Scoundrels in Law: The Trials of Howe and Hummel, Lawyers to the Gangsters, Cops, Starlets, and Rakes Who Made the Gilded Age

by Cait Murphy

“A delightful romp through the theatrical courtrooms, seedy back alleys, and elegant parlors of Gilded Age New York.” —James McGrath Morris, author of A Life in Politics, Print, and Power “Only Dickens could have done more with this fabulously rich material. Terrific stuff.” —Eric Homberger, author of Mrs. Astor's New York Cait Murphy, author of Crazy ’08 , is back with Scoundrels in Law : a witty, irreverent book that details the life and outrageous times of the law partnership of Howe and Hummel—quite possibly the most colorful one that ever was—and in the process gives a whirlwind tour of the Big Apple at the end of the 19th Century.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, True Crime, Crime

352 pages, Hardcover

First published June 3, 2010

About the author

Cait Murphy is an editor and writer in New York, New York.

Reviews

[Marti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not much is known about the lawyers Hummel and Howe except that they were notorious for playing on juror's sympathy with a lot of melodramatic sob stories. We know nothing about how they got into law (nobody went to law school back then), nor how the two even met.

Therefore, the book reads like a litany of cases, some familiar, some not so much (like the one where they prosecuted a group of crazy women who went around killing cats in Greenwich Village in a misguided effort to save them from the streets).

Sometimes the convoluted details got a little bit tedious and hard to follow, but overall an entertaining read even if the author's attempts at snark fall flat.

[Bob Schnell · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Scoundrels in Law" by Cait Murphy covers the law firm of Howe & Hummel during New York's gilded age. They could rightfully be considered the first celebrity lawyers thanks to the popularity of newspapers at the time. The two were involved in the biggest cases and some less notorious ones as well. Their methods were not always legal or ethical, but the clients knew that everything possible was being done for them.

Since I've read a number of books on New York history, there weren't too many surprises here. However, seeing events through the eyes of the lawyers put a different spin on them.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

The American legal system in the late 19th century was wholly different then it is today. The judicial process relied on not just legal fictions, but a strict and irrational emphasis on procedure. Judges neglected consistent jurisprudence, instead following opportune bribes and their personal moral beliefs when deciding cases. And lawyers were generally regarded as eloquent hacks, lacking in education. New York City, at that time, had a similar duality. The rapid change of the Gilded Age brought a surge of white collar crime by the winners of the time, and blue collar crime by those left behind. Lower Manhattan was populated by neighborhoods of ethnic gangs (Five Points), financial tycoons (Wall Street), and corrupt local governance (Tammany Hall).

In this tumultuous context, the law firm, Howe & Hummel, dominated both the legal sphere and the local headlines. Corpulent and opulent, William Howe, presented the rhetorical face of the firm, acting as an impassioned litigant known for his lengthy and tearful trial arguments (and his foppish, diamond-encrusted ties that he used for drying his tears..). Extremely short and nebbish, Abraham Hummel, represented the administrative side of the firm, consistently working at less glamorous suits, and often resorting to blackmail and perjury to ensure successful resolution. The two were a lot like Boggis and Bunce from Fantastic Mr. Fox--fat and short, crafty and immoral. They also were representative of the time and place; and, their role in numerous high-profile cases--ranging from murders to bank robberies to suggestive theater (often a crime in the 19th century)--from this period makes them doubly interesting.

"Scoundrels in Law", by Cait Murphy, is a fun, short book on the history of Howe & Hummel, and its eponymous heads. Driving the book forward is Murphy's presentation of the two as characters as much as real people. While this is certainly aided by the cartoonish appearance and personalities of Howe and Hummel, it gives the book an enjoyable and light--albeit reductionist--focus and pace. Similarly, Murphy is helped by compelling content. Crime in late 19th century New York was both sexy and violent. Breach of promise suits, in which a man promises to marry a woman and then reneges, dominated civil suits; murders were rare enough to create sensations, but common enough to warrant the advent of the electric chair (which was first introduced in NY at this time); and, moral battles over abortion, freedom of speech in the arts, and anarchism grabbed headlines. Howe and Hummel represented a substantial amount of the criminal defendants and civil parties in these suits, often creating further intrigue and vice.

Murphy is almost entirely concerned with story-telling in "Scoundrels in Law", declining to make larger, theoretical arguments on the impact of Howe & Hummel on the legal system of the US, and the culture and politics of New York. I think this is wise. While she could certainly make these greater arguments, and briefly does in the last pages of the book, Howe & Hummel was more interesting for the stories it created then the ideas it proffered. Still, at times, Murphy takes this approach too far. Her tone is often overly informal, as she ends far too many paragraphs with unfunny witticisms. And, the way she structures "Scoundrels in Law", breaking the book up by the type of suit the firm is involved in (i.e. murder, larceny, gang warfare), feels awkward. I think she should have just adopted a straightforward, chronological structure. Overall though, as a book to pick up and read for a few minutes before going to bed, "Scoundrels in Law" is good enough.

[Paul Pessolano · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Scoundrels In Law” by Cait Murphy, published by Smithsonian Books.

Category – History Publication Date – June 15, 2010

“Scoundrels In Law” focuses on the lives and trials of Abraham Hummel and William Howe. However, while doing this the book also gives a very good portrait of what it was like to live in New York during the “Gilded Age”.

Hummel and Howe were lawyers who took on high profile cases and defended the likes of criminals, prostitutes, and various other villains of the time. They were not beyond bribery and blackmail. These methods not only included police but judges as well.

These two were so good at what they did that they were called in on the best murder cases or those trials that garnered the most interest.

While telling their story the author also gives a good account of life during this period of history. A life for some that was very good while others lived in abject poverty. A life that was sometimes based on who you knew, or who you had the goods on. Extortion, bribery, and political favoritism was practiced openly and seemed above the law.

The author points out that although the two men were vastly different of each other, they were able to work together to form a partnership that enabled them to live a life of luxury. This life of luxury, however, ended when they became involved in a scandal that they were unable to extricate themselves.

A totally interesting book that not only is a story of Hummel and Howe, but also a look into the “Gilded Age” in New York.

[Clare · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite how much it hurt me to not go to the latest Harvard Book Store warehouse sale, I was disciplined and did not go to the latest Harvard Book Store warehouse sale, partly because I am moving and have so many books to pack up and possibly get rid of, but also partly because I have an absolute shitton of books acquired at previous warehouse sales that I have not yet read. Most of them are history books but I do have a book of T.S. Eliot's cat poems (it is the one illustrated by Edward Gorey, because I am extremely on-brand).

One of these books, which I picked up like three years ago, is Cait Murphy's Scoundrels in Law: The Trials of Howe & Hummel, Lawyers to the Gangsters, Cops, Starlets, and Rakes Who Made the Gilded Age. I had never heard of Howe & Hummel before I spotted this book in the warehouse, but the lengthy subtitle indicated strongly that this was likely to be something extremely Up My Alley.

Turns out: It was! Howe and Hummel were exactly the sort of wacky, corrupt mob-lawyer type weirdos that make reading about the Gilded Age so fun. They defended on cases that were ahead of their time on issues like free speech and obscenity; they also covered for a lot of absolute garbage fire humans doing garbage fire things. They knew everybody. They had all kinds of organized and disorganized crime ties. They ripped off their clients shamefully, except for the rich ones, whom they ripped off shamelessly, because the Gilded Age rich sucked and I don't feel bad for them.

One of the best parts of the book was the coverage of the anarchist trials. Howe & Hummel defended numerous anarchists, generally quite skillfully on political freedom grounds, drawing upon the jury's self-images as patriotic Americans who should defend their fellow Americans' right to have odd and possibly misguided political ideas. They got no help from their clients on this, who apparently could not be arsed to keep a lid on their insurrectionary leanings even for the duration of one cross-questioning while on trial for inciting riots that they didn't even incite. Hummel & Howe ended up defending self- and explosives-obsessed gasbag Johann Most, father of the "propaganda of the deed" (i.e., blowing stuff up and calling it theory) when he got hauled in on incitement to violence charges for like the one speech he gave in his life that actually wasn't about how great blowing stuff up is. (There are many anarchist theorists that I have respect for even though I am not personally an anarchist; Johann Most is emphatically not one of them.)

The other best parts of the book are obviously the chapter on theater scandals, complete with burly cops attempting to "demonstrate" belly-dancing in court, and the chapter on gangs, including the most legendarily successful fence I'd never heard of, Marm Mandelbaum. I need an overproduced Netflix or Showtime show about Marm Mandelbaum's life and career, yesterday.

The worst part of the book was the bit where Murphy talks about the Pinkertons in relation to their doing private-eyeing in some bank robberies and never mentioning their strikebreaking activities even once. How do you even do that? Even though this case was about something completely different, how do you introduce the Pinkertons and be like "The Pinkertons, who were famously honest" instead of like "The Pinkertons, who were famous for strikebreaking." I know the author is a Wall Street Journal reporter, but Jesus. Like I'm sure some of them had some detective skill since they did ID and catch the Dunlap gang but they're really most famous in history for being nasty thugs and cracking strikers' heads. It was weird and jarring to read.

Anyway, apart from that, as far as I could tell all the other weird and jarring things were in fact because history is full of goddamn weirdos, like the "animal welfare" zealots whose concern for animal welfare consisted solely of chloroforming cats.

The book also does a pretty good job of sketching out the disparities, contradictions, and miseries of Gilded Age New York. Some of this historical background was at least vaguely familiar to me--no one who likes gang shit as much as I do could grow up an hour outside of New York and not know at least the outlines of the Five Points neighborhood--but I also learned about the Tombs, an incarnation of which still stands today, and Blackwell's Island, now Roosevelt Island, which was basically the precursor to Rikers. (There's a new book about Blackwell's called Damnation Island, if that gives you any idea of how miserable a place it was.)

I finished this book a week ago and it's been the longest week in the world, so I don't have the most coherent thoughts (as is becoming increasingly common for these reviews) on what this book does and does not accomplish and what it illustrates about our legal system and how it compares and contrasts to modern law (contrast: going to law school was apparently quite optional). I could probably come up with some thoughts if anyone wants to give this lovely book a good home and then we can talk about it and I'd be incentivized to try and not look stupid, but otherwise I'm going to go with "It entertained me with true stories about how wacky people were back in the day," which is honestly all I'm looking for in most of the history I read these days.

Originally posted at Cable address: LENIENT.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hilarious book in many ways...these lawyers gave a really bad name to lawyers during the late 1890's and early 1900's. Given the class of people that they usually worked with and for, it's not surprising all the legal machinations that occurred with them. Really a case of the criminals leading the criminals. New York was in the throes of Tammany Hall back then, and it really wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt came on the scene that things started to change as concerns true obedience to the law. This book shares the almost unbelievable cases that Howe and Hummel oversaw. These guys were definitely in it for the money, not for any misguided belief that they were responsible for upholding the law...

If you want to laugh out loud at some of the legal antics that these two guys conspired to, this is a great book for light reading. The set up of the chapters was a little odd, with chapters going on and on. I had a thought that this would make a hilarious movie, or even a series, if someone would do more research into what these two were up to!

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. So well-written (that play on that line from Jane Eyre in Ch. 10 slayed me), but the author misses the opportunity to make some really compelling arguments. For example, she references several books written by known criminals throughout the Gilded Age and Progressive Era but fails to address the context in which they were readily published and consumed by readers in this dynamic, often paradoxical historical environment. The organization seemed disjointed, and the book read more like loosely associated vignettes than meaningful evidence of the titular lawyers’ approaches and tactics. I was left with the sense that, somehow, Hummel and Howe took a backseat to their own story.

[Llewellyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

An irreverent look at a turn of the century NYC law firm that seemed to only represent crooks and murderers and does whatever to get them out of jail, bribery, blackmail, whatever. It's a great tour through the underworld of the time of Tammany Hall era New York, of anarchists and prostitution and corruption as a way of life. Goes well with Gangs of New York and has great inside jokes for anybody familiar with the legal world.

While the details on the trials and the tabloid stories that surround them is well told, there's not a cohesive narrative for the whole book, and sometimes the law firm seems to only be a side character. Either way, would make for a great Law & Order series.

[Sugarpuss O'Shea · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun romp back in time to Gilded Age New York. This book is more about the people Howe & Hummel represented than a narrative about these two men, but that's okay. They sure did rub elbows with some fascinating people! This is a who's who of Gilded Age rogues and scallywags. Such good fun. It reminds me why I like non-fiction over make-believe.

[Catherine Siemann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wonderful stories of the most unscrupulous New York lawyers of the Gilded Age. I would have liked to have known more about the two lawyers themselves, although they seem to have kept much of their lives private, but their personalities and etc. But what was there was immensely entertaining.

[Deedee]

Dewey 340.092

[Man Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's sad times indeed when the most entertaining thing a fiction writer can find to read is nonfiction. This is the situation in which I recently found myself. Having just finished Nabokov's short stories (which seem to be arranged in chronological order and are like sitting down with an enormous basket of warm sweet plums) I started a highly-praised and very promising title that had been short-listed for the Pulitzer. I will not name the book - better and wiser readers than I loved it evidently, and what would be the point of advising people not to read something? - but to say I was less than thrilled would understate my disappointment by a wide margin.
So instead I picked up Scoundrels in Law by Cait Murphy and at once found myself in a thoroughly hilarious picaresque of brothels, Broadway, crooked cops, and murder, set in the Gilded Age of Tammany Hall when an enterprising gangster could still break out of Sing-Sing and run away to Mexico and Hearst and Pulitzer were slugging it out for readership in the Yellow Press. At the center of this maelstrom stood the Mutt-and-Jeff duo of Howe and Hummel, two lawyers who must have been the genesis for every joke about lawyers you ever heard, who would stop at nothing - nothing - to get a client off, and who - as outrageous as they were - you can't help admiring and wishing you had around to represent you.
Written with a lively voice, Scoundrels in Law ultimately has faith in its own material, and lets the stories and the characters speak for themselves. Though nonfiction, the story is largely farce, but with a sad comeuppance at the end and a little moral for those who care to learn it - he who lives by quasi-legal finagling, dies by quasi-legal finagling. The book also ends with a brief meditation on the transience of fame - two men who were a byword in New York for decades have sunk to obscurity, a fate which, Murphy notes, would not have saddened Howe and Hummel one bit, glorying as they were in the daily challenge of living by their wits. And making a very good living indeed.

[Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you were rich (or if not rich, at least interesting), famous (or even better, infamous), and in legal trouble in Gilded Age New York, you usually called Howe and Hummel. This flamboyant and crooked law firm represented gangsters, showgirls, and murderers of all social stripes.

William F. Howe was an obese, outrageous showman who flaunted courtroom decorum and gave maudlin closing arguments that set many a guilty party free. Tiny, sombre Abraham Hummel was more restrained in court but equally effective at orchestrating underhanded victories. Both of them bribed judges, suborned perjury, and played with the intelligence of jurors and witnesses. They were so well-known that they inspired barroom quips and fictional counterparts.

In Scoundrels In Law, Cait Murphy presents vividly-written summations of Howe and Hummel’s greatest hits and misses. Their client roster included Danny Driscoll, the savage leader of New York’s bloodiest street gang; Carlyle Harris, the self-absorbed medical student who poisoned his inconvenient young wife, and Martin Thorn, who helped his matronly paramour kill and dismember her ex-lover. (Recounting how Thorn’s girlfriend went into the deli business after being released from prison, Murphy commented, “The thought of her spending her days slicing up meat is not a pretty one.”) The cases they handled were always sensational, quirky, and entertaining. So is this book.

Other reviewers have commented that comparatively little was revealed about the personal lives of Howe and Hummel, or the inside workings of their firm. Although they were larger than life in the courtroom, both men guarded their private lives so rigidly that their names never graced the popular gossip sheets of the day. Murphy speculates that they may have paid well for that immunity from public scrutiny, but it’s just as likely that they concealed their personal peccadilloes more successfully than some of their clients did.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun look at the scandals and the criminal underworld of Gilded Age New York. Sometimes Howe and Hummel, the putative subjects of the book, get lost in the shuffle when Murphy's focus shifts to narrating the stories they became involved in, but that was okay with me. It did seem that the book was more about that world than about the two lawyers whose names figure in the title. Murphy also has a sense of humor that makes the book fun to read. Of the "Egyptian" dance that led some foreign dancers to being called to court on indecency charges, she writes "Whatever it was called, nothing like it had ever been seen in Chicago before. (Or in Cairo for that matter.) But it looked vaguely Oriental and the things the four could do with their midsections!"

The book is not all dancing girls and pickpockets, though. Murphy also reveals the genuinely cruel and dark side of the time and place. Tammany Hall corruption, of course, takes the stage. But the ice trust, of which I had never heard, also has a role to play. She explains the importance of inexpensive ice to the poor--when the trust raised prices outrageously, babies and children, for instance, could die from spoiled milk. But the poor also suffered because grocers had to raise prices to make up for the increased cost of their own ice purchases.

Overall, fascinating and for anyone who has an interest in the history of New York, the Gilded Age or the history of crime.

[Jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

A hilarious take on a story I'd always wanted to see further discussed since Richard Rovere's also excellent book Howe & Hummel, on the two famous lawyers of the Gilded Age who defended absolutely anyone, including Victoria Woodhull, notable anarchists, and a large variety of crooks. It also turns out that it was scandalously easy to escape from NYC's notorious prison, the Tombs (you could basically have catered lunches there if you could pay, plus get visitors who could bring you out in disguise or even in drag) and that the criminal courts, shockingly, were not bastions of probity. Who knew? A rollicking good time; made me want to chase down the novels she mentions that thinly veiled the pair's lives.

[Rob Atkinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This has long been on my planned reading list, after being thoroughly charmed by Richard Rovere's "Howe and Hummel". That work, based on Rovere's 1940s serial in the New Yorker, is still my favorite about this incredible duo of legal charlatans, it's written with such brio and wit (my review is on Goodreads); but for those who crave more detail and a truly blow by blow account of their incredible careers, this makes a very useful follow up. Murphy can be laugh-out-loud funny when her wry sense of humor occasionally surfaces, in this generally workman-like, chronological narrative. One wishes that she more consistently maintained that lighter tone, so apt for her subjects, throughout. The final section on Hummel and his downfall after Howe's death is particularly interesting.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm sad this book has so little attention. Late 19/early 20th Century NYC history, mostly crime based. The writing is very breezy to a point where I was laughing just over the details that were swept up with a pithy phrase when relating a tale of a client, I guess the author thought the details weren't that entertaining. The book seems to care equally about the history and making sure it is a quick read. You never are able to really get inside the heads of any of the characters as it's mostly based on newspapers and court reports but that's no fault of the author. It's what she had to work with but it still has a entertaining story to read.

[Christiane · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very readable account of the first “celebrity” lawyers, William Howe and Abraham Hummel, the most famous law firm in Gilded Age New York. Apparently there was really nothing (short of maybe murder) that Howe and Hummel would not do for their clients, who included gangsters, murderers, and crazy cat killers. One of the many interesting details I learned: “Howe and Hummel were known to supply babies to childless defendants”, because the sight of a devoted wife and adorable children had a positive impact on a jury!

[Joshua Lax · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book was interesting in terms of the characters the two lawyers had around them. What was shocking to me was that most the "shenanigans" that the author claims were outrageous or abhorrent are actually good trial strategies in modern America. For this reason, other than lying and bribery the actions of the two lawyers in the courtroom are not that shocking.

[Caitlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read, you really get a look at what New York City life was like in the mid-to-late 19th century and early 20th century which is cool. It took me a while to read because I would pick it up and put it down a lot and read things in between, but it was much different from what I usually read as well. A good change of reading material. Very well researched and written as well.

[Thomas · Rating 1 out of 5]

Was looking forward to reading this book, but really found it rather un-involving. It starts out OK, with Murphy giving us some decent background into who Howe & Hummel were, but then sort of digresses into a mere summary of period accounts of the pair's more noteworthy trials. Perhaps I was hoping for something with a bit more of a narrative, like Erik Larson's work.

[Laura M. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was really excited to start this book, but found myself getting confused/lost in certain chapters. The overall depiction of the corruption of the legal system in the Gilded Age was fun to read, but I just found myself getting lost about halfway through.

[Caleb J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book takes you back to late 19th century New York of life and lawyering in the Gilded age. It is as much about that as it is about Howe and Hummel. It would have been nice to have an abundance of photos but it seems that there were none. Still, this was an enjoyable read.

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice description of the era

[Misty · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. uneven writing

[Keenan Powell · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you enjoy lawyer-bashing, you'll like this book. I do not.

[Vikas Datta]

Evokes the age wonderfully and these two brilliant but misguided minds...

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book about the lawyers and the law in the late 1800's and early 1900's. There were plenty of scoundrels on both sides of the equation.

[Jennie Rosenblum · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a slow read and a bit dry in places, however it was interspersed with some intriguing tales and peeks in the behind the scene elements of the characters.