Top 10 Most Accurate Law Movies

“Judgment at Nuremberg” tells the fictionalized tale of the third Nuremberg Trial. In the film version, several German judges are on trial for sentencing so many people to concentration camps. Both the prosecutors and the court are under pressure to go light on the judges. With the Cold War ramping up, West Germany was an important geopolitical ally. Their struggle reflects that of the defendants: can judges truly be independent while operating in large, political systems? The prosecutor refuses to bend under pressure and chooses instead to make his case. His cross-examinations are a textbook example of how to flesh out a witness’ story to maximum effect in court.

Tony Gilroy’s film follows George Clooney’s Michael, a fixer at a big city law firm. It’s a tale of murder, guilt, and backroom deals. When a lawyer handling a lawsuit for a Monsanto-like company has a breakdown, Michael is enlisted to clean up the mess. The true-to-life legal grind behind the scenes of a big case provides the backdrop to murder and intrigue. Hundreds of millions are at stake, and the lawyers at the firm spend long, frantic hours on the case. The company’s internal lawyers use whatever means necessary to protect it. The film leaves the audience uneasy: we all know just how much of a legal shield money can provide powerful bad actors.

The 1957 Agatha Christie adaptation, “Witness for the Prosecution” certainly takes some dramatic liberties. Charles Laughton stars as a barrister hired to defend Tyrone Power in a murder trial. Marlene Dietrich plays the eponymous witness: the defendant's wife who testifies against him. She later appears in disguise to present the defense with exculpatory evidence. It’s a classic noir: Laughton navigates a labyrinth of deceit to finally find the truth. The legal realism of the film takes the form of a philosophical debate. Laughton sees the legal system as a vessel for truth and justice. Dietrich is a realist: to her, justice comes to those who seize it. We see that the legal system - susceptible to legal trickery - often promotes closure over justice.

“Erin Brockovich” is the true story of the legal fight on behalf of the residents of Hinkley, California. With the help of a plucky, brash, and bold Brockovich and her law firm, the residents sue Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). The town represented a large cancer cluster in a county where PG&E illegally dumped hexavalent chromium into the water. The difficulty in such cases is proving causality. As any Stats 101 student will tell you, correlation doesn’t necessarily prove causation. Through months of legwork and investigation, Brockovich eventually located internal company documents that proved the case.

The case at the heart of Sidney Lumet’s “The Verdict” is a simple one at its core. A woman is improperly given anesthesia during childbirth, resulting in a coma and long-term care. But this is 1982 Boston and the hospital is Catholic. The wheels of politics and corruption turn against the plaintiff's lawyer, played by Paul Newman. Corrupt medical professionals alter intake forms. A corrupt judge stymies the plaintiff at every turn. A corrupt firm spies on the plaintiff’s lawyer. Still, while “The Verdict” is overly dramatized, there are many nuggets of truth within. In real life, the powerful do often have disproportionate advantages in court. They try to play the long game, playing plaintiffs and their counsel against one another.

“A Few Good Men,” like most lawyer movies, suffers from “Perry Mason” syndrome: in real life, a star witness is rarely goaded into impeaching themselves on the stand. Setting that aside, the Aaron Sorkin play-turned Rob Reiner film is a favorite among lawyers. Few legal dramas are willing to examine the nature of culpability within systems. The defendants in the case are accused of murdering a marine whose incompetence threatened unit cohesion. The death was the result of a disciplinary hazing gone too far. The hazing, a ‘code red,’ was ordered both by the defendant's lieutenant and their colonel. The film explores this culpability, forcing us to examine our institutions and the people who comprise them.

Unlike many movies of the era, “Anatomy of a Murder” was shot entirely on location. It was shot in a real courtroom in Michigan, where the story takes place. Jimmy Stewart stars as a small-town lawyer defending an Army Lieutenant in a murder case. It was written by John D. Voelker, a former Michigan State Supreme Court Justice. He based the story on a real case. Stewart uses the temporary insanity defense; as a result, he expertly deconstructs witness testimony to frame his client’s state of mind. He examines the timeline of events in excruciating detail and battles the prosecution to include evidence for motive. “Anatomy of a Murder” is very much a movie written by a lawyer made for other lawyers.

“Legal thriller” is a tried and true genre. Legal comedies, however, are few and far between. That could explain why lawyers love “My Cousin Vinny.” When two college kids from New York are charged with murder in Alabama, one calls his cousin Vinny in to defend them. Despite playing absurdity for laughs, “My Cousin Vinny” portrays a shockingly realistic trial compared to other films. We follow Vinny, a lawyer in his first trial ever, as he builds a case from the ground up. All the while, like many lawyers in similar situations, has to battle the bias of both the judge and the jury. His cross-examination techniques are true-to-life as is his reliance on expert testimony and investigation to make his case.

It’s a little difficult to imagine a film that takes place in a single room capturing an audience’s attention. And yet, “12 Angry Men” pulls it off easily thanks to great writing and incredible performances. At the end of a murder trial concerning a teen accused of killing his father, the jury must come to a verdict on a hot summer day. Their inner biases bubble to the surface as they deliberate, eventually turning into angry arguments. As one holdout juror convinces them one by one to reconsider seemingly straightforward evidence, tensions mount. The heavy responsibility of a juror is front and center as they debate a young man’s future.

Before we unveil our top pick, here are a few honorable mentions.

“Inherit the Wind” (1960)
This Spencer Tracy-Led Classic Dramatizes the Scopes Monkey Trial

“A Civil Action” (1998)
Travolta Stars as a Lawyer Who Pays the Price as a David Taking on a Goliath Corporation

“On the Basis of Sex” (2018)
This Biopic Highlights Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Fight for Women’s Rights

Before 2015, author Harper Lee wrote exactly one novel, and it became a cornerstone of American literature. In 1962, “To Kill a Mockingbird” was adapted into a film starring Gregory Peck. The American Film Institute considers the movie the best courtroom drama of all time. “To Kill a Mockingbird” is loosely based on events during Lee’s childhood in the South. It’s the story of how racism infected every aspect of the legal system. There are two juries in “To Kill a Mockingbird:” the biased jury in the film, and the audience. Atticus loses the former and wins over the latter thanks to a combination of solid lawyering and moving oratory. As in real life, the innocent can still be found guilty.

Which movie court case got to you the most? Be sure to let us know in the comments.