Ethics of Lawyering on Screen: An Analysis of the Rainmaker

By Mandy Williams ‘27

In the realm of Hollywood, courtrooms and the legal profession have often been portrayed with sweeping dramatics, exaggerated conflicts, and glamorous victories. While many of these films are classics that we know and love, oftentimes they fall short when it comes to addressing the legal system’s complexities. Francis Ford Coppola’s 1997 film The Rainmaker is a very interesting case study of this exact dilemma. While most critics agree that its depiction of the legal system is not 100% accurate, it does succeed in highlighting certain aspects of legal practice and ethical struggle, while also tapping into familiar cinema tropes of corruption, youthful optimism, and even disillusionment. 

Unlike other courtroom dramas that celebrate the heroic lawyer who helps reorient the legal system towards justice, The Rainmaker is a bit more ambivalent. The protagonist, Rudy Baylor, does succeed in winning a case against a predatory insurance company; however, most movie watchers can agree that the victory is quite hollow. The film concludes with the company collapsing into bankruptcy, small financial gains for the clients, and, most surprisingly, that Rudy himself abandons the profession. In this sense, the film can be seen as both a legal drama and a moral fable, offering American audiences the chance to reflect on whether the practice of law is as noble or as corrupt as it is often made to appear on screen

Synopsis

The film begins with Rudy Baylor, played by Matt Damon, introduced as a recent law school graduate who is studying for the bar exam. As a newly law school grad who lacks both connections and opportunities, he hesitantly accepts a position with Bob “Bruiser” Stone, a corrupt Memphis lawyer whose only quality lower than his morality is his chain smoking. Working under Bruiser, Rudy meets Deck Shifflet, a plucky paralegal played by Danny DeVito, who the film takes extra care to mention has failed the bar six times but possesses a “streetwise” sense of legal procedure. It is this strange partnership that sets off the foundation of Rudy’s early career.

Rudy soon meets Dot and Buddy Black, the parents of a young man named Donny Ray, who suffers from leukemia. The Blacks insurance company, Great Benefit, has repeatedly denied coverage for a somewhat experimental bone marrow transplant that the family believes could potentially save their son’s life. The reasons for denial from Great Benefit ranged from a statement that Donny Ray’s leukemia was a preexisting condition, to saying that bone marrow transplants are “experimental,” to claiming that Donny Ray was not a household member under the policy. At one point, Great Benefit sent the family a letter with language that was borderline mocking their son’s ailment, quoting, “You must be stupid, stupid, stupid” for persisting in their request for coverage. Unfortunately, despite countless claims being filed on his behalf, Donny Ray eventually dies, but it’s from this situation that the Blacks’ case against Great Benefit allows Rudy to try his first major lawsuit.

Additionally, Rudy’s professional life is further complicated by the pressures of working in a profession filled with dubious practices. He is thrown into situations in courtrooms where opposing counsel have long-standing relationships with judges, and he is forced to navigate ethical boundaries with little guidance. On the topic of the ethical boundaries, midway through the movie, Rudy becomes romantically involved with Kelly Riker (Claire Danes), a young woman trapped in an abusive marriage. In one of the film’s darker subplots, Kelly’s husband is killed in an altercation, and Rudy aids in covering up the circumstances of his death.

Despite these challenges, Rudy continued with the Great Benefit case. His primary opponent is the company’s top attorney, Leo Drummond (Jon Voight), and through small wins in the courtroom, Rudy built momentum. Key witnesses expose the insurer’s fraudulent internal policies, including memoranda admitting that denying claims is a standard cost-saving tactic. In the end, the Blacks are awarded not only compensatory damages but also massive punitive damages, as the jury was able to recognize the company's systemic bad faith. However, the victory is bittersweet as the movie ends with Great Benefit declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying out the judgment.

Closing the movie, Rudy decides to walk away from the law profession entirely, vowing that he will never return to another courtroom again. His first and only trial, though legally successful, had left him disillusioned. The result is a lawyer whose moral conscience clashes with the contradictions of a legal system where justice is often undermined by power, money, and institutional corruption.

Accuracies

Legal commentators have noted that while The Rainmaker is dramatic, it does, in some regard, capture certain realities of litigation. 

Most accurate in this particular film is the depiction of “insurance bad faith”, as it does reflect actual practices. Great Benefit’s internal policy of automatically denying claims for a year showcases the exploitation of certain types of information: customers often do not have the resources or knowledge to fight denials or appeal them, which can allow for insurers acting on “ bad faith” to make a profit. This connects with real-world doctrines that discuss the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, where punitive damages are awarded in order to deter these practices. 

The film also showcases the importance of controlling the narrative in a courtroom. Though inexperienced, Ruly quickly learns that trials are just as much about presenting a persuasive story as they are about having strong facts. His questioning of witnesses, reliance on documentary evidence, and appeal to the jury’s sense of fairness are all strategies that trial lawyers use in everyday life. 

Finally, the expert testimony that was used against Great Benefit does, to a degree, accurately reflect trial dynamics. Expert witnesses are very key when it comes to complex civil litigation, particularly in the fields of insurance, medicine, and finance. By presenting medical documentation and insider testimony on Great Benefit’s corporate policies, Rudy can demonstrate that the insurer’s actions were not simply bureaucratic missteps but deliberate fraud.

Inaccuracies

At the same time, the film does follow some Hollywood tropes. One of the most obvious inaccuracies is the judge’s role within the courtroom. The replacement judge in Rudy’s case consistently favors him, and very clearly breaks a judge’s typical attitude of impartiality. Legal commentators point out that the replacement judge almost acted similarly to a co-counsel for Rudy, giving him assistance and pointers that would, in reality, amount to reversible error. While this judge’s actions do well for the beloved underdog trope, it does risk distorting public perceptions of judicial conduct.

Another inaccuracy is the depiction of Rudy’s skill levels and legal competence as a recent law school graduate. While it is true that young attorneys can be successful soon after law school, it’s highly unlikely that a new lawyer with no mentorship or prior trial experience could deal with the procedural, evidentiary, and strategic complexities of a multimillion-dollar insurance case. The film also minimizes the consequences of ethical violations. From Rudy’s courtroom appearance as an attorney who hasn’t passed the bar, to his partnership with Deck Shifflet, and his "ambulance chasing” practices, are all breaches of professional responsibility. However, for the sake of Hollywood, the film narrates these as forgivable mistakes as opposed to career-ending missteps. In reality, just one of these errors, or even all three, would have resulted in disbarment before Rudy’s career ever began.

Conclusion: Fact or Fiction?

Ultimately, The Rainmaker straddles the line between an accurate courtroom drama and an overglamorized legal movie as it does take the time to piece together legitimate insights about insurance law, trial practice, and the pressures facing young attorneys, of course, with added subplots such as a forbidden romance, murder, and corruption. However, in many respects, this film can be seen as grounded in reality. 

What makes the film entertaining is not its procedural accuracy but the themes it leaves audiences to resonate with. The ending is intentional about illustrating the disillusionment many young lawyers feel when confronted with the ethical compromises of the legal system. It critiques how intertwined the law and capitalism can be, highlighting how legal institutions can both expose and enable corporate malfeasance. Additionally, it leaves audiences to question whether justice in the courtroom translates into justice in the real world.

For all its flaws, The Rainmaker does give a thoughtful illustration of the ethical dimensions of law. It reminds viewers that practicing law is as much about conscience as it is about competence. Rudy Baylor’s decision to leave the profession may appear cynical, but it also highlights a truth many lawyers know well: victories can be hollow, and sometimes, walking away is itself a moral judgment.

Mandy Williams is a junior majoring in history and political science.

Sources

Bowman, J. (1997). The Rainmaker. Ethics & Public Policy Center. https://eppc.org/publication/rainmaker-the/

Miller, J. A. (2000). The Modern Law Dean. Journal of Legal Education, 50(3), 398–413.

Swann, P., & Brady, H. (1998). The Rainmaker: Ethical Analysis. University of Arkansas School of Law.

The Rainmaker (1997). Ethical Economics Study Center. https://ethicalecon.org/Cases/Rainmaker.php

Coppola, F. F. (Director). (1997). The Rainmaker [Film]. Paramount Pictures.