This book is a good introduction to the life of Clarence Darrow. It spans all his major cases and leaves the reader with awe for a man whose ability as an attorney in the Dr. Oscar Sweet case in Detroit, Michigan in 1925 was as if God had descended heaven from Heaven to win the freedom of a black professional who was accused of murder in an America that already had witnessed the Tulsa, Oklahoma and St. Louis race riots. His defense of the poor in the anthracite coal case of 1902 and the rioters in the Haymarket case stand as models for Americans of any age. The only weakness in the book is that his addresses to juries are not included. Clarence Darrow is as important to Americans as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were in the eras of the Civil War and the Great Depression. I recommend this book for all Americans of all ages. He was a defender of the poor and a defender of the values and ethics of American society. Elliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of the State of New York, is some ways bears resemblance to Clarence Darrow. I recommend the book highly, the reverence I have for the life of Clarence Darrow is huge only for God do I have more.

Clarence Darrow was a very interesting man, however history may view him. I found this biography by Irving Stone to be very educational. Darrow was involved in some of the most famous trials around the turn of the century that defined labor laws, capital punishment laws as well as laws defining religious discrimination with the well known Scopes Evolution Case over the teaching of the Darwin theory of evolution in the classroom. This famous case known as the 'Monkey' trials pitted fundamentalists against more liberal evolutionists in a landmark case that defined freedom and equality of religious teaching throughout the United States. Darrow was a defense attorney, and his viewpoint on representing a client was to simply provide the best defense possible. This did not always go with the popular opinion of society in his day, and he was often hated by many for some of the people he defended in the courtroom. I think it is notable that in many of his more famous cases and not so famous he was never paid, as he defended people who had no money. In this way he showed a compassion for his fellow man which one does not often associate with the profession of lawyers in the modern day. As I read this biography, I found myself many times not agreeing with Darrow's viewpoints and decisions to defend certain people, including the famous Loeb & Leopold Case. I marveled at his final solution to plead guilty in the defense of the McNamaras Case in 1911, a point of integrity after learning his client was truly guilty. This case cost his the support and friendship with organized labor parties after over thirty years, as well as resulted in a massive attack on him personally, but he weathered the storm and carried onward. However, I was able at the end to reflect on this man's tenacity to his own integrity to follow what he believed was right, despite popular opinion. His sense of morals were different from my own, and I would be untruthful to say I completely agreed with Darrow. I did however find myself respecting him for impact he had on our country's history, and his exposing of the industrial abuses that paralleled slave camps in the late 1800's definitely shined the light on man's inhumanity to man. All in all I found this to be a very interesting biography about a very interesting man. I think anyone interested in American history, particularly that of the history of organized labor in our country should definitely read this one. This is a great read. Darrow having been a well known public speaker in his day, delivered some of the most profound speaches inside and outside the courtroom. Many of his famous defense final arguments are still studied today in many law schools, but most notable is the fact that he delivered many of these speeches without the aide of notes or other written material. Many people who heard these speeches were included in this book, and consistently he is remembered as having really had a way of moving an audience and changing their viewpoints in doing so. Irving Stone really did his background research in compiling this book, including reading many of Darrow's own private papers, court records, interviewing people who knew Darrow and studying newspapers from the time period. I think anyone would find this book facinating from a purely historical perspective. It is too bad this book is currently out of print, but it is worth searching used book stores or searching Amazon's out-of-print services to get a copy and read it.

A good history of the times. I hope this book will inspire you. Eric...

My Maternal Grandfather had introduced me to this book when I was 14. It was one of the only items I inherited, that is. I read it PROPERLY in 1988 and IT changed my life completely.

I loved his account of his dental appointment and the fiasco afterwards.

Louis Nizer did not write an autobiography, he wrote a book that should be sub-titled, "A Guide to Life and Living".

I lost my original copy during my travels and have searched the US (West and East Coasts) for it, but failed. I have visited every bookshop I can, big or small in the UK and still failed. One visit to Amazon and my life is almost complete again. Thank you Amazon, I did not believe your ads on Jazz FM UK, but they were correct and I know better now.

Patrick-Spencer Salami (UK)

Luios Nizer is one my heroes due to the excellent vindication of the "worth of a man" in his book My Life In Court. here in a deliberately personal account, he retells some of the lessons learned, mistakes made, dangers faced, errors laughed at and other things survived by an intelligent no-nonsense rational approach to life and living.The book is one of my favourite resources of witty one-liners that Nizer has gleaned from his vast reading, and his account of Professor Terry [one of his teachers in Columbia] is one of the best accounts I have read of an intellectual appreciation of a teacher's influence

Legal thrillers are my favorite genre of books; however, Attorney Nizer either assumes his readers are not paying attention or stupid. I was very tired of the repetition which caused me to put down this book several times. It is a riveting story which makes this book worth while, but be prepared to be annoyed at the author's technique. It might work well with a jury, it doesn't work well with an educated reader.

This book shows one of our greatest legal minds, a close relative of mine, at work. Very few people know that in addition to being a star attorney, Louis Nizer (the author of the book, not myself) was an all- star baseball player in the ill-fated Norewigan pro- baseball leage. This book unpacks both, and Nizers love of felines. A smash hit!

As the story unfolds the tension mounts. It left no doubt in my mind that this was truly an unjustly accused and convicted man. I was also greatly impressed with the dedication and compassion of defense attorneys.

This 1973 book tells of the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Nizer usually wrote about his own cases, but decided to research this case with no opinion as to their guilt or innocence. The reason that truth is stranger than fiction in the courtroom is that "fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn't" (p.3). A trial is a war fought under civilized rules. Many people have definite opinions about cases from newspaper accounts, but newspapers give only fragments, not the whole case. Judicial opinions are not the means to a conclusion, but a rationalization of a conclusion (p.5). It is possible to take the record of any trial and through post-facto reasoning deduce that the verdict was wrong. But a jury has the right to apply common sense and their observation of the witnesses; this is not recorded. A jury will forgive errors of law, but not of facts. [Do modern trial lawyers concentrate on jury selection to effectively win a case?] Any critic of a case usually has not heard the witnesses testify. [This assumes that the evidence and witnesses were correctly perceived in this or any other trial. Would perjury and planted evidence change this view?]

For Nizer the question should be "do you think there was sufficient evidence to decide they were guilty?" The answer is plainly "yes". But if they had been found not guilty, would the same question apply?

Louis Nizer was a defender of the Warren Commission Report; would he have learned anything afterwards? Page 6 tells of the finding of a Mauser on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. Nizer makes the willful mistake of saying it was another rifle! He wasn't there, and didn't see the published picture, yet he claims to know the real truth! So you should know that Nizer has the fault of seeing what he wants to see.

I used to believe that the Rosenbergs were spies and traitors; this book explains that they were never indicted for treason, and never convicted of espionage. I now believe that were scapegoats for a show trial to explain away the loss of America's atom bomb "secret". Russia, like other countries, were involved in atomic research in the 1930s. Some of the scientists at Los Alamos were sending secrets to foreign countries. "The House on 92nd Street" claimed that the atom bomb secret was kept safe by the FBI. There was no mention of Army counter-intelligence. This 490 page book lacks an index and table of contents.

"Blueprints for Utopia never take into account human frailties. That is why they are so alluring in print and so ineffectual in practice" (p.23). This, and other interesting comments on this case and the law in general make this a good book to read.

Louis Nizer brings the perspective of a lawyer to this review of the Rosenberg trial. He takes you through the trial, day by day, discusses the strategy of the opposing sides, and makes a judgement -- the trial was proper, and the jury was justified in coming to the conclusion that the defendents were guilty. He's also careful to warn you about the things you can't know, such as the difference between reading what was said, and seeing it yourself.

The big flaw in this book is the lack of sources. You can't always tell where Nizer got his information. But unless you want to wade through the trial transcript and briefs, this is the best description of the process that led to the Rosenbergs' conviction. It's a fairminded, honest book, and I recommend it.

Louis Nizer in two words, "Great Writer." Louis Nizers' book, My Life In Court is interesting if your going in the field of law. This book is a little lengthy, but it is worth it. Louis Nizer goes into some detail about some of the famous court case he handled while in his life time in court. After reading this book I beleive that Nizer loved what he did, but he would also stress out of his clients, because they didn't tell him the whole truth in the beginning. That reminds me of a lot of famous court cases that I have heard or seen about on the news(O.J. Simpson case). I didn't realize the kind of things that one can take one to court over. In the book Nizer talks about a court case he took on about this man that had a thing for his wives feet, rather than being intiment with his wife. She ended up taking her husband to court for a divorce for the things he made her do for him. The beginning of the book didn't catch my attention. But when I got into chapters 2&3, the book started to get pretty interesting. I recommend this book to people that are pursuing a law degree or something along a law degree line. One will learn things about the court that one can learn in school, but only by experience or from another lawyer telling another lawyer. Even if one is not going for a law degree I still recommend this book. I give it 4 stars.