Read your bit. It was really interesting from what I read. I'm assuming you want to take a more absurdist point of view. If thats the case, I'd say commit fully to it. What I mostly mean by this is that some lines like the opening dialogue seems to lack the personality that your play reflects.
The vernacular you chose was interesting but I believe some rhythm can be called into action. One of the beauties of absurdism is that the language can be emotionally engaging and socially liberating through an abnormal structure. I'm skeptical about giving you this comment because I have yet to read the rest of your play and I may misguide you if my wording is misinterpreted. To get a better taste of Rhythm I'd recommend reading Tennessee William's one act Suddenly Last Summer. I can send you a copy in PDF format if you'd like.
On that same note one of the dangers I've seen of people forcing rhythm is that it becomes what I coined in my Playwrighting course as "Hipsterly Pretentious"
One thing that my director brain did while reading this was envisioning the doctor and the lawyer as the same person and having him physically transform on stage. For some reason I also pictured many mannequins whose clothing can be taken off. But I digress, your play, like always has a lot of potential.
I'd type more but my computer is broken and I must write all of this out on my iPad.
Thanks for the speedy reply. I'm gonna take a fresh look at the piece considering that whole rythym bit, but at the same time, I don't want to force it on, as you said.
As for combining Doctor and the Lawyer, they later appear on stage together, so double-casting them would be interesting, though possibly unfeasible. And the Lawyer actually winds up killing the Doctor, so that would have to be revised. But it's a consideration nonetheless.
And you can go ahead and send me the pdf. I'm always looking to read famous works to get some inspiration.
Glad you enjoyed it! Let me know when you've penned anything that needs a critical eye.
I'd think it'd be an interesting and funny twist if the lawyer whom keeps going on about "a win" turns out to be the prosecutor (when of course we as the audience assume that he's the lawyer for the defense).