Lisa Scottoline introduces her readers to Mary DiNunzio, a lawyer who attempts to look for partnership in one of the top law firms in Philadelphia. All works well for her and she manages to replace Martin after losing a recent case for Mitsuko, except that she has a stalker. She receives strange calls and notices at her workplace from an anonymous source. She also realizes that someone, driving a black car, is actually stalking her including her residential place. This scares Mary who begins to suspect all her workmates except Brent Polk who is her secretary and closest confidant. When Polk is killed by the same stalker, Mary notifies the detective to check if there are similarities between the death and that of her husband Mike. Meanwhile, Mary meets his ex-boyfriend, Ned Waters, whom she begins to have an affair. Later, she uncovers about Ned’s wife-beating father who had been interfering with her case files; she decides to end her relationship with Ned believing that he is the stalker. She, however, fails to act on her suspicion until it’s too late to actually prove who the culprit is.
An elaborate case covered in the novel is that of Hart vs. Harbison. After replacing Martin, Mary is assigned the case by his boss, Mr. Berkowitz. Hart is represented by his son, Hank, who claims that Harbison Company had mistreated his father by actually firing him based on age discrimination. He explains that he had worked for the company for over thirty years and had received many promotions often until recently. Apart from being fired abruptly, they did not give him any form of compensation not minding that he had a family. Mary who had represented Harbison is informed that Hart was a rude man who began to mistreat workers. He did not respect the young employees whom he abused and treated unjustly, and as a result was fired. Through the court process, Mary attempts to win the case in order to retain her partnership.
The case starts with a hearing. Mary goes to the Chambers of the district court to meet the judge, Honorable Morton, Weinstein who Judy, Mary’s colleague and friend, refers to as Einstein. Mary is the representative of Harbison while Hunk represents his father. Since he represents the plaintiff, he is the first to read his case to the judge. He narrates that his father has been the accountant of the company and has experienced series of promotions because of his hard work. Since 1982, he had been joined the management department and was promoted the chief financial officer in 1988. However, after turning 65, the CEO, Mr. Stapleton, told him to retire as a result of age discrimination. This resulted in him being demoted rather than getting a promotion, an evident violation of Hart’s right as an employee. Mary, as the defendant, suggests that the plaintiff had been found to have abrasive management style as “he was verbally abusive to other employees” (p. 67). The judge then asked if both parties were ready to settle the case outside the court, but Mary refuted. Thus, the meeting was adjourned for trial in “July thirteenth.” s
Before the trial day, the two sides of the case conduct a discovery. At this stage, both parties are expected to obtain evidence from each other including request for interrogatory answers, production of proof, and relevant documents. Discovery usually takes any of the three forms: request for admission and interrogatories, production of documents, and depositions. In the case, Hunk notifies Mary that his client had already been served with the interrogatories. He states, “You know, the discovery. Interrogatories and document requests. We answered them two weeks ago. You’ve seen them, haven’t you?” (Scottoline 287). Mary recalls that this process involves assessing the written questions that the plaintiff would use and the papers he was to produce. This had been followed by a deposition when both parties tell their side of the story. Therefore, Mary asks Hart questions, but he continuously denies any claim insinuating that he ever engaged in any rude behavior towards other employees.
Interestingly the case does not reach the trial stage after Mary receives a call from “Mrs. Lu Ann.” The caller asks Mary to tell Hart not to mention her name in the proceedings as this would complicate her life. She states, “Did he say anything about me? ’Cause if he does, you tell them I said it’s not true!” (Scottoline 293). From the call conversation, Pete and Mary believe that Hart was actually involved in misconduct by harassing Lu Ann. Back at the disposition chamber, Mary uses the new information to question Hart; he admits that he had been warned against harassing employees while on a golf course. However, be denies that any of the accusation was true; since Mary considers that Lu Ann is the evidence she might be looking for, Hart still persistently denies the charges. Mary, therefore, threatens to head to the trial process but this does not take place. With sufficient evidence, the Hart vs. Harbison case is concluded with the affirmation that Hart was actually guilty of harassing is fellow employees and had already been given a warning.
In the case highlighted, there are various ethical issues observed. First, during the discovery stage of the case, only one party had been served with the notice of interrogatories. She only learns that the process had been completed when they meet during the deposition. This is a breach of equal representation; both parties involved in the case have the right to information and the right to be treated equally. Another identified ethical issue is the fact that someone had tampered with Mary’s files. Information of a case should always be kept confidential and may only be accessed by the counsel dealing with the case. This is evident when Mary asks Hunk, “But why are the papers missing from the file in the first place? Who did this to me? “Who handled this case at Masterson, Hank?” (Scottolin 288). Interference with a case would mean that evidence of the case or information is manipulated to favor either the plaintiff or the defendant. In this case, however, it was fortunate that Mary’s decision was based on the “strange” witness whom she never knew initially.
In summary, the case of Hart vs. Harbison is an example of a court case that undergoes a formal procedure. The plaintiff, Mr. Hart, has filed for a law suit against his former employer, the Harbison’s, for allegedly demoting him based on age discrimination. The defendant, on the other hand, holds that it was Mr. Hart who was harassing the employees and as a result was demoted. To prepare for the case, the counsel (mary) and the plaintiff’s lawyer, Hunk, go for discovery at the judge’s chamber. They highlight the judge of the information then schedule for the ruling. However, they meet for deposition where Mary uncovers the truth; she realizes that Hart is actually guilty. It is very unfortunate that the lawyer herself continues to proceed with the threats of the mystery stalker.
Work Cited
Scottoline, Lisa. Everywhere that Mary Went. Vol. 1. Harper Collins, 2009.
