a substantial verdict in the compound and the lawyers in the area nations walked in front of the courtroom saying that richard cohen is a great lawyer. all morris dees does is tell stories. you got it. i think storytelling is a big part of it. i can testify that it works all

over the united states. the matlock characters a bottle a coke in georgia. one of the greatest lawyers you will ever know. just a quick note if i might. first of all there is a move to close the courthouse door. when i go to speak in alabama, can't lock them in or get them out so -- i have done this for many years and always tell them you walk down the hall to the court room because that will probably be the only courtroom you get to see. when you get out of law school you will put on your best preparation people still get everything ready and stand in front and make your opening statement and say may it please the arbitrator. unfortunately that is the case. there is really the case. i do think that what we have got to fight to keep the court room door opened and there is a conspiracy on this country

especially in civil court to shut the courtroom door because corporate america does not trust the jury. i gave a talk. you don't need to go to law school. just watch the movies. i did that one year. what do you think of the movies? to killing mockingbird or the philadelphia story? how many came to law school to learn to represent people's rights? all the hands went up. what do you think of philadelphia story? great story. i said that trial -- you know why? when that lawyer signed up that law firm he was fighting a binding arbitration agreement. it is important to emphasize that theme and keep the idea we need two -- need to have a jury system. i do this all the time. do you know what the sixth amendment is? the right to jury trial. i said what about a seventh

amendment? some of you may know what it means. i'm sure you know what it means. this is the right to a jury trial in a civil case in any matter of $25 or more. it is lost on people in washington d.c.. thank you. >> among many other things that are lost. we have a couple minutes left. i would like to open up questions from the floor for the panel. anyone have any questions? there are lawyers in this room and we have no questions? >> mike please. >> talk about to kill mockingbird and confession, i was struck between the perspective of coming from a little girl and her friends and looking at their father being a hero and all and on the other side in the confession where you see procedure, practice and the

football player being railroaded by the way the police were able to lie to him and all these things but i am wondering i am thinking they got some process or not process but in the larger legal issues it seems like due process is being taken away from us. but the due process, drones killing people overseas and american citizens without due process. talk about that. >> that is a fundamental issue to the integrity, i think of our justice system's due process. i don't know that we can -- we are in a very complex fight for civil society in this world. i don't know that you can

whittle down to do process. so i don't want to do that with the drones and the like. but let me take your point and expand on it this much. i think you hit a nerve when you say we may be putting due process in jeopardy. because if you don't have that, then all of the other killers in the structure of the justice system fault and that is a critical element. it is linchpin. might even be the achilles' heel of the justice system. if you can't be assured that you are going to be treated fairly, with the rules we have set up and if there followed carefully by police and prosecutors and judges, you get to where you should go. may not like the outcome but you

will say i got a fair day in court and that is important. if there is any way anybody takes a short cut to avoid first getting that opportunity, then this system has -- >> that is the tricky thing about the constitution. the question is who does apply to? there are people in this room and certainly in this district who would say that the drone campaign is outside the context of the constitution just like guantanamo bay. that is a fundamental question we have and wrestling with the last few years which is is it only limited to these very sort of in ciller domestic settings of two american citizens, the kinds of things that have become legal thrillers or what happens in the wire world when nations decide to avenge crimes

committed against them. the reason we have the patriot act is because everything in it would be otherwise unconstitutional. that is why it is called the patriot back to. so everyone feels like you have to be a patriot to support it and if you don't what is wrong with you? the surveillance act. these are things that would otherwise be unconstitutional. we have taken steps to -- government has taken steps to find a way around the constitution. the more complicated issue is when they start to tell you it is constitutional. it would be better if they were honest and said this is unconstitutional which is why we have the patriot act. it would then be a more honest common-sense conversation and people could say the constitution doesn't work in areas of terrorism so we have

these things called patriot acts. most of the country to have a conversation about what is happening instead of the fiction that we always come port to a strict adherence to constitutional standards when we don't and it for the japanese in world war ii or people who had communist affiliations in the 1950s. we don't do it for pedophiles today. all sorts of people for whom the constitution doesn't apply. they are on a separate track to justice. question is is that justice? let's be honest about what we're doing. >> i would add your problem is compounded because it is not simply that we are losing our rights and access to due process but people don't know and don't care. underlying your question is this harder question. one of the bad things about it being a supreme court reporter is when you try to say i am setting higher on fire, just

changed the pleading standard. you get glassy i'd stairs. people go on screen saver. and that is a problem because it is not just mandatory arbitration. not just limitations and not just pleading standards but all these incredibly jargon laden ways in which americans are less and less free and they don't know it. i would just say one of the things fiction can do is make americans know it and care about it in ways that even i as a journalist feel like i am scraping to do watch the unsuccessfully every day. seems to me the real challenge is to convince americans that it really matters to them that there cellphone contract precludes them from going into a court room and i don't think we are doing a good job of just talking about those things.

>> i am going to pass on all of those issues. i only went to two years of law school and have to take a bar exam. two years undergraduate and four years out of it and couldn't get into alabama state. i am not much into that. are just want to say this parting shot more than anything. fiction is great. to kill a mockingbird is great. but john wrote the innocent man, just as great. it is the real life situation and i hope this committee will consider books that are non-fiction too. who would not be moved by my life in court? so many books and those probably more frequently written than fiction books that rise to the level of confession or to kill a mockingbird. >> yes? >> we live in an atmosphere where we talk about the united

states supreme court and the supreme court of many states but for trial lawyers like me that tried cases in different parts of the country i see the courts, the working courts where the working people go and all people have to go to try to resolve their disputes confronted with overwhelming issues. for lawyers is very expensive to practice law and technology has changed so dramatically. some lawbooks and common sense and some people he can talk to and investigators and things like that today that cost practicing law with you are a big or small firm is an enormous one as are the burdens that face our trial courts all over the country and one of the challenges for us as lawyers and to write about the law is to try to address the issues that are beginning to overwhelm the courts which is why go to arbitration and mediation and takes years and years to bring a case to trial and costs so much money most people can't afford it and businesses don't want to pay it so the economic issues

are pressing to the point where in the states i tried cases a major problem is people who have no lawyers and call them an enormous problem. the block represented by lawyers because they can't afford it and lawyers can't afford to give their practice to representing those people who may be can't afford it. it is an overall issue that i think we as a society need to confront. our courts are wonderful and the system is the best in the world but access to it has consistently gone more narrow because it is too expensive and judges are overwhelmed with the volume of litigation and the onset of litigants taking everything from the legal system and turning courts into dispute revolvers that don't have the time or resources for it. i think lawyers as a profession and those otherwise involved in writing about lawyers or the court system need to try to get

as much creative thought as possible to trying to make the court accessible to give access to the justice system which does function better than any other system in the world. >> anyone want to comment on that? >> i want to echo two things. one is when we look at how we fund the institutions that preserve the way of life we have, democracy there we are, very special in our society. you don't do that by shortchanging the courts. they are and should be the weakest branch of government because they should be non-political. to take advantage to put them at a disadvantage position where only those who can afford it have access to it is not american and not the way this country ought to think about

itself as preserving this democracy. the second thing, i think i am disagreeing with you a little bit. i think we have made the system inaccessible and we are at fault as lawyers and judges. there are things that are not that hard that people should be able to resolve without the courts and we ought to make that accessible to them in ways where mediation and other forms of dispute resolution help people take the burden off the court because it is not that complex. and empower them to understand and learn about their problems and help solve them with the guidance of professionals as opposed to put your life in the hands of professionals. we were changing. we are an evolving society and we have got to help and make sure citizens not only have access to justice but maintain

the independence of our judiciary and our profession. as critical elements to a system that holds others accountable because once you lose that, it is not going back and that is our job as guardians of the constitution and its trustees. >> anyone else? our panel time is over. i would like to thank the panel for participating today. thank you for coming out. [applause] >> do you want rebuttal time? >> worn out. >> i want to thank the panel. it was a great discussion. i should recognize rene grisham. thank you for being with us. i want to ask the alabama law school staff legal rebecca walden, this wonderful event. thank you for being with us food we won't have a reception

outside the doors. if you are exhausted now is the time for a glass of wine but we are adjourned. [applause] >> is there a nonfiction offer or book you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org or tweak as at twitter.com/booktv. >> visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs you see here on line. type the author or book title in the search bar on the upper left of the page and click search. you can share anything you see easily by clicking share and collect the format. booktv streams online 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org. now for the eleventh a