The King of Torts by John Grisham

The King of Torts by John Grisham

Question 1: Ethical Issues

There are several ethical issues revealed in Graham’s story. They include theft, negligence to consult his employees and clients, causation, bribery, and insider trading. He also lacked virtue ethics because he created competition with his previous working environment.

Question 2: How Clay’s Fortune Corrupted His Mind

Clay hesitated to visit families at first but after considering the 15 million dollars he had, he started his journey. He hardly continued his excitement for the newfound fortune since he constantly thought about Vanhorn’s beliefs. As a result, he bought failed company stocks and hiring the best lawyers in town. Clay not only tainted his reputation but also had lesser money in the end.

Question 3: The Role of Stock Market

            Clay reaped benefits after buying failed stock. Once he tested the wealth derived from the stock, he became greedy and wanted more. In an ethical sense, his attainment of wealth ensured that he could sustain the unethical behavior. On the other hand, his downfall came after he recklessly spent the resources in legal malpractices. Further, the FBI’s investigation revealed his unscrupulous behavior, thus resulting in a crackdown. Notably, Clay’s conscience was clear when he ‘sold short’. He understood that that selling shorts earned him wealth in settlements. However, he could not do it more than once because he lacked adequate knowledge on a stock investment. Instead, he guaranteed the safety of his resources by storing the money in offshore accounts.

4. How Clay Went Wrong

Clay went wrong immediately after reading articles about him. Journals and magazines praised him abundantly for his work, hence making him overconfident. Clay could have prevented his downfall had he bought the Tequila Watson case. If this was the case, he would not damage his reputation. The chief cause of his problems was his unending greed for wealth. Consequently, he lost more money than he made through excessive spending.

5.  Mooneyham and Out-of-Court Settlement

Mooneyham was unwilling to settle the case out of court to avoid the resultant destructions. Besides, he is convinced that through court trials, he could get more money in settlements. His assumption was reasonable, especially given that Clay was the only lawyer that prosecuted Maxil. Therefore, anyone that had Mooneyhamam as a partner had a legal advantage.

6. Why Jury Found Favor in Goffman

Clay’s legal malpractices ensured jury’s favor of Goffman. Particularly, Goffman won the case because of punitive damages, wrongful client settlement and other legal atrocities committed.

7. Paulette and Rodney’s Loyalty to Clay

Both Rodney and Paulette were loyal to Clay because of his proposition of a lifetime opportunity. Clay gave them a chance to better their lives through ill-gotten wealth. In addition, the duo highly regarded their boss as a leader, given that they formed part of an original group.

8. Lessons from Court Litigation and Settlements

            I have learnt that settling for a quick court case is an ill-informed decision. Further, greed and short selling can signal the end of a career as it did in Clay’s case.

9. Member of the Class Action

Often all the members of a class action fair equally because each would have common factual and legal issues. After all, it is impractical for each person to launch a separate claim.

10. A Lesson from ‘Air-Tight’ Contracts

            Air-tight contracts can be beneficial or helpless. For instance, there is no room for error because all loopholes are sealed. Therefore, the process will be smoother and uncharacterized by court fights. Contrastingly, in the case where one party is a plaintiff, it will be extremely hard for the court to cancel the contract unless there was no meeting of minds. Still, the defendant will benefit from lawsuit protection.