Dec 15, 2008 -- Antonio must repay Shylock the 3,000 ducats that he borrowed in Shakespeare’s famed drama “The Merchant of Venice.” That was the five-to-two decision in a mock appellate trial held at Cardozo recently, “Shylock v Antonio on Appeal” featured scenes from the play, arguments by two prominent New York attorneys representing the main characters--Antonio, the merchant who defaults on a loan, and Shylock, the lender who demands a pound of flesh as repayment--and public deliberations by a panel of judges, composed of authors, lawyers, academics and real judges. The event, organized by Richard H. Weisberg, the Walter Floersheimer Professor of Constitutional Law and an expert on law and literature, was held on December 1. A group of professional actors performed relevant scenes from the play, including the signing of the contract, the trial scene, and Shylock’s and Portia’s famous monologues. Then the spotlight turned on the attorneys who had previously submitted legal briefs to the court and who now presented their cases before the seven judges. Shylock’s lawyer, Michael Braff ’82C, a partner at Kaye Scholer LLP, argued that the case was a clear example of breach of contract and was about such fundamental principles as a citizen’s obligation to repay his debts. Contracts, said Braff, need to be honored if Venetian trade—or any kind of business—is to flourish. “Antonio did nothing but wait to be sued…that’s not how a gentleman should act,” Braff said. Antonio’s attorney, Daniel Kornstein, a partner at Kornstein, Veisz Wexler & Pollard, argued that the contract was illegal because of its “outrageous” clause to claim a pound of flesh in the event his client was to default. He drew a parallel to the current mortgage crisis, saying that the case presents a cautionary tale for predatory lenders and should be voided so that lenders do not engage in such business practices in the future. “We need to make an example of Shylock so that it never happens again,” said Kornstein. The judges peppered the litigators with both serious and humorous questions, and then rendered their verdicts in the English fashion, with each individual jurist offering his or her decision separately. "The Merchant of Venice" features a trial with no legally trained people, said legal scholar and renowned jurist Hon. Richard Posner of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, who served as Chief Judge. He also voiced concern about the trial’s “irregularities,” such as Portia impersonating a doctor of law. Hon. Jed Rakoff of the US District Court, Southern District of NY, delighted the audience when he began, “My views will seem less amateur, if I respond in iambic pentameter,” and then recited his decision in a rhyming poem with contemporary references to bailouts and cross dressers. Others, such as renowned British solicitor-advocate Anthony Julius of Mishcon de Reya, said, “The question arises: what is the case being considered? A 16th century case, a 20th century case, or a play? Plainly, it’s a play. Justice that ignores the integrity of the play is not really justice.” He, along with Posner, ruled in Antonio’s favor. Having fun with the play within the play concept Prof. Julie Stone Peters of Harvard University, said the “theatrical” contract had no meeting of the minds. First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, who deplored the characters’ anti-Semitism said, “We are living in a 21st century by norms we know. The trial was a travesty, beautiful sometimes, funny sometimes and ugly sometimes. The bond is a punishment that no civilized society should enforce, the only equitable resolution is to force the 3,000 ducats to be repaid.” Bernhard Schlink, the internationally noted jurist and author of “The Reader,” and a visiting professor at Cardozo, said in a serious vein, “Public policy ties society together in a specific time and place. In this specific society, principles were not violated in contract.” Hon. Dianne T. Renwick ’86C, who serves on the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, said, “Shylock should be returned his money. Vacate the convictions, as there was a total lack of due process. And someone should report Portia to the authorities.” Stephanie Daventry French, chair of the theater arts department at East Stroudsberg University, was the drama director. The program was sponsored by Cardpozo’s Jacob Burns Institute for Advanced Legal Studies and the Program on Holocaust and Human Rights Studies, and the Law & Humanities Institute.