69 pages 2 hours read

The Street Lawyer

Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1998

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Symbols & Motifs

Symbol: White

Grisham uses the color white as a symbol for neutralizing, cleansing, or sterilizing a tainted object or environment. Early in the novel, the white is represented in the form of snow. When Michael first visits the 14th Street Legal Clinic, he is hesitant to park his Lexus in the clinic’s crime-ridden neighborhood, but when he leaves, he sees that his “Lexus [is] still parked at the curb, already covered with an inch of snow” (42). The Lexus stands out in this neighborhood, but the (white) snow solves that problem; under the snow, it could be any vehicle. Grisham employs the symbol here both as foreshadowing and irony. The covering of the car indicates that the real crime is the Lexus, not the dilapidated neighborhood, as Michael assumes. In this case, the Lexus is also symbolic of the materialistic lifestyle that Michael will soon eschew in order to belong and fit into the street-law community. Later, when Michael first volunteers at the emergency shelter and again worries about parking his Lexus in a neighborhood he views as sketchy, he is relieved and proven wrong: “My car was sitting where I left it, covered with new snow” (76). Eventually, he replaces the Lexus with a much humbler, less ostentatious car, signaling that he is leaving behind a relic of his old life. Notably, Michael’s “new” old car never gets covered in snow during the novel.

When Mordecai and Michael go to the morgue to identify the Burtons, “the floor [is] white tile” and “[t]he bodies [are] covered from head to ankle with white sheets” (94). Here the white floor and sheets cover whatever sins these bodies have committed and those others have committed against them. Michael and Mordecai do not have to endure viewing the bodies and thinking about the details of the asphyxiation that killed them. In this way, they can see them as they choose to, picture an idealized image, and elevate them to near-sainthood in their minds.

The first time Michael visits Hector Palma’s apartment in DC, when he learns Palma and his family have recently moved, he observes that the place is completely devoid of evidence that a family ever lived there: “The place [is] sterile. Every room [has] a fresh coat of dull white” (210). Not only has Drake & Sweeney whisked the Palmas away to Chicago, where Hector cannot do damage to the firm’s image, but they have also arranged for his apartment to be literally and figuratively “whitewashed,” this time covering any potentially illegal or unethical tracks they may have left. This behavior is similar to Drake & Sweeney’s sudden remodel of the conference room after the Mister hostage crisis. With white paint, they erase any trace of wrongdoing.

Good Guys Versus Bad Guys

Several times throughout the novel, Michael Brock refers to certain groups as either “good guys” or “bad guys,” using this moral binary to define his ever-changing world. Michael needs to place himself and others within a specific group in order to ground himself and better delineate the boundaries between himself and the Other. The first time he references good/bad dichotomy is directly after the Mister incident: “With the carnage held to a minimum, and the good guys up and smiling, the excitement at Drake & Sweeney waned quickly” (23). The “good guys” in this quote include Michael, the other eight lawyers who were held hostage, the police, and all of Drake & Sweeney. The “carnage” refers to the potential danger Mister threatened, as well as his death by sniper. In this moment, Michael identifies as a “good guy” because he valiantly took the lead and stood up for his colleagues when reasoning with Mister. By default, DeVon “Mister” Hardy is the “bad guy” because he was the one disrupting the “splendid, marble” halls of Drake & Sweeney with a gun, threats, blood, and brain matter. The complication in Michael’s assessment is that during the hostage situation, Michael begins to understand Mister’s points and sympathize with him—he becomes “infected” with the “bad guy’s” principles, so to speak. Grisham illustrates this transference symbolically when, as a result of his proximity to Mister, Michael is splattered with Mister’s blood and brain matter. That Michael is subsequently confused about who is “good” and who is “bad” in this scenario forms the basis of his decision to leave Drake & Sweeney.

Much later, when Michael is having dinner with Warner, he spots a former Drake & Sweeney colleague nearby and then “[glances] around the room to make sure no other bad guys [are] in the restaurant” (294). At this point, the actions of Drake & Sweeney (along with River Oaks and TAG)—knowingly denying people of their rights, causing physical and emotional harm to their families, indirectly causing several people’s deaths, and actively trying to cover their ongoing involvement in said nefariousness—have caused Michael to shift his perspective on them. Michael’s judgment on this subject is still subjective, however, as he, too, has committed crimes against people, but because his crimes target privileged people, he believes they are justified. Drake & Sweeney have migrated from good guys to bad guys, but in Michael’s mind, he has always been good, with or without the firm.

Grisham further complicates the idea of a strict good/bad moral dichotomy in Michael and Claire’s relationship. As Michael describes it, neither partner was really to blame for the relationship’s downward spiral, as both avoided communication by hyper-focusing on work. So, neither Michael nor Claire was the “bad guy.” On the other hand, neither was the “good guy” either. Both partners let the relationship die without a fight, and so when the divorce is final, Michael “[drives] away [with] no feeling of liberation. It [isn’t] a thrill to be single again. Claire and [he] had both lost” (157). They both lost because neither fought, which illustrates the nebulous nature of good and bad and the effect apathy and passivity have on it.

Michael’s subjective and often narcissistic judgment of “good” and “bad” suggests that those binary qualities are relative to the eye of the beholder. Grisham counters this motif, however, with Mordecai Green, who believes passionately that unhoused people and those who fight for them are on the good side, and whoever is against them is bad, which suggests that action, not belief, determines to which side of the yin-yang a person belongs.

Traditional Women’s Roles

In a novel that is all about passionately fighting for a cause against all odds, only men get to do the hard work. Women remain in the background as nurturers, cooks, secretaries, and drug addicts, with few women in positions of power.

Grisham draws an interesting contrast between Michael’s mother, who never gets a name, and Lontae Burton. Michael mentions that his mother was a banker, and that his parents “worked hard, saved well, and provided a comfortable upper-middle-class home” for him and his brothers (53), but in the present day, she is mostly a worrier who concerns herself with appearances. She grieves Warner’s divorce, not because he might be hurt but because of how it reflects on her; she frets about Michael’s safety in DC, but only because she sees the crime statistics, which have no relevance to the area of DC in which Michael lives and works. To say she is out of touch with her children is an understatement. Lontae, on the other hand, battles her drug addiction and life on the streets every day to keep her children safe, healthy, and fed, often sacrificing herself and her own needs. Unlike Michael’s mother, whose race and class afford her great privilege, Lontae constantly fights an oppressive society structured to marginalize her at every turn. One could argue that they are both products of their environment, and that as such, they both do the best they can with what they know. Grisham’s picture of the women, however, depicts Lontae as the true nurturer and Michael’s mom as a passive actress playing the role of a mother. Either way, neither of the women possess real power or agency.

The two women in the novel who come closest to having power are Sofia Mendoza, the woman who runs the front desk at the legal clinic, and Megan, who directs Naomi’s Women’s Center, where Ruby stays during the day. Grisham characterizes both women as smart and clever, but their narrative importance is found in connection to Michael. As Michael puts in more hours at the legal clinic, he begins to see Sofia’s indispensable bevy of creativity, connections, and resourcefulness. The more he collaborates with Megan for Ruby, the more he sees her romantic appeal. Both women, however, hold the position of “almost powerful.”

Mordecai and the others at the legal clinic respect Sofia, and they regard her as an equal member of the team, but Grisham makes it clear that she is a social worker, not a lawyer. She does locate Hector Palma for Michael, which is crucial to their case, but she cannot be present in court, she cannot officially provide legal advice, and her voice is not heard beyond the walls of the clinic. She puts in regular hours at the clinic, whereas Mordecai and Michael seem to work around the clock, because she is not inextricably bound to any cases. Ironically, after Michael surrenders his law license for nine months, and Mordecai assures him that his status will be the same as Sofia’s, he tells Michael in a later conversation that he is “the new blood, the new talent who would invigorate the clinic and take it to the next level” (366), undermining the notion that Sofia and Michael are equals and painting Sofia as a glorified receptionist.

Megan’s character, although clearly gifted enough to successfully run a shelter that offers women education, community, and safety, is ultimately relegated to the status of romantic interest. She does provide some ideas for keeping Ruby sober, and in the end, she provides the “safe house” where she and Michael vacation and Ruby maintains her sobriety, but those narrative contributions are minimal. She is not indispensable to the plot, or even to Michael personally. In fact, no woman in this novel is vital to Michael, Mordecai, or any of the other characters.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
Unlock IconUnlock all 69 pages of this Study Guide

Plus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.

Including features:

+ Mobile App
+ Printable PDF
+ Literary AI Tools