Who doesn’t love Law & Order? Who hasn’t binged watched 10 episodes in a row on TNT? I know I have and I know I will again. This week i’m taking a look at Law & Order, Suits, and LA Law.
And don’t worry, this review of Suits is just a small taste of a full episode i’m devoting to Suits in the future. So if you need more of a fix on Harvey and Mike, you’ll get it soon!
SUIT UP! Even if you're not a lawyer, you can still dress like one. All of my suits are from BlackLapel (I've used them exclusively for over five years). Their custom suits are amazing, yet still ridiculously affordable. HIGHLY recommended: https://go.magik.ly/ml/f78n/ (affiliate link, which helps out the channel)
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. Like most people, I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous.
Today I'm taking a break from teaching law students how to kick ass in law school to take on lawyers in the movies. While all legal movies take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth.
This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reacts" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!
If you're going to law school get our Ultimate Pre-Law Checklist (FREE) here ➜ https://www.legaleagleprep.com/prelaw Learn how to get ready for law school, the 5 things you must do the summer before law school, and more . . .
★ Got law school questions? Ask in the comments!
★ Say hi on Facebook: ➜ https://www.facebook.com/legaleaglereacts
★ Tweet at us on Twitter @LegalEagleDJ
So say one day I get stuck in a really big issue that involves a lawyer, and I need a really good lawyer who knows what he is talking about, how to go about it, and is very professional...
How do I call you?
as a person with tourettes i relate so hard to this. We have to jump through hoops and legalities because society is not kind to people with disabilities. And working in an office unfortunately would be hell for me. honestly doing any job is hard. people don't realize how physical tourettes is. its a neurological condition and it can be painful. ive ended up in the er because of tics. If our country gave people who needed to be on disability a living wage, I would for sure take it. But it's damned if i work and damned if i don't. and i can't afford to be on disability. medication is expensive and without it I'd probably kill myself. i need it to survive. so I have to endure work which can be torture. and ive develope migranes and stomach issues from the stress. my sympathetic nervous system is breaking down because im in a constant state of stress. ill probably die relatively young.
it's a shame that our capitalism has turned into an oligarchy. everyone deserves to live in basic decency and dignity and not have to kill themselves to do it. Hopefully one day that will change and people like me will be more protected and taken by the law. we didn't choose this life but we have to endure the punishment for being born different in a world that inherently fears and ostracises us
I would like to see your perspective on F. Lee Bailey's Cross Examination of Mark Fuhrman. More specifically, the part after he lured Fuhrman into the Perjury Trap about use of the N-word. This is the real matter of his cross-examination and totally ignored by most people, but for the Jury, it sealed in their minds that Fuhrman planted the glove.
The link is the segment in question of F Lee Bailey's cross examination of Fuhrman on how he handled the crime scenes. The real meat starts at 38 minute mark. But man when one sees the entirety of F Lee Bailey's cross examination, one must wonder what Ms. Clark was thinking as F Lee Bailey laid trap after trap that Fuhrman walked right into.
That's pretty upsetting actually, telling someone with an illness that they're a problem and should take painful, expensive, or harmful medication to deal with it. Haven't had to deal with it myself more than once, it's pretty hurtful.
Law firms have Marketing and BD teams, Finance teams (billing, cash collection), IT, Business Analysts... And if you just watch the TV shows it just seems like there are legal professionals and secretaries... Maybe an investigator for criminal cases... It's a company, it has HR at least.
17:00 "The Jurors are just like you and me?"
OBJECTION: You're a lawyer, so the jurors are quite unlikely to be like you, at least in regard to legal knowledge and experience.
Sidebar: I'm not sure, but I think you may not be able to serve of a jury as a result of your profession. Would that be right?
The stunt using the pills in the pitcher being poured into a beaker. Is that something a lawyer would be able to do during a court case even in the closing arguement.
I dont see many judges letting this kind of metaphor and language of the statement she makes afterward stand on record.
Jack McCoy is a DA. Therefore this isn't a civil trial for damages. It's a criminal trial for murder. Is it possible to have jury instructions on apportionment of responsibility in a murder trial? Seems like a yes or no decision to me.
Kinda scary thinking about legal profession as a performance art. I know it's mostly paperwork and suchlike but when a jury is the final arbiter of guilt; performance art. I can't be arsed to google this, did i use "arbiter" correctly ?
My reasons for ditching Law & Order notwithstanding, Sam Waterston could argue the title of a Butthole Surfers song in a fictional court and make it sound like everyone is going to take his word for it. Except maybe The Lord Is A Monkey. Too many nutbars in America for that one.
Please do more Law & Order, good sir. The episode in which Waterston's character is trying to divide a pair of thrill-killers so one will testify against the other has one of my favourite Waterston-isms. After the one who thinks he is harder delivers a long waffle about how he has talked to the other guy and they have worked it all out, ergo "you" are going to get nothing, the way Waterston tells him thank you, you just made up my mind for me is classic.
Objection! The LA Law episode about the man with tourettes syndrome is off the mark. Tourettes syndrome is quite uncontrollable, however, the violent language used here is an exaggeration and gives an untrue stereotype to the disease. Tourettes most often manifests in the person repeating noises or words they here from outside sources, or twitching. In my experience twitching is more common, and the oral reactions are to sounds, not words. To my knowledge, there is no credible record of tourettes syndrome causing cursing or profanity.
Okay okay on law and order her argument about the doctor being assured by the company that the drug was safe was total bullshit.Doctors prescribe medication according to if the drug is FDA approved which only happens when the drug is tested.Doctors give medications that are proved by scientific tests that work and are not dangerous.So either the doctor got paid by the company to give the drug or the drug was safe.In which case lock the doctor up or the dude on trial.
I've just started watching your series and I find it really interesting. I wonder if you have ever watched any of the historical TV shows from the UK like Garrow's Law? 'Garrow's Law is about the 18th Century lawyer William Garrow who had a great reform influence on how trials were conducted. He virtually invented the adversarial procedure we see used today all over the world, his influence on today's court procedures both sides of the pond was immense. Then there is Shadow of the Noose' which is about Edward Marshall Hall, the great advocate of the late 19th Century. Another TV show that I loved is Rumpole of the Bailey. I know it's british but that doesn't stop it from being great.
You might find it interesting to see how British TV shows and films portray the legal system at work.
A film I found interesting about a British trial is Eight O'Clock Walk (1954) starring Richard Attenborough. A bit dated but I have never forgot it.
I appreciate that you're grading TV lawyers, but I have to ask: Are you a good lawyer?
Fun question: You think you could have beaten Sam Waterson's character (I've forgotten his name) before he got a job as a Judge? Those last few seasons before his 'promotion,' the only times he ever lost was when the judge overturned the verdict...
Mike Ross ended up actually passing the bar & becomes a licensed attorney at the end of Season 6, & gets the position of Junior Partner at the firm.
In Season 7, Mike & Rachel get married and are both practicing attorneys by the end of the season; before leaving the show to work at their own firm that specializes in class actions in Seattle.
In germany there is no Jury. Specially not in Crime. There is something similar. It is called Schöffen. But those are 2 civil people sitting right NEXT to the judge and also talking with the judge about the outcome. At the end the judge decides. How is it in america. Is the Judge to choose differently to the Jury. Like if the Judge believes that the person is not guilty, but the Jury thinks the person is guilty, is the Judge allowed to say : not guilty? Also in germany we have also the case if someone gets drunk and kills a person, he is not guilty of murder, because the person was drunk. BUT if the person did get drunk so to kill someone, then the person is guilty. All depends if the person did wanted to kill the other one before drinking something or not. Of course the one who got drunk and killed a person (even though the drunk person actually didn't wanted to) still gets sentenced. But not for murder. After all he stood under influence of something.
Oh Law and Order. I do not drink often, and I get drunk even less often. However, one time I drunk heavily and was watching Law and Order. Since intoxication makes you sluggish and your movements less controlled, I kept screaming at Jerry Orbach for turning the gravity up too high.
A lot of what you are saying isn’t relevant and makes it painfully obvious that you have not watched the suits series, or you would know why he knew mike had not been to law school. As much as I like hearing your take on the various shows. It does ruin it for me, that you say things and all I can think is ‘you would know if you watched the show’. For example in your last suits review you went on about how Harvey wouldn’t get paid before the case was finished and how lawyers shouldn’t lie to clients etc, yet later in that same suits episode Harvey admits that he didn’t get paid and just pretended that he had, and he gets chewed out for lying. His boss Jessica even threatens to fire him if he lies to a client again. Also you went on about highly illegal it was for Harvey to take on mike when he knew he wasn’t a lawyer, well yes...that was made clear and was a big ‘what if people find out!’ part of the show for many seasons. The firm suffered for it, mike went to prison over it. So to grade and base the show on lawyers doing illegal things, doesn’t seem fair when the show itself is telling the viewers that the actions are illegal. If you are going to review shows like suits, then please just watch the show, before passing judgement. For an actual lawyer, I really feel you shouldn’t need to be told to get all the facts before making a case.
Really interesting episode. About ten years ago, I got picked for jury duty. During the entire trial, I was wondering why the lawyers were standing behind their tables and never walking around. On a related note, it's really too bad there's no effective way for you to review written stories, as I'd love to know you opinion on the court scene in Isaac Asimov's short story Galley Slave.
19:15 Woah so many hearsay issues. You need to ask the Judge's permission to enter the well. Spot on. Also, it's just proper respect. Don't approach a witness or hand something to a judge without asking first. If they're friendly, let them set the boundaries but follow them. Excellent advice all around. Especially breaking down the other side's momentum should they ever build some up.
For towns, each building is described, along with what and who can you can talk to, who to buy skills from, and what quests are available. For the outlying areas, the dungeons are listed.
Dungeon maps are not given -- they would be too extensive to fit easily into a web page and the automapping in the game is excellent. Also, every dungeon should be explored completely to get all of the loot, but only puzzles and hidden locations are described. I also skip most of the fighting because it isnt something that you can easily describe, nor does it matter in most places, except that you have to survive it. I do list the creatures that you will encounter in a dungeon or grid location to give you an idea of how difficult the location is.
Stores are listed with a "buy" and "sell". The "buy" value is multiplied by the items value to determine the price you have to pay for it. The "sell" value is divided by the items value to determine the price you can sell it to the store for. Higher is always worse, and a "buy" or "sell" of 1 means that you are buying/selling an item at cost.
Every location has a "reset" timer. This starts when you first enter the area, and after it "goes off", the entire grid square resets: monsters reappear and random treasure is replaced. Nonrandom treasure (including most stat-gaining liquids) is not replaced. All dungeons have a reset of 2 years (24 months), unless otherwise noted. Overland areas have reset times listed with their descriptions.
Artifacts are unique items that can be found. They come in two flavors: Minor artifacts are always benificial and have a value of 20000gp. Major artifacts always have a drawback, but their benificial powers are much stronger. They have a value of 30000gp. There are 15 minor and 15 major artifacts -- some of these artifacts are placed at specific locations; others are randomly generated.
Table of Contents.