MEDIA REVIEWS

Lawyer: My Trials and Jubilations

By JOE JAMAIL
with MICKEY HERSKOWITZ
Eakin Press
2003, 270 pages, $24.95

Reviewed by ROBERT W. HIGGASON

Joseph Dahr Jamail, Jr., was born in Houston in 1925 and raised in a strict Catholic home, attending Catholic schools. As a Catholic in a family of Lebanese immigrants, he was different from other neighborhood boys and was a target for bullies, so he learned to fight back. While Catholic school taught him the virtue of telling the truth, he also developed a more rebellious bent than his siblings. Years later his mother described him as “The kind of little boy I wouldn’t let my other children play with.”
After St. Thomas High School, he went to the University of Texas to major in pre-med, failed his first semester, dropped out and enlisted in the Marines. He was arrested for going AWOL after boot camp, served time in the brig, finished basic training and was shipped out to the War in the Pacific. After 27 months overseas, Jamail returned to complete his degree at UT and continued in law school there.
Before Jamail finished law school, he passed the bar and filed suit against Pearl Brewing Company, alleging that Pearl made a defective beer bottle that had caused injury to his client’s thumb. He settled the case favorably for his client, returned to classes and completed his degree.
Three of Jamail’s cases led to nationwide product recalls. In 1977, Austin attorney John Coates was deer hunting with his 14-year-old son, Will, who was using a Remington Mohawk 600 rifle. Will placed the rifle on safety, returned to the car and began the standard procedure for unloading the gun. The rifle discharged into his father’s back, leaving Coates paralyzed. Jamail proved that Remington had manufactured the rifle with a defective safety mechanism that caused the gun to discharge accidentally in some circumstances. Remington settled for $6.8 million and agreed to recall all model Mohawk 600 rifles.
In 1984, Renee Webster, a 16-year-old Houston girl, was riding a Honda three-wheeled all-terrain cycle on the family’s farm when it flipped and threw her, broke her neck and left her a quadriplegic. Jamail proved the ATC was so unstable that it was inherently dangerous and that Honda’s advertising encouraged young people to ride it in an unsafe manner. The jury awarded over $16 million, Honda’s first loss in over 100 cases with the ATC, and Honda was forced to take it off the market.
The prescription drug Parlodel, manufactured by Sandoz Pharmaceutical Company, had been routinely ordered for women who had just given birth and chosen not to breast feed. Other pharmaceutical companies manufactured similar drugs. Sandoz and the Food and Drug Administration had received complaints that the drug caused strokes in some women, and the FDA asked manufacturers to take the de-lactation drugs off the market. Other manufacturers complied, but Sandoz refused. In 1993, Clarissa Trawick suffered a severe stroke that prevented her from being able to care for her baby or even herself. Parlodel was recalled, and the case settled for millions.
The Pennzoil v. Texaco case is so well-known that it need not be described here. It is discussed extensively in the book, and the appendix contains a transcript of Jamail’s summation. The story reads the way Jamail told it in court–as a morality tale about the value of a man’s word and those who would interfere with it.
Lawyer is replete with anecdotes and with photos of Jamail with friends and family. It is engaging and fun to read, offering a mix of poignant tales and entertaining stories. The image in this book is that of a man who has lived with passion and with happiness in his work. The subtitle must have been a natural.

Robert W. Higgason is a solo practitioner whose work focuses on appellate matters. He is the Media Reviews Editor and a long-time member of The Houston Lawyer editorial board.




The Billionaire Everyman: An Interview with Joe Jamail


By ROBERT W. HIGGASON

Legendary Texas trial lawyer Joe Jamail has just released his autobiography, Lawyer: My Trials and Jubilations, written with Mickey Herskowitz. He spoke with me about the book, his life, and his extraordinary career, and shared some thoughts about the practice of law.
Jamail’s admitted “giant ego” might be expected from someone who brought in the largest jury verdict in history ($11.12 billion for Pennzoil against Texaco) and is listed in the top half of the Forbes 400 (No. 195 with $1.2 billion). More surprising, perhaps, is the fact that Jamail is very personable, approachable, gracious, and in some ways, rather modest. His law firm occupies some of the most expensive penthouse office space in Houston, yet he brings his lunch to work in a brown paper bag. In person, he conveys the honest earthiness of the common man.
Jamail’s parents gave him a fundamental sense of security and taught him love and respect for the individual. “Those are things I learned from Mom and Dad. That’s what shapes me,” he says. He was also shaped by a youthful tendency to fight back against bullies, which carried over into fighting on behalf of others. Throughout his career, Jamail has been an ardent advocate for those who have been injured.
His “everyman” quality has long been important to Jamail’s practice, not only in the more obvious area of jury persuasion, but also in the initial consultation with a prospective client. A lawyer’s personality is a critical factor in gaining the client’s trust so that the client will tell him everything that might come to bear upon the lawyer’s evaluation of the case.
Although best known for the Pennzoil verdict, Jamail says he would most like to be remembered for bringing about the national recall of three defective products that caused catastrophic injuries to individuals: Honda’s three-wheeled all-terrain cycle, the prescription drug Parlodel, and the Remington Mohawk 600 rifle.
Jamail is a true believer in juries, and he never talks down to them. “I talk to jurors on the highest level I can,” he says. Does his respect for juries suggest that he thinks they always get it right? “Most of the time they do–overwhelmingly most of the time–if the lawyers have properly presented the case,” he says. He believes that lawyers must diligently protect a client’s constitutional right to bring her case before a jury, and that juries can be trusted to be reasonable and reach correct conclusions when the lawyers do their jobs well. “There are no runaway juries,” says Jamail. “If that were to happen, then the judge or an appellate court would take [the excessive award] away.”
Few would be surprised that Jamail has strong opinions on the movement for tort reform and the accompanying publicity about “frivolous” lawsuits. “Tort reform? That’s a misnomer. It’s really ‘tort deform.’” He considers the “tort reform” movement to be a danger to the independence of both the bar and the judiciary. “If they were to succeed, they would close the courthouse to injured people,” he says. Jamail deals with the effects of such publicity during voir dire. If prospective jurors acknowledge that it “has altered their thinking, they’re gone for cause.”
Jamail speaks to law schools frequently and has also been asked to speak to defense firms. His message to defense lawyers is the same as to the plaintiffs’ bar: “Be true to yourself and to the profession. The oath tells you what to do. Never denigrate the profession.” He continues, “Don’t make it a business. Don’t be in it just for the money. Become involved with your client. You should care about your client. If you can’t do that, then go be a proctologist.”
He exhorts attorneys on both sides of the docket to become engaged with their clients. “Law schools teach you that you shouldn’t get emotionally involved with your clients. But your client is not a lump of coal. He’s a person. I can’t be emotionally detached from my client,” Jamail says. He can fulfill his role as an advocate only if he truly believes in the client and his position. “If you don’t believe in your case, don’t go over there [to the courthouse] with it. Juries can see through that,” says Jamail.
To be an effective advocate with a jury, a lawyer must draw upon resources that come from far beyond the law school curriculum. He believes that “law school doesn’t teach you how to be a lawyer.” Instead, he says, law schools teach lawyers to be analytical and to remain emotionally detached, qualities that have a role in objectively evaluating strengths and weaknesses of a case. But advocacy requires much more. The lawyer has to bring himself, as a whole person, into the process. “There’s a reason law schools require [applicants to have] a college degree,” he says. He explains that a college background provides lawyers with a broader understanding of people and of the world, enabling lawyers to better understand clients and to better communicate with juries.
Another factor is the lawyer’s lifelong accumulation of personal relationships, but especially close family relationships. Parents and siblings contribute to one’s character and personality and also affect the way lawyers engage in the practice of law. “Family relationships make you a better lawyer,” he says. But family relationships, he is quick to acknowledge, are most important for their intrinsic value. Despite his success, wealth and fame, Jamail says the most important thing in his life today is his family. His autobiography, which he would not have written without the prodding of his sons, offers still further insight into this legendary lawyer and remarkable man.

Robert W. Higgason is a solo practitioner whose work focuses on appellate matters. He is the
Media Reviews Editor and a long-time member of The Houston Lawyer editorial board.

< BACK TO TOP >