A Civil Action

Jan Schlichtmann is awakened by a phone call at 8:30 in the morning. He has been dreaming about a young woman who works in an accounting firm, whom he has seen every day for the last five months. She is a juror. When they see each other, they break eye contact immediately, not wanting to do anything inappropriate in regard to the case in which they are both involved.

The phone call is from an officer at Baybank South Shore, which granted Schlichtmann an auto loan for a Porsche two years earlier. He has not been able to make a payment for months. The bank intends to repossess the car if he cannot make the full payment immediately. Schlichtmann tells them to call a man named Gordon and gives them a phone number.

Twenty minutes later, a sheriff calls to take possession of the vehicle. When he arrives, Jan takes him to a parking garage where the Porsche is parked. It is covered with dust. In the back are several boxes of files pertaining to the case Anne Anderson, et al., v. W.R. Grace & Co., et al. When the sheriff asks, Jan says that yes, he is involved in the case and awaits a verdict on Monday. The jurors have been deliberating for a week. The sheriff says that he has seen the defendant, Anne Anderson, on the television news program 60 Minutes.

Two days later, on Monday, Jan sits outside the courtroom, pondering the extent of his debt. He has no money and has invested everything in this case for the past five years. He worries that if he does not win this case, he will lose all of his ambition and confidence. This matters far more to him than the money he has lost and may lose yet. The jurors enter and pass by without looking at him. Then he is alone, waiting to be summoned into the courtroom.

Woburn is a city of 36,000, 12 miles north of Boston. Its first commercial industry was tanning, and today it sometimes goes by the nickname of Tan City. Two wells, G and H, are the town’s main water supply and have been contaminated since the 1960s. The residents have never succeeded in having the wells permanently shut down, though they petitioned the local and state governments for over a decade.

Jimmy Anderson is three years old when he is diagnosed with leukemia. His mother, Anne Anderson, is the defendant in Jan Schlichtmann’s case. Early in Jimmy’s treatment, Anne learns that there are several other children within three blocks of them who also have leukemia. Anne suspects that the town’s water source may be the cause, but her husband, Charles, dismisses her claim as paranoia.

The town’s pastor, Reverend Bryce Young of Trinity Episcopal Church, knows all the families whose children are suffering from leukemia and begins compiling information on their cases. He is prompted by an article titled “Lagoon of Arsenic Discovered in N. Woburn” that appears in the Woburn Daily Times on September 10, 1979. Two months earlier, a half-buried lagoon contaminated with arsenic, lead, chromium, and other heavy metals was uncovered by a construction company working at the former site of the Merrimack Chemical Company, which produced arsenic-based insecticides. Wells G and H are only one mile away.

The same year, the Woburn police investigate the appearance of 184 barrels of industrial waste on a piece of vacant land in northeast Woburn. As a result, Wells G and H, only a half mile away, are closed down. They are highly contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE), which is used to dissolve grease and oil. TCE and another chemical found at the site are probable carcinogens. The acting director for the northeast environmental department, Gerald McCall, wants to know the TCE’s origins.

Young collects detailed information on 12 cases of leukemia, eight of which are in east Woburn. In December, the CDC launches an investigation. Over the course of a year, researchers visit the homes of the 12 patients and conduct extensive interviews to complete the study. After listening to the families’ stories, a lawyer named Joe Mulligan decides to file a lawsuit against the city. Only five of the families sign on; others worry that their businesses will suffer if they take legal action against the city.

In 1980, Charles and Anne Anderson divorce. Jimmy is now 11 years old. His blood counts are stable, but he is still sickly and frail. In November, their doctor, Dr. Truman, discovers that the total number of cells in Jimmy’s bone marrow is decreasing rapidly, a condition known as aplastic anemia. This is a development Truman has never seen. No subsequent treatments help, and Jimmy passes away on January 18, 1981. Five days later, the CDC releases a report: Woburn: Cancer Incidence and Environmental Hazards. The report’s authors state that there is cause for suspicion regarding the drinking water and the high instances of leukemia, but there is no definite link yet. Wells G and H are singled out as being particularly high in leukemia-causing contaminants, but the source of what contaminated the wells is still unknown. The EPA is trying to determine the contaminants’ origins, but their investigation will take another year.

Jan Schlichtmann’s journey into law begins in childhood. His father encourages him to become a lawyer, but Schlichtmann studies philosophy, graduating in 1972. Inspired by watching the Watergate hearings, he quits his job selling insurance and embarks on a law career, attending law school at Cornell and working in a series of unfulfilling positions. Struggling financially, he begins his own practice in Newburyport, Massachusetts, and takes on a wrongful death case for Lowell Eaton, whose son had drowned in a gravel pit left open by construction workers. After a year of work, the construction company offers to settle for $75,000, but Schlichtmann believes that the jury will award them more. It is a gamble, but the jury awards Lowell $250,000, marking Schlichtmann’s first major victory and solidifying his career as a trial lawyer.

Next, Schlichtmann works on a major case involving a Piper Arrow plane crash that killed four people. Schlichtmann uncovers evidence of the pilot’s negligence, collaborating with Barry Reed from Reed & Mulligan. Their efforts lead to a strong case and a growing mentorship between Reed and Schlichtmann.

Meanwhile, Mulligan has been working on the Woburn case with no luck. After following Schlichtmann’s progress on the Piper Arrow case, Mulligan recruits him to help with Woburn. Schlichtmann is dismayed looking at the files; the case is intriguing but impossibly complicated, and Mulligan hasn’t made much progress. Despite his doubts, Schlichtmann can’t let the case go, especially after a promising meeting with Reverend Young about potential funding from Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. Anne Anderson advocates to him on the families’ behalf. Finally, Schlichtmann meets with the families and tells them they need more evidence to proceed with the case.

The following week, Anthony Roisman from Trial Lawyers for Public Justice flies to Boston, where Jan invites him to take lead counsel on the Woburn case, with Jan as local counsel. Things begin to move swiftly after years of slow progress. Roisman’s team collects studies on TCE and other chemicals in the wells, revealing that Woburn’s eastern aquifer is a significant pollution risk: They learn that the EPA had put Woburn’s eastern aquifer on its National Priorities List. Out of 418 sites marked as potentially dangerous given their proximity to pollution, Woburn ranked 39th.

A Princeton professor helps them trace the TCE back to a manufacturing plant owned by W.R. Grace, a multinational chemical company. The other source of the contamination is from 15 acres of woodland owned by the J. J. Riley Tannery, which is owned by Beatrice Foods, a massive conglomerate. Both companies are ranked high on the Fortune 500.

In mid-April, Schlichtmann visits Woburn, looking for signs of pollution. He inspects the area around the W.R. Grace plant—which is guarded like a fortress—the marsh with the two pumping stations, the J.J. Riley Tannery, and the Whitney Barrel Company site. All show signs of chemical pollution, and there are many empty barrels scattered around the fenced-off Whitney land, suggesting it was used as a dump site.

Roisman drafts complaints against W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. He finishes on May 14, 1982, eight days before the statute of limitations expires. One week later, The Boston Globe runs a story about the lawsuit. Jan gives an impressive conference, sparking media interest and marking a significant step forward in the case.

The Woburn complaint is sent to Hale and Dorr, the law firm representing the J.J. Riley Tannery Company. There, Jerome Facher, a formidable lawyer and former Harvard professor, takes the case. Facher sends Neil Jacobs, one of the junior partners, to Woburn to meet with John J. Riley.

Riley, a hotheaded man in his fifties, is proud of his business and has little patience for environmental regulation. Years earlier, he sold the tannery to Beatrice Foods because he could not afford to build the $1 million state-mandated waste-treatment facility. Riley tells Jacobs that he has never used TCE and never dumped any chemicals on the property. When Jacobs asks about the 15 acres of land cited as the source of the TCE contamination, Riley says the land is completely undeveloped and is nothing but woods. Driving to the site, Jacobs notices piles of barrels and a pile of detritus (later to be known as Debris Pile E) made of rotting timber and decaying 55-gallon barrels oozing with a dark, thick substance. There is a strong chemical odor, but Riley repeats that they never dumped anything and blames the land’s current state on others.

Riley and Jacobs tour the tannery plant, and Jacobs sees what is called a “settling basin” full of the wastewater from the tanning process. The tannery creates half a million gallons of wastewater, which is eventually released into the Boston harbor, the most polluted body of water in the country. This pollution led to the state’s demand for the water treatment facility. Back in Boston, Jacobs prepares a response to the complaint, and Facher approves.

The firm representing W.R. Grace also receives a copy of the complaint. William Cheeseman, a lawyer at Foley, Hoag, & Eliot, takes the case; Grace has been sued for complaints of pollution before. An in-house lawyer briefs Cheeseman on Grace’s Woburn plant, which was built in 1960 and employs 100 people. In the early 1960s, the plant used TCE, but purchase orders show the acquisition of only one drum for cleaning small machine parts.

Cheeseman finds Jan Schlichtmann’s press conference unprofessional and removes the case from state superior court to federal court, where judges tend to dismiss personal injury cases. He writes to Schlichtmann telling him to desist or face dismissal. Several months pass, and in October, Schlichtmann sends extensive documents, including 52 pages of questions about the Woburn plant’s operations. Cheeseman plans to use Rule 11, which penalizes frivolous lawsuits, and an article quoting Roisman’s assistant about the lack of a clear link between wells, chemicals, families, and companies. He calls Neil Jacobs at Hale & Dorr to discuss the plans, and Jacobs reacts positively, promising to speak with Facher.

Cheeseman decides to add the charge of “barratry,” or drumming up lawsuits for profit, against Schlichtmann when it becomes clear that one of the defendants, Roland Gamache, did not realize they were suing Riley. Gamache is one of the few adults with leukemia in the Woburn lawsuit and signed on because he wants to eliminate pollution for his children’s futures. Facher isn’t interested in pursuing barratry or Rule 11, but Cheeseman adds barratry to his list of potential charges, hoping it will lead to a large fine and public censure for Schlichtmann.

Federal Judge Walter J. Skinner, who has a backlog of over 500 cases, is assigned to the Woburn case. He has followed the case’s developments in the news and remembers Schlichtmann fondly from a courtroom interaction three years prior. Skinner is intrigued by Cheeseman’s Rule 11 motion, which is the first he has seen. He orders Schlichtmann to testify under Cheeseman’s questioning but misses the mention of barratry. A hearing is set for January 6.

Not long after, Cheeseman and Schlichtmann have their first phone conversation. Schlichtmann asks him to drop the barratry charge, but Cheeseman refuses. Enraged, Schlichtmann slams the phone down, worried that the barratry charge could lead to his disbarment. Conway, his assisting lawyer, suggests they charge Cheeseman with barratry in return.

On January 6, 1983, a nervous Schlichtmann arrives at the hearing. He and his colleagues wait in Skinner’s courtroom while the defense team arrives. Skinner begins the proceedings, asking Schlichtmann to address the barratry charge. Skinner interrupts him, thinking he was about to hear about Rule 11. This turns into a complicated discussion about whether Cheeseman should be allowed to question Schlichtmann in regard to Rule 11. Schlichtmann protests that he will only answer questions about Rule 11 if Skinner asks them; he believes allowing Cheeseman to question him is unethical.

Two weeks later, Skinner denies the motion for Rule 11.