(2 of 2)
He keeps the clientele happy by helping them win tough cases. In one, the parents of a Missouri youth sued a liquor-store owner for selling to a minor, thus allowing him to get so drunk that he drove his car into a tree, killing two passengers and injuring himself. The case was a particular problem in Missouri. The state has no statute holding a liquor seller liable in damages for any injuries that befall a person who has been sold booze improperly. In fact, Missouri has followed the common-law tradition that it is the consumption of alcohol, not the sale, that is the legal cause of accidents. Six attorneys turned down the case as having no chance; the seventh, Elmer Oberhellmann of St. Louis, a single practitioner, tried in vain to find a precedent. Then he handed the problem over to the Group, which turned up an 1850 Missouri court opinion involving the sale of liquor to a slave without the permission of his owner. The slave got drunk, fell asleep and froze to death on a blustering whiter night; his master sued and won the price of a new slave. That led the Group to a 1972 case containing language indicating that the Missouri courts might be willing to abandon the old common-law tradition. Finally, they pulled together the recent legal developments across the country concerning a seller's liability. With that armament of precedents, they drew up a memorandum that persuaded three attorneys for the liquor dealer's insurance companies to settle out of court for $25,000.
Such rigorous digging has its drawbacks. Some attorneys argue that the Group's legal aid discourages a lawyer from keeping up with his field. As Larry Wise of Chesapeake, Va., explains, "Doing legal research is like continuing education. If you start relying only on others, you're bound to grow rusty at assembling the facts into the most forceful legal position." The solution: for a lawyer to consider legal-research outfits as just one more tool in winning a case.