Nice introduction to the procedures of a civil case on corporate irresponsibility, written by the lead counsel of the case. The book alternatively feels like a legal drama where both sides utilized legal strategies and procedural choices to battle it out, alongside anecdotes from survivors of the human aspects of suffering and gross negligence that led to the case.

Makes one feel both in awe and in disgust about what legal dealings require of people, and stretching the ethics even for the lawyer for the "good side". Still, is it alright to put on a vulnerable plaintiff (and children) on the witness stand, so they would relive their nightmarish experience, so that one may 'sway' the jury towards them? Or make an executive look steely and arrogant to the jury by only questioning them about their behavior before the disaster, and refrain from asking about how their conscience haunted them after seeing the carnage? Or keep upping the settlement value in hopes of going on a lengthy and public trial and become a hot shot lawyer, even though it meant delaying the plaintiffs' access to their compensation?

Ultimately law might not be about idealism, but about working with imperfect realities in order to achieve the more just and practical outcome.