The Widow

Netty Barnett is the catalyst of the novel’s plot, a round yet static character whose complexity stems from a single, monumental deception. On the surface, she is a sympathetic figure: an 85-year-old widow, living a quiet and frugal life in a “modest suburban home” (2). She presents herself as lonely and without family, a vulnerability that makes her an easy target for the avarice of others. However, this persona masks a deeply held, elaborate fiction about a secret fortune in Coca-Cola and Walmart stock worth over $16 million. This fabrication sets in motion the events that lead to greed, murder, and a miscarriage of justice.

The psychological motivation for her deceit is rooted in trauma rather than malice. The reveal that her late husband, Harry Korsak, lost their actual fortune in a catastrophic volcanic eruption suggests that her fantasy is a coping mechanism. Her story is convincing because it is interwoven with truths: her husband’s former employment, his dislike of debt, and his animosity toward his sons. This blend of fact and fiction makes her a tragic character: a woman living within a delusion she has cultivated for over a decade, whose fiction becomes the cause of her demise.

Netty’s role is to act as a mirror, reflecting and amplifying the moral failings—in particular The Corrupting Influence of Greed—of those she encounters. Her supposed wealth pushes both Wally Thackerman and Simon Latch to cross ethical boundaries as lawyers. It also propels Clyde Korsak to violently assault Thackerman and Jerry Korsak to leak damaging tips to a reporter to influence a probate case. Likewise, her death exposes the much larger ethical flaws of the legal system. She is killed by a suspected serial killer allowed to continue preying on patients by the collusion of a hospital and law firm to cover up his crimes to avoid financial repercussions. After she dies, Simon is convicted of murder in a trial where a compelling narrative that relies on stereotype trumps the burden of proof.

Thackerman serves as a minor antagonist and direct foil to protagonist Simon Latch, and embodies a more transparent and shameless form of greed. As a fellow small-town lawyer, he encounters Netty Barnett first, but chooses a path of blatant self-interest, drafting a will that includes an “outright gift to Wally Thackerman for $485,000” (42). This act is a clear breach of ethical standards, which Simon quickly identifies, calling Thackerman a “little crook” (40) and a “slimeball” (11).

As a flat and static character, Thackerman primarily establishes the moral stakes of the narrative. His actions allow Simon to justify his own more covert scheme, letting the protagonist to feel morally superior despite planning a similar deception. Thackerman represents the most straightforward example of The Corrupting Influence of Greed, acting without the internal conflict or rationalization that characterizes Simon. His greed and unethical conduct set the stage for the increasingly larger deceptions to follow.

The Korsak brothers function as a unified antagonistic force driven by a potent sense of entitlement. As the estranged sons of Netty Barnett’s late husband, they are convinced they are owed a portion of a family fortune that, in reality, no longer exists. They represent a different facet of greed than Simon or Thackerman, one of birthright and family dysfunction. Their father, Harry, intentionally kept them from his finances because they were “nothing but trouble” (6), but also wrote them into a will that never went into probate, leaving them everything on Netty’s death. This fraught filial relationship fuels their aggressive pursuit of Netty’s estate.

The brothers employ different methods that reflect their distinct personalities. Clyde is brutish and impulsive, resorting to violence by physically assaulting Wally Thackerman in a misguided attempt to see Netty’s will. Jerry, in contrast, is more calculating and manipulative. He pursues a legal strategy by hiring the aggressive attorney Teddy Hammer and develops a secret romantic relationship with Simon’s secretary, Matilda, to gain inside information. He uses Matilda to plant leaks in the press and call anonymous tips into the police to influence probate court. The brothers’ combined efforts are pivotal to the plot, as their legal challenge forces the autopsy that uncovers the poisoning. In their greedy quest for a nonexistent inheritance, they inadvertently trigger the investigation that leads to Simon’s wrongful conviction.

Matilda Clark is a dynamic character who evolves from a loyal subordinate to a pivotal and ambiguous figure in the central mystery. For 12 years, she is Simon’s highly competent and discreet secretary, the backbone of his law practice who “could practice law […] with her eyes closed” (28). Her professional stability is disrupted when Simon chooses to deceive her by preparing Netty Barnett’s will in secret, a decision that marks the first significant fracture in their long-standing professional trust. Her discovery that “She had just caught her boss in a lie” (63) transforms her into a wary observer of his moral decline.

Matilda’s character gains complexity through her secret romantic relationship with Jerry Korsak, one of the story’s antagonists. This development shifts her from the periphery to the center of the narrative’s intrigue, making her a potential suspect in Netty’s poisoning. Her physical transformation—losing weight and adopting a more stylish appearance—coincides with her changing loyalties and growing distance from Simon. It is her anonymous call, made at Jerry’s urging, that alerts the police to Netty’s suspicious death and halts the cremation. This act, while crucial to uncovering the murder, complicates Matilda’s role, leaving her motivations and level of involvement in the Korsaks’ scheme uncertain.

Raymond Lassiter enters the story as the archetypal mentor or savior, a “large, loud, boisterous attorney” (189) with a formidable courtroom reputation. He appears at Simon’s lowest point, after Simon has been indicted for murder and abandoned by his professional community. As an experienced and cynical criminal defense lawyer, Lassiter possesses the legal prowess and strategic insight that Simon, a bankruptcy and estate lawyer, lacks. He immediately grasps that the central challenge of Simon’s case is one of perception: a “PR nightmare” (191) centered on the relatable narrative of a greedy and nefarious lawyer.

As a mentor figure, Lassiter’s guides Simon through the treacherous legal process, demonstrating The Fallibility of the Justice System from the defense’s perspective. He is a pragmatist who understands that a compelling story can defeat an innocent man. His bombastic style and courtroom antics provide a stark contrast to Simon’s more subdued and desperate demeanor. By taking Simon’s case “pro bono until there’s an indictment” (191) and eventually seeing it through trial, Lassiter becomes the only figure powerful enough to challenge the state’s seemingly airtight circumstantial case.

Simon’s soon-to-be ex-wife Paula Latch functions as a key supporting character who personifies the domestic and financial pressures fueling Simon’s desperation. Their marriage has deteriorated into a state of “muted suffering” (15), devoid of affection and held together only by financial necessity and their children. The conversation in which she bluntly states, “I want sex, Simon, but not with you” (55), formalizes the end of their romantic relationship and underscores Simon’s isolation. Her presence in the narrative serves to heighten the stakes of Simon’s gamble with Netty’s estate, as he is driven by the need to escape not only his professional mediocrity but also the emotional and financial trap of his failing marriage.