SACRAMENTO, CA - In a recent public drama, actor Clint Eastwood, also known as Dirty Harry, showcased an important principle. When you know you are right, stand your ground, even if the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is arrayed against you like some legal .44 magnum.

In 1996, a woman named Diane zum Brunnen (sic), who uses a wheelchair, visited Mission Ranch, a
19th-century farm on scenic Carmel Bay that Mr. Eastwood spent millions renovating. The resort, zum
Brunnen charged, failed to provide access for the disabled and specifically discriminated against her,
causing “grief and embarrassment.” She filed a suit against the actor and pushed for a settlement. But when
her attorneys demanded $500,000 in fees, Mr. Eastwood rejected the shakedown and opted for a showdown, in
court.

Zum Brunnen’s lawyers believed that Dirty Harry had fired six shots, not five, and saw a huge and easy
score for themselves. They felt lucky, but they failed to recall with whom they were dealing. Turns out,
Eastwood had only fired five shots.

“The main thing is, you’ve got to hold your ground,” Eastwood said. “If you are wrong, by all means settle.
But if you are right, you’ve got to stand firm.”

During last month’s trial in San Jose, the eight jurors toured Mission Ranch to examine the renovations. On
September 29, after less than a day of deliberations, the jurors ruled that zum Brunnen had not been harmed
in any way, and awarded her zero damages. The verdict doubtless caused grief and embarrassment to zum
Brunnen, but Mr. Eastwood didn’t let that stop him from delivering some ringing curtain lines.

Zum Brunnen’s attorneys, he said, were after “a fistful of dollars,” and such suits were “just all about
attorneys making money.” This happens to be true.

The “back story” here, as his attorneys suggested during the trial, is that zum Brunnen’s visit to
Mission Ranch was a pretext for the suit, and that, as a wealthy actor, Mr. Eastwood had been specifically
targeted.

John Burris, attorney for zum Brunnen, brought some comic relief with his claim that the suit had
accomplished its goals by forcing Mission Ranch to make improvements for the disabled. Doubtless, the half
million in fees was just an afterthought. He wanted Mr. Eastwood’s money, which the actor made by producing
films that, while often disdained by critics and decried by the politically correct, millions of people
around the world are willing to pay money to see. Dirty Harry, it might be recalled, was the first film to talk
back to liberalism, suggesting that the murderer loose in San Francisco killed not because he was poor or
mentally ill, but “because he likes it.”

The predatory breed of lawyer showcased in this trial, on the other hand, produces nothing but profits from
the bad laws it supports through its considerable clout in the political process.

The jury, Mr. Eastwood said, “did the right thing,” and it is encouraging that they rejected the obvious ploy
of professional victimhood.

The lesson for business is that even a bad law such as the Americans with Disabilities Act cannot completely
trump courage and common sense. The lesson for policymakers is that it is better not to pass bad laws
like the ADA in the first place.

- K. Lloyd Billingsley