Augustine Ignatius V.

Ong Vao April 7, 2017

Block 2C
Legal Ethics Assignment: Bridge of Spies Reflection Paper

Bridge of Spies was Hollywoods take on a very important part of history that dealt with
the realities of war such as espionage, imprisonment, torture and execution. However, the movie
portrayed those themes not through the eyes of a soldier, but those of a lawyer. It was not a war
for blood, but for the recognition of basic civil and human rights. It was a war waged in the courts
of law and negotiations behind closed doors rather than out in the open battlefield. It showed a
darker side of the legal profession and that of the justice system. However, it also demonstrated
that one mans conviction to uphold his sense of duty can spell the difference between life and
death, as well as the freedom and imprisonment, of another human being.

Our protagonist, the lawyer James Donovan had the monumental task of defending and
handling the case of Rudolf Abel, an alleged Soviet Spy, during the height of the Cold War.
Donovan was actually asked to take on Abels case because of his reputation and good standing
as a lawyer. He could have declined but instead he chose to take on the case, knowing fully well
the consequences of accepting the case. I believe that Donovans mere acceptance of Abels case
was already an early indication of his character as a lawyer. He would not turn down a person in
need.

During his preparations for trial and even at the actual trial, Donovan defended Abel to the
best of his ability even when they had a clearly biased judge and all the odds were against them.
He questioned everything and took every opportunity to defend his client as evidenced by the fact
that he appealed his case all the way up to the Supreme Court. This led to Donovans colleagues
and family reprimanding him for doing his job too well. Donovans work eventually resulted in
Abel escaping the death penalty, much to the anger of the American populace. In multiple scenes,
Donovan was, in one form or another, asked why he chose to defend this Soviet spy who was
public enemy number one. Even Abel in the latter part of the film mentioned to Donovan that he
never asked him if he was actually a spy. Donovan reaffirmed his position that it did not matter
whether Abel was a spy or not because he was still his client and deserved to be defended by any
and all the legal means necessary. This posed a dilemma for Donovan who would have had to
choose between loyalty to his country and loyalty to his client. Section 20(a) of Rule 138-A of the
Rules of Court provide that it is the duty of an attorney to maintain allegiance to the Republic and
to support its constitution. On the other hand, the paragraph (i) of the same section provides that it
is also his duty, in the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the
law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of
law. Donovan chose the latter and he got a lot of hate for it as he was seen as a traitor. But in
doing so, Donovan not only upheld his duty to his client but also to the constitution and the law
by fighting against a corrupt justice system. Although the public never saw it that way.

The judgment was eventually rendered against Abel, convicting him of being a Soviet spy.
However, Donovan was able to convince the judge to not mete out the death penalty and instead
Abel was given the penalty of 30 years imprisonment. This was a small victory, but a victory
nonetheless. Naturally, the decision of the judge drew the ire of the American people. It proved to
be the right move as seen later on in the film, as Abel was used as a bargaining chip for the freedom
of a captured US solider named Francis Powers.

After the resolution of Abels case, Donovan was asked by the US government to handle
negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union for the exchange of Abel and Powers.
Unsurprisingly, Donovan accepted the role of middleman for the two nations. He knew it meant
the freedom of a fellow American as well as the freedom of his client Abel. During the
negotiations, Donovan heard that an American student, Frederic Pryor, was also being held captive
by the East Germans. Without hesitation, Donovan knew he had to do something to ensure bring
home both Powers and Pryor.

The tactics employed by Donovan to broker the 2-for-1 exchange was shrewd but was in
no way illegal or offensive to the opposing parties. However, it was not the tactics employed, but
the risk that came with it that put Donovan in conflict with the US government. The latter explicitly
told Donovan that Powers was the priority and, in fact, pleaded with Donovan to disregard Pryor
in the negotiations. However, due to some sense of duty, Donovan still pursued the negotiations
with the East Germans to free Pryor, much to the chagrin of Hoffman, the CIA agent who
accompanied Donovan. Clearly, Donovans actions were for a noble cause which was to free both
American citizens. But the question would be at what cost? It seemed to me that Hoffman was
bound and blinded by his duty to the government when he told Donovan to forget about Pryor, but
he still had a point that Donovan might be pushing his luck and could prejudice the original
exchange between Abel and Powers. After all, Abel was his original client and Donovan took it
upon himself to give Abel his freedom back. The CPR provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of the client. At the same time, the CPR provides that a lawyer should not refuse his services
to the needy. In this case, Pryor was defenseless and needy party, while Abel was Donovans client.
Thus, Donovan had to struggle between defending both his client and a person in need. Fortunately,
his unrelenting character was able to find a way to make the deal work.

I want to emphasize that as all of the negotiations were taking place, Donovans wife and
kids were in the dark about what he was doing. Donovan chose to keep his work a secret from his
family, thinking that it would be better and safer for them. I find it interesting to ponder on the
mindset of Donovan when he decided to keep his work as a middleman under wraps not just to his
family but the whole country did not even know until after everything had been settle. While there
is no particular provision in legal ethics that compels a lawyer to be honest with his family, there
is still that matter of fidelity that every husband owes his wife. Surely it was a struggle for Donovan
to conceal his work from his family, especially when his work puts his life at risk. He had to lie to
his wife, Mary, about his travels to Europe. Clearly, Donovan did this to protect his family after
prior events, such as the shooting at their home, which made it clear that Donovans work was
affecting the safety of his family. At the same time, perhaps Donovan also had to conceal his work
for the welfare of his client, Abel. Section 20(e) of Rule 138-A provides that it is the duty of an
attorney to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets
of his clients.

It was clear that Donovan did not do what he did for money, fame or glory. He did it
because he knew it was the right thing to do. Throughout the film, Donovan faced numerous
roadblocks which tested his resolve to do what he felt was right. There were many instances where
Donovan could have turned the other way and took the easy way out, but his sense of duty towards
his client, his country and to the law allowed him to persevere despite having the odds stacked
against him. He was a man of principle who would not settle for anything less than what is just, in
contrast to the other characters in film such as Donovans associate who introduced him to the
case, the biased judge who clearly disregarded the rights of the accused, and agent Hoffman who
was more interested in getting the job done than trying to save a life. The film made it clear that
nobody was on Donovans side which emphasized even more his unwavering attitude to fulfill his
duties to both client and country without compromising on his ethical beliefs.