The library, slated to eventually hold over 100,000 books, is in a building whose interior and exterior looks like something out of Downton Abby. The library also includes The Stone Chapel, a reconstruction of a 500 A.D. church in Tomarza, Cappadocia (Turkey). [Take my word. Check out the library’s website and do a Google image search for it. Trust me.]
But, even with serious religious study as its purpose, it is still necessary to include this on the library’s website: “Please use the leather coasters for your drinks, but do not take the coasters with you. They are not souvenirs.”
Combining religion and the law, Lanier is the founder of the Christian Trial Lawyers Association, an organization whose purposes include advancement of Christian principles as they co-exist with the practice of law. He is also the author of the 2014 book Christianity on Trial – A Lawyer Examines the Christian Faith. This from the back of the book: “[The book] brings a legal eye to examine the plausibility of the Christian faith. Examining the rules that courts follow, [Lanier] probes key issues and interrogates witnesses from throughout history to explore whether it makes sense to accept the Christian worldview or not.”
But Lanier’s religious activities are not all so passive. Come Sundays he steps up to the pulpit as a teacher and sometimes pastor. Lanier teaches The Biblical Literacy class at Champion Forest Baptist Church in Houston to about 750 people. During the week he prepares a ten to fifteen page handout for the class and wakes up on Sunday at 5 a.m. to put together the Power Point. He is currently teaching a series called “Why I’m Not…,” where he lectures on why he is not various things, such as an atheist or an agnostic or various religions other than his own. This is serious stuff. It’s school on Sunday, but this is no Sunday school. Many of Lanier’s lectures appear on the internet. From them it is easy to see why he plays so well in front of juries.
I asked Lanier if there are any contradictions between practicing law and the teachings in the Bible. Not at all. In fact it helps he says, pointing out that the entire legal system in the West is built on the Judeo-Christian codes. As Moses told the Israelites, Lanier points out, if your ox gores your neighbor you have to pay damages. If your ox has gored before then you have to pay treble damages. The legal system, Lanier notes, is based on the Biblical notion of right and wrong. “Justice is a preeminent Biblical concept,” he points out. Looking at what the Bible and practice of law require, Lanier says that both have him walking on the exact same road.
Hunting With Scalia
On three occasions Lanier went hunting with the late Justice Scalia. I ask him if he has any stories about that. Thousands, he says. He tells me a couple. One involves a hunting trip with Lanier, Scalia and a few others sitting around a table for lunch. The topic of Lonesome Dove came up – which did you like better, the movie or the book? Lanier says he liked the book better, not to mention that he was able to read the prequel. Scalia hears the word “prequel” and goes nuts -- claiming that prequel is not a word. And how could a smart guy like Lanier not know that? Lanier insists that prequel is in the dictionary. Scalia counters that maybe it’s in Webster’s third, but that’s not a real dictionary. Lanier says it’s in the Oxford English Dictionary. Scalia disputes that and the two go back and forth. Scalia challenges Lanier to check the OED on his phone. Lanier does so and finds that prequel appears. Scalia mutters what’s happening to this world?
Despite prequel appearing in the OED, Scalia, not to be deterred, begins to lecture Lanier on why it shouldn’t – pointing to Latin derivatives to make his case. But Lanier has a strong comeback – pointing out that he has a degree in Greek and took years of Latin.
But that’s not the end of it. Lanier got back home and sent a letter to the editor of the OED – blind copy to Scalia – now making Scalia’s case that prequel should not appear in the next edition of the dictionary. The OED editor wrote back, saying that while Lanier’s argument was well-reasoned, prequel is a word and it’s staying put. A few weeks later Lanier was in D.C. and had lunch with Scalia in his chambers [Chinese takeout on Supreme Court china, he notes.] Scalia had the blind copy of Lanier’s letter and announced that he was going to send one to the OED himself. But Lanier showed Scalia the OED’s response. And with that the case of In re: Prequel was over, but not before Scalia quipped that the OED editor didn’t have the backbone to remove the word.
Puncture: The Movie
Lanier plays himself in a few scenes in Puncture, a 2011 movie above two young lawyers (one straight-laced and the other drug-addicted), with no means, who file a suit on behalf of an engineer who invented a needle that can prevent accidental sticks to medical professionals. It is a life-saving device. But because of the relationship – and kickbacks -- between hospital purchasing groups and a large needle manufacturer, hospitals had no interest in purchasing it. I watched the movie. It got mixed reviews, but I enjoyed it immensely and recommend it.
The movie is loosely based on one of Lanier’s cases. Really loosely, Lanier stresses to me. In 2004, Lanier settled a case for $150 million, on behalf of Retractable Technologies, against Becton Dickinson & Company, the world's largest manufacturer of medical syringes, for allegedly illegally manipulating the hospital-supply market.
The Next Joe Jamail?
It is hard to think about Mark Lanier without making a comparison to legendary personal injury lawyer Joe Jamail. [Jamail died last year at age 90. He was the richest practicing lawyer in America. Forbes listed his net worth at $1.6 billion.]
Like Lanier, Jamail practiced in Houston. Both lawyers are colorful characters, known for a magical way before juries, have heard the word billion uttered from the jury box and started their careers at Fulbright & Jaworski (Jamail lasted less than an hour there). Of course, there is also a divide between them as wide as that canyon in Arizona. Lanier is the pastor who doesn’t serve alcohol as his Christmas Party. Jamail was gruff, known to sometimes speak in unprintable language and would not have thrown a Christmas party without alcohol – nor even attended one for that matter.
I asked Lanier if he’s the next Joe Jamail. He won’t go anywhere near the comparison. Anyone who thinks they are the next Joe Jamail, Lanier says, needs to take a “big humility pill.” He says that Jamail, along with Ernest Cannon and John O’Quinn and others, “blazed the trail” and all Lanier and others are doing is walking down it. He and others “may take it a little bit further,” Lanier says, “but only because they blazed it so well.”
Lanier also shared a story with me about Jamail. It was hilarious. Of course, not surprisingly for a Joe Jamail story, it’s one that I can’t repeat in a family publication.
The Famous Christmas Party
Lanier is well-known for his annual Christmas party, hosting upwards of 9,000 people at his 40 acre home. The party’s trademark is entertainment from A-list musicians. Over the years partygoers have been treated to, in addition to the aforementioned (Bon Jovi, Sting, Miley Cyrus and Johnny Cash), Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, Crosby, Stills & Nash, Randy Travis, the Dixie Chicks and others. If Santa Claus were real, Lanier would have him there.
In addition to the musical entertainment, the party has included carnival rides, a mini version of the Polar Express working its way around the property and a menagerie that the Houston Chronicle called “only slightly smaller than the Houston Zoos.” It is unquestionably a family event – no alcohol is served – and one with a serious focus on charity. The Chronicle has called it as over the top as it is down to earth.
However, after 20 years, the annual Lanierapalooza came to an end two years ago. Lanier told me that it simply became too disruptive to the house – “We basically couldn’t live here from September until February.” “It was a great thing that ran its course,” Lanier said. “So finally after 20 years my wife and I looked at each other and said we are done.” Would he ever have another? Maybe, he tells me. “If I could get the Rolling Stones, U-2 or Paul McCartney, yeah I might do another one.” |