Why everyone interested in law should see Coyote vs Acme

(Some mild spoilers, caveat emptor.)

There are many good films and plays about the law. Many of these are about criminal law – and the criminal legal process readily lends itself to drama. There are some good films and plays about the civil law, usually about tort cases – negligence or defamation.

But there are few good films and plays about commercial law: the buying and selling of goods and services. It is often a dull subject, and dull subjects are hard to make into good drama.

We now have, however, a good – indeed great – film about commercial law. It is a film which everyone interested in law should see. It also happens to be a wonderful film generally, but it is one which also will be appreciated by lawyers and those who love them.

The film is Coyote vs Acme – a mixed live-animation movie in the tradition of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and as least as good.

Coyote is the client. He sees an advert for what can be called a ‘billboard lawyer’ and he decides to instruct the attorney for a case. The lawyer specialises in small product liability cases. The cases are genuine but not high-value and the defendant corporations do not contest the claims. There is thereby a steady run of settlements and thereby an equally steady revenue stream. On this basis the lawyer has a small practice employing a handful of people but is subject to very real financial constraints. At one point a staff member even wonders aloud about who will pay for the photocopying – perhaps the most plausible line of a dialogue ever in any film about law.

This is the sort of High Street (or Main Street) practice many lawyers and clients outside the heady world of the City (or Wall Street) will recognise. Such realistic depiction of a law firm would be a boon in any movie, let alone in an animated feature. And yet it is not the only note of realism in this movie.

Coyote’s envisaged case is not for a small claim. Instead, it is for a very big claim. He wants to claim in respect of all the devices manufactured by Acme he has used in his failed attempts to catch Road Runner. This intended scope means that it is the sort of claim which the billboard lawyer’s firm cannot properly handle. The practice is geared towards a succession of small claims that will settle before trial, and certainly not for a wide-ranging complex claim that would likely be contested to trial and then to appeal (and appeal).

The exact legal basis for the claim is not clear (at least on first viewing). It would appear that Coyote wants more than a mere refund for the costs of the kit. Indeed he seems to want damages – but damages for what? As he seems to walk away unharmed from each calamity a personal injury claim would be difficult to put together as a matter of evidence. Maybe he wants to recover for loss of a chance, in respect of not getting his desired dinner. Or perhaps it is for stress and upset. The basis of the claim is not explicit: he is the sort of client that wants to bring a claim and wants the lawyer to work out how such a claim is brought. Again, this is realistic.

Yet on the face of it, Coyote’s claim is weak. The various contraptions he has purchased were presumably not intended for catching Road Runners. If so, it would be hard to argue that they were not fit for purpose, if they were used for purpose for which they were not intended. Presumably the products are commercially off-the-shelf, but not for dropping off a cliff.

In this situation one would expect a reasonable law firm acting reasonably to decline the instruction. The case is not only not in accordance with the firm’s business plan, it would probably be inappropriate for a firm to take on a case for which it is simply not suited; the client is not clear as to the legal basis of the claim; and the claim itself looks weak.

Coyote, who is well used to setbacks, looks like he has encountered another disaster. He may as run headfirst into a law firm painted on the side of a mountain.

But – and this is where the movie shows a real insight into civil litigation – things change.

The firm somehow takes on the case. The defendant corporation makes an immediate and genuine offer to settle. This is not what many would expect in this circumstance. Acme’s reaction suggests there is more to this case.

And then Coyote does what many lawyers would dread. He refuses the generous settlement offer. He wants to go to trial. He appears to not want to be compensated for the wrongs committed against him, he wants his day in court.

Such a response presents a problem in most civil litigation. Almost all civil litigation ended in settlement: it is a form of structured deal-making and negotiation. Even clients who embark on civil litigation ‘as a matter of principle’ invariably settle. This is especially so in commercial cases, for commercial problems usually have commercial solutions.

The reason Coyote does not want to settle is that he has a collateral purpose in bringing this case (which this post will not spoil). Sometimes civil claims are brought as a means to a non-financial end, and this is one of those cases. But this stubbornness then undermines Coyote’s law firm. Taking on such a claim was already a huge risk: turning down a lucrative settlement is a catastrophe.

But then we come to the one thing on which almost all civil cases ultimately turn: evidence. One reason why most civil claims settle is that before trial that almost all the evidence is shared at an earlier stage, and the lawyers on both sides can advise their clients accordingly. Little usually can still turn on witness evidence at trial, however impressive the cross-examinations. Evidence and its disclosure before trial is key and usually determinative.

And evidence emerges that may transform Coyote’s case from what seems a weak claim to a strong claim. This evidence explains the corporation’s generous offer to settle. It also explains why the corporation changes approach and adopts aggressive litigation tactics. Acme’s general counsel comes under executive pressure to make this problem go away. The bully is bullied. Coyote and his lawyers are on to something.

There is a trial and post-trial proceedings – and these will please those who like courtroom drama. But the pleasure of this film is showing what happens up to and outside those proceedings, for what happens outside of the courtroom is the real stuff of civil litigation. And Coyote v Acme, in a cartoon world, captures the true nature of civil litigation wonderfully.

Some films can be appreciated on many levels. Everyone who is interested in law will have their favourites. Coyote v Acme – which almost was not released for commercial reasons – should be a favourite for anyone interested in the practicalities of bringing and defending civil legal cases. It is not only criminal lawyers who can have all the fun.