The Trial (Penguin ed.), page 12
‘This is the house-key. Come when you like,’ were her parting words, and a badly aimed kiss touched his back as he went away. When he walked out of the front door a light rain was falling; he thought of going to the middle of the street to catch a last glimpse perhaps of Leni at the window when his uncle rushed out of a waiting taxi he had not noticed because of his distraction, seized him by the arms and pushed him against the house door as if he would like to nail him to it. ‘Boy!’ he cried. ‘How could you do it? You’ve done terrible injury to your cause, which was going well. You sneak off with a filthy little creature who is obviously the advocate’s mistress, and you stay away for hours. You don’t even make an excuse, you hide nothing, no, you’re quite open, you run to her and you stay with her. And in the meantime there we are sitting together, your uncle who is doing his best for you, the advocate who must be won over to your side, and above all the director, this important man who has virtual control of your case at its present stage. We are going to discuss how you can best be helped; I have to handle the advocate carefully, he must handle the director with equal tact, and you after all had every reason to support me at least. Instead of that, you stay away. In the end it can’t be hidden any more. Now these are polite and civilized men, they say nothing about it, they spare me, but in the end even they can’t ignore it and, as they can’t talk about the matter, they fall silent. We sat there minute after minute without a word, listening to see if you would come at last. All in vain. Finally the director gets up to go; he has stayed much longer than he originally intended, he is visibly sorry for me but unable to help me, he shows indescribable kindness by waiting at the door for some time, then he goes. I of course was relieved when he went, for I could hardly breathe. All this had an even stronger effect on the invalid advocate; the good man was speechless when I took leave of him. You’ve probably contributed to his total collapse and thus hastened the death of a man on whom you’re dependent. And I, your uncle, am left by you to wait in the rain for hours. Just feel – I am wet through.’
Advocate – Manufacturer – Painter
One winter morning – outside the snow was falling in dreary light – K. sat in his office feeling utterly tired in spite of the early hour. To shield himself, from junior officials at least, he had given his clerk an order not to admit any of them as he was busy with an important piece of work. But instead of working he shuffled about in his chair, slowly pushed some objects around on his desk, and then, without being conscious of it, left his arm outstretched on the desk-top and sat motionless with his head bowed.
Thoughts about his case never left him now. Several times he had considered whether it would not be advisable to prepare a written document in his defence and lodge it with the court. His idea was to present a short account of his life and, in the case of each relatively important event, explain the reasons for his action, say whether he now thought that course of action should be condemned or approved, and give his reasons for this judgement. Such a written defence document had undoubted advantages over plain defence by an advocate who was himself not faultless. K. did not of course know what the advocate was doing; it could not be much, he had not asked to see K. for a month, and even from the earlier interviews K. had not had the impression that this man could do much for him. For one thing, he had scarcely questioned him at all. And there was so much to ask. Asking questions was the main thing. K. had the feeling he himself could ask all the pertinent questions. But the advocate just talked, instead of asking questions, or sat opposite him in silence, leaning forward across the desk a little, probably because of his weak hearing, or pulled at a strand of hair in his beard and looked down at the carpet, perhaps at the very spot where K. had been lying with Leni. Now and again he gave K. empty admonitions, the sort one gives to children. And speeches as useless as they were boring, for which K. resolved to pay nothing at the final reckoning. When the advocate thought he had humbled him enough, he usually began to give him a little encouragement. Many such cases, he said then, had been won by him either wholly or in part, cases which in reality were perhaps not as difficult as this one but in externals seemed even more hopeless. He had a list of these cases here in this drawer – at this he tapped one or other drawer in his desk – unfortunately he could not show these documents, official secrets were involved. Nevertheless, K. would now benefit from the vast experience he had gained from all these cases. He had of course set to work at once and the first plea was almost ready. This was highly important because the first impression made by the defence often determined the whole course of the case. Unfortunately – and he must draw K.’s attention to this – the first pleas filed with the court were sometimes not read at all. They were simply added to the other documents with an indication that for the time being interrogation and observation of the defendant were more important than written material. It was also said, if the petitioner became insistent, that before the final decision when all the material had been assembled, all documents, including this first plea, would of course be reviewed in their context. But unfortunately even this was not entirely correct; the first plea was usually mislaid or completely lost, and even if kept in being until the end of the proceedings it was – so the advocate had heard, admittedly only through rumour – hardly ever read. All this was regrettable but not entirely without justification; K. should not ignore the fact that proceedings were not held in public; they could, if the court deemed it necessary, be held in public, but the law did not stipulate this. As a consequence, the written records of the court and in particular the document recording the accusation were not available to the accused and his defending counsel, so it was not known in general or at least not exactly what the first plea had to be directed against, so really it could only be fortuitous if it contained anything of significance for the case. Truly pertinent and convincing pleas could only be prepared later when through questioning of the accused the separate charges against him and their basis emerged more clearly or could be guessed at. In these circumstances the defence was naturally in an unfavourable and difficult position. But that too was intentional. The defence was in fact not really sanctioned by the law but merely tolerated, and even whether toleration could be read into the relevant clause of the law was a matter of dispute. So, strictly speaking, there were no advocates recognized as such by the court; all those who appeared before this court as advocates were basically only back-street lawyers. The effect of this on the whole profession was very degrading, and if K. happened to be visiting the court offices some time he should take a look at the advocates’ room to see for himself. He would probably be shocked at the sight of the people there. The cramped low chamber allotted to them was enough to show the contempt felt for these people by the court. The only source of light was a small skylight so high up that if anyone wanted to look out – smoke from a nearby chimney would go up his nostrils and blacken his face – he would first have to find a colleague willing to take him on his back. In the floor of this chamber – to mention only one further example of these conditions – there was a big hole that had been there for more than a year, not so big that a man could fall down into it but big enough for his leg to sink right through. The advocates’ room was on the second floor of the attics, so if one of them sank through, his leg would hang down into the lower attic and in fact into the very corridor where the clients were waiting. It was no exaggeration when the advocates described such conditions as scandalous. Complaints to the administration would not have the slightest chance of success, but the advocates were strictly forbidden to institute any changes in the room at their own expense. But even this treatment of the advocates had a rational basis. The aim was to eliminate all defence, the accused man must be left to his own devices. Basically not a bad principle, but nothing would be more mistaken than to infer from this that advocates for the defence were not necessary at this court. On the contrary, at no other court were they so necessary as here. For the proceedings were in general kept secret not only from the public but from the defendant too. Of course, only as far as this was possible, but it was possible to a considerable degree. The accused too had no access to the documents in the case and it was very difficult to draw conclusions from the hearings themselves about the documents on which they were based, and especially so for the defendant, diffident after all, and distracted by all sorts of worries. This is where defence counsel would intervene. As a rule defence counsel were not permitted to be present during hearings, so after each hearing they had to question the accused about the hearing, right at the courtroom door if possible, and extract from his often very jumbled reports whatever might be useful for the defence. But this was not the most important thing, since not much could be learned by this means, though of course in this as in other matters a capable man would learn more than others. But nevertheless the most important thing was the advocate’s personal connections, this was where the main value of defence counsel lay. Now K. would have learned from personal experience that the lower echelons of the judicial system were not exactly perfect and included employees who neglected their duties and took bribes, so that to some degree cracks appeared in the stern structure of the court. This was where the majority of advocates forced their way in, this was where the bribing and sounding out was done, indeed there were even, in earlier times, cases where documents had been stolen. It could not be denied that for a while some surprisingly favourable results could be obtained for the accused in this way, and these petty advocates strutted around and attracted new clients, but for further progress in the case this signified nothing or at least nothing beneficial. True value was to be found only in respectable personal connections, and indeed with higher officials – by which was meant only higher officials of the lower grade. Only by this means could the progress of the case be influenced, even if imperceptibly at first, then more clearly later. Of course only few advocates could achieve this, and this is where K. had made a fortunate choice. Perhaps no more than one or two other advocates could lay claim to connections like Dr Huld’s. These did not concern themselves about the lot in the advocates’ room and indeed had nothing to do with them. Their connection with the court officers was all the closer because of this. It was not even always necessary for Dr Huld to attend court and wait in the ante-rooms of the examining magistrates in case these might appear, and then, depending on the mood of these gentlemen, achieve some illusory success or not even that. No, K. himself had of course seen how officials, and among them really high ones, came of their own volition, willingly gave information which was unambiguous or at least easily interpreted, discussed the next stage in the proceedings, indeed even in some individual cases allowed themselves to be won over and gladly accepted the outsider’s opinion. Of course it was not advisable to place too much trust in them in this respect; however definitely they might express a new opinion more favourable to the defence, they could go straight back to their chambers and the next day hand down a court decision containing an exactly contrary opinion which was perhaps more severe on the accused than their original intention, the one they said they had utterly abandoned. There was naturally no defence against that, for what they said in private was said only in private and could not be inferred in public even if defence counsel were not constrained to retain the favour of these gentlemen for other reasons too. On the other hand it was also true that it was not only from philanthropic motives or feelings of personal friendship that these gentlemen established connections with defence counsel, of course only with highly qualified counsel; they were to a certain extent dependent on them. It was just here one could see the disadvantage inherent in a judicial organization which at its very beginnings created the secret court. Contact between officials and the public at large was non-existent; they were well equipped to handle common cases of average difficulty, a case of this kind ran its course almost of its own volition and required only a nudge here and there; faced with very simple cases however, or especially difficult ones, they were often at a loss; because they were immersed in the law day and night without a break they did not have the right feeling for human relationships, and in cases of that kind this was a severe deprivation. Then they came to the advocate for advice, and behind them would come the clerk carrying the documents which were normally so secret. At this very window you could have seen gentlemen, among them some you would least have expected to see, gazing miserably down into the alley while the advocate was studying the documents at his desk in order to offer them learned advice. It was also possible to see from these occasions how very seriously these gentlemen regarded their work and how they fell into the depths of despair when they encountered obstacles they could not overcome because of their temperament. Their position was by no means easy; one should not be unjust to them and think their position was easy. The hierarchical structure of the court was endless and beyond the comprehension even of the initiated. Court proceedings were in general kept secret from the minor officials, so they could hardly ever follow later developments in the matters they were dealing with; legal business simply appeared in their orbit and they did not know where it had come from, then it passed on, and they were not told where it was going. So the lessons to be learned from a study of the separate stages in the proceedings and from the final verdict and reasons for it were lost to these officials. They were allowed to concern themselves only with that part of the case demarcated for them by the law and knew less about later developments than defence counsel, who as a rule kept in touch with the accused until almost the conclusion of the case. So in this respect too they could learn much that was valuable from defence counsel. In view of all this, was K. still surprised at the irritability of officials, often expressed – everybody had come across instances of this – as insulting behaviour towards clients? All officials were irritable, even when they seemed to be calm. Of course, junior advocates suffered a lot because of this. For example, the following story was told – and it had the ring of truth: An elderly official, a benevolent quiet gentleman, had spent a day and a night without a break studying a difficult legal matter which had been made particularly complicated by the pleadings of advocates – these officials were really conscientious, more so than anyone else. Well, towards morning, after twenty-four hours of probably not very productive work, he went to the entrance door, stationed himself there in ambush, and threw downstairs every advocate who tried to come in. The advocates gathered below on the half-landing and discussed what they should do. On the one hand, they had no real right to be admitted, so could hardly undertake anything in law against the official. But on the other hand, each day not spent in court was a day lost to them, so it was important for them to get in. Finally they agreed they would try to tire the old gentleman out. One advocate after another was sent running up the stairs and, after a great show of what was really passive resistance, he let himself be thrown down again, to be caught by his colleagues. This lasted for about an hour, then the old gentleman, already exhausted by his night’s work, got really tired and went back to his chambers. Those down below could not believe it at first and sent out a scout to look behind the door and see if the place was really empty. Only then did they go in, and they probably did not even dare to complain. For the advocates – and even the most junior could see to some extent what conditions were like – had absolutely no wish to introduce or push through improvements, while – and this was very revealing – nearly every defendant, even when quite artless, began to think about suggestions for improvement as soon as he was caught up in a case, and often wasted time and energy which could have been used more profitably in other ways. The only right thing to do was to come to terms with circumstances as they were. Even if it were possible to rectify certain details – but that was just a senseless delusion – the best one could hope for would be to achieve something for the benefit of future cases, but that would be at the expense of doing oneself immeasurable harm through attracting the particular attention of a bureaucracy which was always vengeful. Just never attract attention! One had to keep quiet, even when this went against the grain! And try to see that this great legal organism was always in a state of equilibrium, so to speak, and that anyone who independently made an alteration in his own area would be cutting the ground from under his feet and could come crashing down, while the great organism itself compensated for the slight disturbance by easily producing a replacement at another point – everything was after all connected – and remained unchanged, assuming it did not become (and this was probable) even more secretive, even more observant, even more severe, even more malevolent. One should leave the work to the advocate instead of meddling with it. Reproaches did not serve much purpose, especially when the full significance of the reasons for them could not be made clear, yet it had to be said that K. had damaged his cause badly through his behaviour towards the director. This influential man could almost be struck off the list of those who might be approached for help on K.’s behalf. He had deliberately ignored even fleeting references to the case. In many respects the officials were of course like children. Often they could be so offended by trivial things – K.’s behaviour unfortunately did not fall into this category – that they stopped talking even to good friends, turned away when they met and opposed them in every possible way. But then, surprisingly and without any obvious reason, they condescended to laugh at some little joke one had ventured to make only because everything seemed so hopeless, and they were reconciled. It was at the same time both difficult and easy to conduct business with them; there were hardly any ground rules. Sometimes one simply felt astonished that an average lifetime was long enough for the acquisition of the amount of knowledge one needed to work here with any degree of success. Of course there were depressing periods, such as everyone experienced, when one could believe nothing had been achieved, when it seemed that only those cases destined from the beginning to reach a favourable outcome had turned out well, which they would have done in any event, while all the others had been lost in spite of dancing attendance on them all the time, in spite of all effort and all the little apparent successes which gave such pleasure. Then of course nothing seemed certain any more and, if definitely asked, one would not even dare deny that some cases moving along in an entirely satisfactory way had been led off in a false direction by the advocate’s intervention. Even that could be a reason for self-confidence, but it was the only one left. Advocates were especially prone to such moods – they were moods, nothing more – when a case they had taken some distance to their own satisfaction was suddenly removed from them. That must be the worst that could happen to an advocate. The case was never removed by the accused, that never happened; once an accused man had briefed a particular advocate he had to stay with him whatever happened. How could he manage by himself once he had asked for help? So that did not happen, but it did sometimes happen that the case took a direction in which the advocate was not permitted to accompany it. The case and the accused and everything were simply removed from the advocate; then the most intimate connections with officials were no help, for they themselves knew nothing. The case had entered a stage where help was no longer permitted, where it was being dealt with by inaccessible courts, where even the accused could no longer be contacted by the advocate. Then one day you could come home and find on your desk all the various pleas prepared by you for this case with such intense application and with the highest hopes; they had been returned because they could not be carried over into the new stage of the proceedings; they were worthless scraps of paper. That did not mean the case was lost, not at all, at least there was no firm basis for this assumption, it was merely that one knew nothing more about the case and would learn nothing more about it. Now such occurrences were fortunately exceptions, and even if K.’s case were such an occurrence it was at the moment very far from being at such a stage. So there were many opportunities here for the advocate to go to work and K. could be sure they would be exploited. As he had mentioned, the plea had not yet been filed, there was no hurry about that, much more important were the introductory discussions with authoritative officials, and these had already taken place. With varying success, it had to be frankly admitted. It was much better for the time being not to mention details which might have a bad effect on K. by making him either too hopeful or too depressed, but this much could be said – that some individuals had spoken out favourably and showed great willingness to help, while others had spoken less favourably but had by no means refused their assistance. The result was therefore very gratifying on the whole, but no particular conclusions should be drawn from this as all preliminaries began in a similar way and it was only later developments which revealed the value of these preliminaries. At any rate, nothing had been lost yet, and if they still succeeded in winning over the director in spite of everything, then the whole affair was, as the surgeons put it, a clean wound, and future developments could be awaited with confidence.
