Charles Dickens' Bleak House
As a probate attorney, I was originally attracted to Charles Dickens' Bleak House because of its subject matter, which centers on a Will contest in the Court of Chancery. Of course, Dickens' writing style -- especially the cleverly-drawn characters and the plot twists -- kept me reading, even when I wasn't sure whether I'd make it through the whole thing (the Penguin Classics edition I read was 989 pages, not including endnotes).
The main character, Esther Summerson, is raised by her godmother, who informs Esther that "Your mother... is your disgrace, and you were hers." (Chapter 3, page 30 -- all page references in this post are to the Penguin Classics edition mentioned above.) After the godmother's death, Esther is taken into the home of John Jarndyce, who is a party to the long-running Chancery case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. (The name of Mr. Jarndyce's home gives the novel its title.) Esther is to serve as a companion to one of the wards in the case, Ada Clare. Over the course of the novel, Esther does a lot of good deeds, contracts smallpox, learns the secret of her parentage, and gets involved in a love triangle with Mr. Jarndyce (a bit icky, given his fatherly relationship with her) and the handsome doctor Allan Woodcourt.
I think of the novel as a series of meditations regarding the relationship of various characters to property (especially via other characters). The main example involves Richard Carstone, Ada's cousin and the other ward in Jarndye -- Richard becomes obsessed with the court case (and his expectancy of an inheritance), and his obsession destroys him. Characters are also forced to make choices they otherwise wouldn't because of the debts they owe. For instance, one character is "forced" to turn over private correspondence in order to avoid the ruin of his business and his best friend.
It's an understatement to say that Bleak House shows Dickens as having no love for lawyers or the Court of Chancery, which seems to function only for the benefit of the attorneys. Besides Mr. Tulkinghorn, a lawyer and the villain of the piece, the lawyers we see are usually portrayed as emotionless (at least, when they aren't being compared to vampires). Dickens has more (albeit grudging) affection for the nasty businessman Smallweed, who is probably the novel's funniest character. Brimming with malevolence, the elderly, diabled Smallweed is usually seen either trying to hustle someone for money or shouting at his granddaughter to "shake me up, Judy."
The novel features quite a few mentions of probate issues, many of which still resonate today:
Chapter 9, page 143: As I discussed in this post, mentions a pet trust.
Chapter 15, pages 250-251: A character discusses a dispute over an advancement (a subject I covered here), explaining as follows:
My father (a farmer) made a will, and left his farm and stock, and so forth, to my mother, for her life. After my mother's death, all was to come to me, except a legacy of three hundred pounds that I was then to pay my brother. My mother died. My brother, some time afterwards, claimed his legacy. I, and some of my relatives, said that he had had a part of it already, in board and lodging, and some other things.... [n]o one disputed anything but whether part of that three hundred pounds had been already paid or not.
Chapter 33, page 529: After the death of a man named Krook, Smallweed (Krook's brother-in-law) comes forward and states that "[u]nless [Krook] left a will (which is not at all likely) I shall take out letters of administration." This is exactly as it would be done today in Illinois, where a petition in a case of intestacy is for letters of administration.
Chapter 62, page 948: References a long-lost Will that supersedes a testator's other Wills, and whether this new Will was revoked by being burnt. (Interestingly enough, under current Illinois law -- 755 ILCS 5/4-7 -- a Will can be revoked "by burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating it by the testator himself or by some person in his presence and by his direction and consent.")
Dickens also addresses the more general issue of a lawyer's duty to his client. Mr. Tulkinghorn is the attorney for Sir Leicester Dedlock, and harasses Sir Leicester's wife over a mystery in her past. Is Mr. Tulkinghorn acting in Sir Leicester's best interest, or in his own? Lady Dedlock describes Mr. Tulkinghorn to Esther as "mechanically faithful without attachment," and states that "[h]is calling is the acquisition of secrets, and the holding possession of such power as they give him, with no sharer or opponent in it." (Chapter 36, page 581) Mr. Tulkinghorn's manner of doing business eventually causes him to lose his life; we also find, in some touching passages near the novel's end, that Sir Leicester's response to his wife's mystery is much different from what we (or Mr. Tulkinghorn) might have expected.
Dickens' flights of fancy (in terms of plot) are occasionally hard to take. For instance, the revelations about Esther's parentage -- which drive the last half of the book -- come to light only because of the extremely convenient spontaneous combustion (!) of one of the novel's minor characters. In addition, everyone in the story appears to have a secret connection with everyone else, which can get a little ridiculous. (Could that gruff former military man really be the long-lost son of the housekeeper?) But these are minor matters, and I highly recommend Bleak House.
Bookmark: 
