In any case, The Buffalo News has just published a review of the book titled Angry lawyer talks tough about his job in the Bronx. It is, indeed, by a former federal prosecutor who finds the description of some of the judges troubling.
The latest reviewer and his life of the same name
The book, he concludes, "proves an illuminating glimpse into what appears to be an overburdened system mired in hypocrisy, waste and, in Feige's eyes, injustice.
The author describes running from courtroom to courtroom, an uphill climb on a treadmill going faster and faster. He defends a crackhead, a murderer, a drug dealer and a guy walking a friend's dog without tags that lands him in jail for days because a judge (the one not known for legal brilliance) refused to listen to his explanation that he wasn't responsible.
All in all, "Indefensible" is a sad book. Sad because the seemingly righteous author vents such bitterness at his workaday world. Sad because such seeming incompetents have so much power over the fate of those who appear before them. And sad because a system that's supposed to provide justice for all apparently doesn't."
Thoughts?
my controversial book about a day in my life as Public Defender in the South Bronx is finally available for Kindle and Ipad.
9 comments:
I didn't like the review, but I do agree that the book is sad. By half-way through I was crying, and there is no resolution for the conflict between compassion and the justice system at the end. So yes. It's sad because the circumstances of the system are sad. I still don't like the review. I think it misses the point. Isn't the book supposed to be sad? Isn't it supposed to highlight how flawed the system is? How hard and unforgiving and discriminatory?
I agree with Georgiana, I think Coppola misses the point.
There is something inherently flawed in a system with as much inconsistency on the part of the Judiciary as ours has. I think Feige just points it out and the affect that it had on the individual courtrooms/clients.
As far the descriptions go, I enjoyed the literary meat cleaver. I want to know a little bit about the background/style of the person sitting on the bench making decisions that affect my client and I think the reader wants and appreciates the same when Feige takes us on the journey with his own clients.
P.S. And the guy gets his book facts wrong, too. He mistakes a description of a prosecutor for that of a judge.
P.P.S. I agree about the literary meat cleaver. Delicious.
This book is a breakthrough. So sorry that a few judges and prosecutors were desribed in a less than ideal way. They probably earned it. I would recommend this book to every judge and prosecutor in my local jurisdiction.
I just got my lovely signed copy today--can't wait to read it!
Congrats David!
You might remember me. I live in Broward and have dealt with a judge you have had flying on a broomstick. EVIL E! i BELIEVE YOU DUBBED HER.
I can't wait to get a copy and in the meantime I set up a blog I think you should see (everyone should)immediately.
Can you say, Section 1983 meets Orwell's 1984?
http://caughtontape.blogspot.com/
. . . . You know, David; this guy’s review is really pretty interesting. Like most of the seemingly negative reviewers, he appears critical of you more than your work. Then when you think about it, he may be right on target with his first lines. “David Feige loves his job. He just hates where he works.”
. . . . I know your goal is much higher than offering your personal perspective. Coppola appears to grant that you achieved it. He says Indefensible “does prove an illuminating glimpse into what appears to be an overburdened system mired in hypocrisy, waste and, in Feige’s eyes, injustice.” Then he concludes: “Indefensible is a sad book . . . because such seeming incompetents have so much power over the fate of those who appear before them. And sad because a system that’s supposed to provide justice for all apparently doesn’t.”
. . . . Wasn’t that exactly the point of the book? And isn’t it your “vitriol for judges [you] abhor and the system that allows them to preside that puts ‘Indefensible’ on a level far different from other works about courtrooms and the cases that inhabit them.” It is pretty obvious to me that you had no desire or intent to write a book on the same level as those other works. Am I missing something?
. . . . Given your passion for fairness and the circumstances under which you pursued it for fifteen years, I think it is a fair statement that you loved your job but hated where you worked. Who wouldn’t?
. . . . Bottom line is that I think Mr. Coppola very begrudgingly gave Indefensible a pretty good review, though he does question your wisdom in writing the book. Even so, I suspect that he might be surprised at the answer to his question: “How does [Feige] hope to appear before the judges he has excoriated in print?” My guess is that if you do go back to those courtrooms; you will find a judiciary much more willing to accommodate justice, at least where your clients are concerned. Even those “not known for legal brilliance” are likely to have a healthy understanding of the power of a sequel.
"Gnomish and wild-eyed, with a scraggly salt-and-pepper beard and crazy, unkempt hair, (he) has moments of intense decency that are followed by bouts of ferocious irrationality and utter implacability that can make him one of the least-pleasant judges to appear before."
When I lent this book to my cousin, a life long legal services lawyer in Brooklyn, she told me that this judge's description is one of the most spot on assessments shes ever seen. Said all the memories of the early 80s in SBLS came rushing back.
So I'm inclined to disagree with the reviewer assessment of your discriptions.
Post a Comment