David Fincher appears to be one of the most prominent contemporary film directors, and Zodiac is among his works too. It is a detective produced following the namesake non-fiction book of Robert Graysmith, published in 1986, and released in 2007. The film is based on a true story, narrating the investigation of the case of a serial killer, who is widely known under the nickname ‘Zodiac’. He committed a range of murders in San Francisco during twelve years, namely at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. While taking illegal actions, he sent his messages to the police via publishing them in newspapers. Although the film is claimed to be as much close to the real sequence of events as possible, there are some fabrications, which cause ethical concerns. This way, the purpose of this paper is to overview these ethical issues, which arise in the film, apply appropriate ethical codes, and compare them to a real-life case.
One ethical problem, which appears after watching Zodiac, regards the professional conduct of a lawyer. On October 22, 1969, a person, who named himself Zodiac called the police and required a well-known Boston attorney F. Lee Bailey to visit a local TV show. The caller also added that he could agree on a conversation with San Francisco lawyer Melvin Belli. As a result, Melvin Belli appeared on the aforementioned TV program with Jim Dunbar in the role of a presenter. Therefore, a conversation between Zodiac and the lawyer happened during one of the series right in front of a broad audience. It is worthy to note that the film version adds some details to this satiation, which are highly likely to conflict with ethic codes. It is demonstrated that Melvin Belli was required to maintain the conversation with the killer while the police were attempting to trace the call. Although the scene appears to be quite accurate to the real sequence of events, the ethics of the lawyer’s conduct was fabricated to some extent.
Melvin Belli promises Zodiac that his call was not traced by the police officers, though it did not match the reality. This claim was opposed to the lawyers’ mission defined by the police, so Melvin Belli told lies. Therefore, he violated Aba Model Rules, which implies a prohibition against lying by a lawyer. In addition, he did it in front of a large audience, which makes this behavior even more critical. The attempt to clarify the identity of the killer by tracing the call could considerably violate the right of the supposed to have appropriate protection and respect his rights. Moreover, it could lead to declining the respectiveness and credibility of the lawyers’ profession, as people could lose their trust in them in case they saw that a lawyer could lie for completing some purposes.
Such conduct may be explained from the perspective of utilitarianism theory, which involves the preference of the minor offense in case it is highly likely to benefit a significant number of people. It was a sufficient attempt to reveal the criminal, who threatens innocent people and has already committed illegal actions, and prevent him from further murders. This way, utilitarianism may justify this conduct and admit its helpfulness in that situation.
Similar situations, which are described above, occasionally happen in real life. For instance, in 2019, an appeal court in New York revealed that an estate lawyer was “lying to a partner after failing to follow his instructions regarding the filing of two appellate briefs” (Weiss, 2018, para. 1). It is evident that there are significant differences in these cases, the latter regards the situation, which can be considered less important than multiple murders by a cruel and unknown criminal, who cannot be identified. Furthermore, Melvin Belli was prompted by the purpose to receive some additional information on the killer and benefit the entire society, and the second lawyer could not confess his mistake. Despite these differences, the possible consequences are negative and considerable in both situations. This conduct is highly likely to damage the status of all the lawyers and the entire industry.
Zodiac can have some connections to some topics, which were discussed in the course, which are breaking news and undercover reporting. Therefore, having received sufficient knowledge while discussing, I can propose another behavior model in the aforementioned case. From my perspective, it would be better to establish a conversation between a police officer or a journalist and the killer instead of a lawyer. Such a decision would prevent a speaker from the necessity to maintain the credibility of the profession, which is connected with honesty. Another solution could be sticking to the Aba Model Rules until the end of the conversation. There is a likelihood that the criminal can be confused by such striking truth and perceive it as a deception. Moreover, he guessed that the police were attempting to trace the call. Although these proposals are not tricky, they do not cause ethical concerns and maintain the status of lawyers in general.
Reference
Weiss, D. C. (2019). Lawyer suspended for lying about case filings, creating fake brief to back up his account. Abajournal. Web.