Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The Lincoln Lawyer by Michael Connelly


"I traded evil for innocence"

Mickey used questionable ways to make sure that justice was served. He tampered with a witness (Corliss); he lied to his client and to the police; he withheld information. Do you think the end justified his actions?


For further information about the author and his books, check out:


http://www.michaelconnelly.com/

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The reader is taken in by intrigue on the first two pages of the book. Mickey Haller is very clever about manipulating the justice system for the benefit of his clientele who are mostly slightly 'sleazy' characteres. No matter their background he does his best. He has however a 'three strikes you're out' rule, 'threepeat' and he is not your lawyer. One client who breakes the rule calls Mickey 'street legal' when the client goes to prison.

When Haller meets Louis Roulet, whose story he first believes, soon some of his own methods come back to haunt him!

On page 198, Mickey has sort of an epiphany when discussing/reading the left hand and right hand theory. He is reminded of the case of Jesus Menendes, a former client, who is in prison. He begins to think Jesus may be innocent.

Haller pulls in some favors and manages to get information to Gloria Dayton, a client in a holding cell, so that she can somehow pass the information to Carliss, who is the prosecutor's 'hopeful' 'ace-in-the-hole'.

When Raul is murdered, Mickey is quite positive that Roulet is guilty but he decides he must go through as defense lawyer. He figures out how to give Detective Kurlen an underhanded tip which will help entrap Roulet but without blame on Mickey's part.

When everything hits the fan former methods of Haller and a former client (Road Saint) helps protect his family.

Was it a big surprise when Mickey is confronted by the murderer of Raul? Remember Louis's words, "I am a son of a bitch!"

I began to suspect the lawyer even though he was a little 'mousy'. I began to think Louis may not have been guilty because of Fernando Valenzuela's assurance about the ankle constraints.

Anonymous said...

A truly great who done it novel! Worth the read. I could hardly put the book down! Let's see if the movie can match up to it!