Augustine Ignatius V. Ong Vaño Block 2C Legal Ethics Assignment: Bridge of Spies Reflection Paper
April 7, 2017
Bridge of Spies was Hollywood’s Hollywood’s take on a very important part of history that dealt with the realities of war such as espionage, imprisonment, torture and execution. However, the movie portrayed those themes not through the eyes of a soldier, but those of a lawyer. It was not a war for blood, but for the recognition of basic civil and human rights. It was a war waged in the courts of law and negotiations behind closed doors rather than out in the open battlefield. It showed a darker side of the legal profession and that of the justice system. However, it also demonstrated that one man’s conviction to uphold his sense of duty can spell the difference between life and death, as well as the freedom and imprisonment, of another human being. Our protagonist, the lawyer James Donovan had the monumental task of defending and handling the case of Rudolf Abel, an alleged Soviet Spy, during the height of the Cold War. Donovan was actually asked to take on Abel’s case because of his reputation and good standing as a lawyer. He could have declined but instead he chose to take on the case, knowing fully well the consequences of accepting the case. I believe that Donovan’s mere acceptance of Abel’s case was already an early indication of his character as a lawyer. He would not turn down a person in need. During his preparations for trial and even at the actual trial, Donovan defended Abel to the best of his ability even when w hen they had h ad a clearly biased judge jud ge and all the odds od ds were against them. He questioned everything and took every opportunity to defend his client as evidenced by the fact that he appealed his case all the way up to the Supreme Court. This led to Donovan’s colleagues and family reprimanding him for doing his job too well. Donovan’s work eventually resulted in Abel escaping the death penalty, much to the an ger of the American populace. In multiple scenes, Donovan was, in one form or another, asked why he chose to defend this Soviet spy who was public enemy number one. Even Abel in the latter part of the film mentioned to Donovan Donov an that he never asked him if he was actually a spy. Donovan reaffirmed his position that it did not matter whether Abel was a spy or not because he was still his client and deserved to be defended by any and all the legal means necessary. This posed a dilemma for Donovan who would have had to choose between loyalty to his country and loyalty to his client. Section 20(a) of Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court provide that it is the duty of an attorney to maintain allegiance to the Republic and to support its constitution. On the other hand, the paragraph (i) of the same section provides that it is also his duty, “in the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.” Donovan law.” Donovan chose the latter and he got a lot of hate for it as he was seen as a traitor. But in
doing so, Donovan not only upheld his duty to his client but also to the constitution and the law by fighting against a corrupt justice system. Although the public never saw it that way. The judgment was eventually rendered against Abel, convicting him of being a Soviet spy. However, Donovan was able to convince the judge to not mete out the death penalty and instead Abel was given the penalty of 30 years imprisonment. This was a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. Naturally, the decision of the judge drew the ire of the American people. It proved to be the right move as seen later on in the film, as Abel was used as a bargaining chip for the freedom of a captured US solider named Francis Powers. After the resolution of Abel’s case, Donovan was asked by the US government to handle negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union for the exchange of Abel and Powers. Unsurprisingly, Donovan accepted the role of middleman for the two nations. He knew it meant the freedom of a fellow American as well as the freedom of his client Abel. During the negotiations, Donovan heard that an American student, Frederic Pryor, was also being held captive by the East Germans. Without hesitation, Donovan knew he had to do something to ensure bring home both Powers and Pryor. The tactics employed by Donovan to broker the 2-for-1 exchange was shrewd but was in no way illegal or offensive to the opposing parties. However, it was not the tactics employed, but the risk that came with it that put Donovan in conflict with the US government. Th e latter explicitly told Donovan that Powers was the priority and, in fact, pleaded with Donovan to disregard Pryor in the negotiations. However, due to some sense of duty, Donovan still pursued the negotiations with the East Germans to free Pryor, much to the chagrin of Hoffman, the CIA agent who accompanied Donovan. Clearly, Donovan’s actions were for a noble cause which was to free both American citizens. But the question would be at what cost? It seemed to me that Hoffman was bound and blinded by his duty to the government when he told Donovan to forget about Pryor, but he still had a point that Donovan might be pushing his luck and could prejudice the original exchange between Abel and Powers. After all, Abel was his original client and Donovan took it upon himself to give Abel his freedom back. The CPR provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of the client. At the same time, the CPR provides that a lawyer should not refuse his services to the needy. In this case, Pryor was defenseless and needy party, while Abel was Donovan’s client. Thus, Donovan had to struggle between defending both his client and a person in need. Fortunately, his unrelenting character was able to find a way to make the deal work. I want to emphasize that as all of the negotiations were taking place, Donovan’s wife and kids were in the dark about what he was doing. Donovan chose to keep his work a secret from his family, thinking that it would be better and safer for them. I find it interesting to ponder on the mindset of Donovan when he decided to keep his work as a middleman un der wraps not just to his family but the whole country did not even know until after everything had been settle. While there
is no particular provision in legal ethics that compels a lawyer to be honest with his family, there is still that matter of fidelity that every husband owes his wife. Surely it was a struggle for Donovan to conceal his work from his family, especially wh en his work puts his life at risk. He had to lie to his wife, Mary, about his travels to Europe. Clearly, Donovan did this to protect his family after prior events, such as the shooting at their home, which made it clear that Donovan’s work was affecting the safety of his family. At the same time, perhaps Donovan also h ad to conceal his work for the welfare of his client, Abel. Section 20(e) of Rule 138-A provides that it is the duty of an attorney to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his clients. It was clear that Donovan did not do what he did for money, fame or glory. He did it because he knew it was the right thing to do. Throughout the film, Donovan faced numerous roadblocks which tested his resolve to do what he felt was right. There were many instances where Donovan could have turned the other way and took the easy way out, but his sense of duty towards his client, his country and to the law allowed him to persevere despite having the odds stacked against him. He was a man of principle who would not settle for anything less than what is just, in contrast to the other characters in film such as Donovan’s associate who introduced him to the case, the biased judge who clearly disregarded the rights of the accused, and agent Hoffman who was more interested in getting the job done than trying to save a life. The film made it clear that nobody was on Donovan’s side which emphasized even more his unwavering attitude to fulfill his duties to both client and country without compromising on his ethical beliefs.
