
My Sister’s Keeper
THURSDAY CAMPBELL
by Picoult, JodieThe chapter opens with attorney Campbell Alexander arriving at family court, where he eagerly engages with reporters, framing his case as nationally significant while subtly promoting himself. He hints at broader implications for minors’ rights and stem cell research, showcasing his flair for drama and self-promotion. Inside the courtroom, he exchanges a knowing glance with Deputy Vern Stackhouse, having earlier planted a tip to attract media attention. The narrative highlights Campbell’s calculated manipulation of the situation, even as he acknowledges the moral ambiguity of leveraging pro bono work for personal gain.
In chambers, Campbell clashes with Judge DeSalvo over a restraining order motion against Sara Fitzgerald, Anna’s mother, for violating a court order by discussing the case with her daughter. Campbell argues that Sara’s dual role as parent and opposing counsel necessitates physical separation to protect Anna. Sara defiantly admits to speaking with Anna, insisting she was trying to resolve the conflict. The tension escalates when Julia Romano, the guardian ad litem, arrives and expresses skepticism about removing Sara from the home, emphasizing Anna’s confusion and emotional vulnerability.
Judge DeSalvo denies the restraining order but sternly warns Sara against further violations, threatening to report her to the bar and evict her from the home if she disobeys. Campbell, undeterred, rushes to meet Anna, only to discover she and her father have left. Sara, equally surprised, seeks an escape from the media frenzy. Julia confronts Campbell, accusing him of misrepresenting Anna’s wishes and failing to consider the emotional toll of separating a child from her mother. She argues that Anna, as a 13-year-old, lacks the maturity to fully grasp the consequences of her legal decisions.
The chapter concludes with a heated exchange between Campbell and Julia, revealing Anna’s change of heart about the petition. Julia criticizes Campbell for focusing solely on legal tactics while ignoring Anna’s emotional needs. Campbell, distracted by his dog’s antics, dismisses Julia’s concerns and departs abruptly, leaving the conflict unresolved. The scene underscores the ethical tensions between legal strategy and familial bonds, as well as Campbell’s self-serving approach to the case.
FAQs
1. What ethical dilemma does the narrator (Campbell Alexander) face in this chapter, and how does he justify his actions?
Answer:
Campbell Alexander faces an ethical dilemma regarding his self-promotion and manipulation of media attention surrounding his pro bono case. While he acknowledges there may be “a special corner of Hell” for attorneys who shamelessly self-aggrandize, he actively courts reporters, offering sound bites and ensuring the cameras focus on him. He justifies this by framing the case as nationally significant, suggesting the ruling could impact minors’ rights and stem cell research. His actions reveal a tension between professional ethics and personal ambition, as he capitalizes on the case’s high-profile nature while ostensibly working for his client’s benefit.2. How does Sara Fitzgerald’s behavior in chambers complicate the legal proceedings, and what does this reveal about her dual roles in the case?
Answer:
Sara Fitzgerald admits to violating the court’s order by discussing the lawsuit with her daughter Anna, despite being explicitly instructed not to. This admission creates a pivotal moment in chambers, described as “a circus tent collapsing.” Her outburst (“Well, of course I did!”) highlights her inability to separate her role as a mother from her role as opposing counsel. This conflict undermines the legal process and demonstrates how emotional investment can compromise professional boundaries. Judge DeSalvo’s warning underscores the seriousness of her ethical violation while acknowledging the human complexity of her position.3. Analyze Julia Romano’s critique of Campbell’s approach to representing Anna. What fundamental disagreement about legal representation of minors does this reveal?
Answer:
Julia challenges Campbell’s treatment of Anna as a “normal adult client,” arguing that a thirteen-year-old lacks the emotional maturity to fully comprehend the consequences of legal decisions. She provides examples of children misunderstanding court outcomes, emphasizing that Anna likely focused only on the “no pressure” aspect of the restraining order rather than the family separation it would cause. This reveals a fundamental debate about whether minors can truly give informed consent in legal matters and whether attorneys should adjust their approach when representing children versus adults. Julia advocates for a more nuanced, developmentally appropriate strategy.4. What symbolic significance does Judge (the dog) have in this chapter, particularly in relation to Campbell’s character and legal tactics?
Answer:
Judge, Campbell’s service dog, serves as both a literal and symbolic reflection of his owner’s legal maneuvering. The dog reacts to Campbell’s tension during the hearing, standing when he tenses and biting his expensive suit when he attempts to evade Julia. These actions mirror how Campbell’s professional facade cracks under pressure, revealing his underlying stress. The dog’s name also ironically comments on Campbell’s frequent appearances before Judge DeSalvo, suggesting that while Campbell tries to control proceedings, he’s ultimately subject to higher authority—both judicial and perhaps moral.5. How does the chapter use media presence and public perception to comment on the nature of high-profile legal cases?
Answer:
The chapter critically examines how high-profile cases become media spectacles, with Campbell actively shaping public narrative by feeding reporters carefully crafted sound bites. His manipulation of Vern Stackhouse’s sister—a reporter—demonstrates how attorneys can manufacture media interest. The reporters “on parade” outside court reduce complex family and legal issues to simplistic sound bites. This portrayal critiques how serious matters become public entertainment, with legal professionals like Campbell complicit in this transformation. The contrast between the dignified legal process and the chaotic media scrum highlights tensions between justice and publicity.
Quotes
1. “THERE MAY BE A SPECIAL CORNER of Hell for attorneys who are shamelessly self-aggrandizing, but you can bet we all are ready for our close-ups.”
This opening line sets the cynical, self-aware tone of the narrator (an attorney) who acknowledges the hypocrisy of using a high-profile pro bono case for personal publicity while condemning such behavior in others.
2. “Although this court tried to fashion conditions that would keep the family together, I don’t think it’s going to work until Mrs. Fitzgerald finds it possible to mentally separate her role as parent from her role as opposing counsel.”
This quote captures the central legal conflict of the chapter - the tension between a mother’s dual roles in a lawsuit involving her child, highlighting the difficulty of separating emotional and legal obligations.
3. “She’s a thirteen-year-old girl… You can’t expect Anna to be like a normal adult client. She doesn’t have the emotional capability to make decisions independent of her home situation.”
A key insight about the ethical dilemma at the heart of the case, questioning whether a minor can truly make independent legal decisions when emotionally tied to family dynamics.
4. “All she heard, when you talked, were the words no pressure. She never heard separation.”
This powerful statement reveals how legal language can obscure real-world consequences for vulnerable clients, particularly children who may not fully grasp the implications of legal actions.
5. “In that special corner of Hell, there’s probably a throne for those of us who try to capitalize off our pro bono work.”
A recurring motif that bookends the chapter’s moral tension, showing the narrator’s self-awareness about exploiting humanitarian cases for personal gain while still engaging in the behavior.