Part I: The Problem

I'm with you on all points, Beans. I find it problematic that they hold the inquest in the parlor of the deceased man's home (although this may have been popular practice), and the lawyer has no interest in being a part of the inquest or asking any questions. He also doesn't question any of his multiple clients.

Even more disconcerting - the lawyer seems only to be interested in finding out if the women are guilty, where if he were a real lawyer, it wouldn't matter (he is required to represent them to the best of his ability...a fact that seems to have no consequence, since he doesn't do any work on their case).

I have a lot of problems with this book, and I'm the one who picked it. I'll list them in another post. I promise, however, that I won't devote a section to complaining about a book every time we read one.

In the first part of the novel we are introduced to the characters, our narrator a young lawyer who accidentally finds himself mixed up in the affair of his firm's client's murder, our two Mistresses Leavenworth, the beautiful Mary and the not as beautiful, but apparently more captivating (and incidentally animated) Eleanore and finally the detective, the likable and seemingly competent (but not in a Sherlock Holmes way), Mr. Gryce.

Within the first few pages, we meet these people and find ourselves an observer to some sort of inquisition. The body has been found, the servants and Mistresses gathered and a procedural questioning ensues. Do you know why Law & Order skips over about 90% of legal procedure, including Voir Dire, Motions, Filing, etc? Because it's VERY boring. I wish to submit the transcription of the inquisition as People's 1, your Honor.

I did read that this book was an excellent example of the uses of circumstantial evidence to build a case, and also how circumstantial evidence inherently fails in the ensuring justice department, but I guess the book isn't entirely accurate, or concerned with the ethical responsibilities of an attorney to his client?

I'm not sure what the fiduciary responsibility between Client and Attorney would have amounted to over 100 years ago, but I am fairly certain that you cannot simultaneously represent your client's (estate's) interests, the benefactress to your client's estate, the party who is most likely to dispute the will (which is another point for another day) and the person most likely to be charged with murdering your client. There has to be at least one conflict of interest there abouts (I'm even mentioning the dozens or so, if the Firm was made trustee/executor of the will).

Additionally, while I know that courtroom procedure has changed a number of times over the years, the Fifth Amendment, (no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") has been pretty consistent, so I found it strange that the witnesses were questioned so formally, without a lawyer present. (Obviously it wasn't until the 50's that, by law the police were required to make you aware of this right via Miranda, but still...)

Additionally, I was unsure why, if the narrator was requested to attend the inquest, as the ladies' counsel, he did not speak up or request some time to discuss circumstances with his clients. Obviously, from the very close scrutiny given Miss Eleanore Leavenworth's testimony, we will learn that she played some part in the death of her uncle (although I doubt very much he died at her hand) and I'm also sure that our narrator is going to compromise his position as her lawyer and foolishly fall in love with her.

I generally do like books involving lawyers, but this is the first book I've read where the lawyer is actually involved in his capacity as a lawyer, but doesn't seem to have the vaguest idea what a lawyer would be called on to do in such a situation. Hopefully, he'll get himself a criminal procedure statute and learn something!

I'm so sorry, Amanda. Next book, I won't say a WORD!