Rachel’s and returned to her office. As we went again through the facts, we concluded the accident had been triggered off by a fault in the machine. Still, in an action against the manufacturers it would hard to establish the fault. We preferred a suit against Wollor – the local firm – provided Rotem admitted liability. The question was how to persuade it.
In the ultimate, it was an open-ended issue. Wolf’s record with the insurers would, undoubtedly, be a relevant fact. So would the orientation of Rotem’s personnel in charge. In this regard, both Rachel and I had some hope. Any decision of the Board of Directors would depend on a recommendation of the in-house lawyers. We knew both well and so embarked on an assessment of their likely reaction.
The senior in-house lawyer, Ruth Schwartz, had done her pupillage in Jacob Keren’s firm and for a while worked with him. She was not deterred by hard work and by Keren’s exacting demands. Work had become her utmost priority. What perturbed her were Keren’s derogatory remarks about the Yekkes – the German Jews. Initially, Ruth tolerated the outbursts of her East European employer. But after one particularly disparaging remark, she handed in her resignation.
Hannah Hod, who had been my team leader before Rachel joined our firm, was yet another Yekke. But unlike Ruth, she shrugged Keren’s tirades off as if they were outbursts of an uncouth child. What broke her back was the pressure of the long hours of work and the exacting demands involved in handling cases with Keren. Being, like myself, an asthmatic, she lacked the required robustness. In addition, she was bringing up her daughter single handed. When Ruth Schwartz offered her a post, she grabbed it.
I knew that, left to their own, both would try to help our pretty client. Behind the disguise of her cold front, Ruth Schwartz hid a warm and kindly heart. Hannah, who was a strong willed and blunt lawyer in court, was a softy. She would identify with poor Dahlia and would look for legitimate grounds to induce Rotem to do the right thing.
“I think, Rachel, our true problem is Ben Zion. He is a stickler to the rules. He is not a bad chap. But he will suppress any sentimental urge”.
“You are right there. But we do have one further problem!”
“Oh?”
“Jacob Keren, my pet. Here in the office he wears the hat of the kindly and resourceful lawyer – all set to take care of Dahlia’s plight. But what will be his attitude when the matter comes up before the Board of Directors? Won’t he wear his other – corporate – hat?”
“Wouldn’t he disqualify himself because of ‘conflict’?”
“They may not let him!”
“And then he’ll pontificate! Well, what are we to do?” I asked.
“We must come up with an argument – a sound legal argument – to induce Rotem to admit liability. That’s your department, my pet. You’re the ‘bright spark’. So, get started.”
“I’ll see if my chat with Boaz produces any results.”