Many of you know the TV show "Better Call Saul," now in its fifth season. (If you don't go here first, then here.) The show's website is here.
Kim Wexler is a character in the show, and as part of the promo campaign for the show's new season, there is an ongoing series on YouTube called Ethics Training with Kim Wexler:
Jonathan Turley's Res Ipsa Loquitur is reporting that a state court has ordered a new trial for a man convicted in
2007 due to unethical conduct of former prosecutor television personality Kelly Siegler, the
star of the reality series Cold Justice on TNT. The judge detailed an astonishing 36 instances of unethical conduct by Siegler, including withholding exculpatory
evidence. The judge explained that the
prosecutor testified at a habeas hearing that favorable
evidence did not need to be disclosed if the state did not believe it
was true. This is interesting because if she really believed that then you may be able to argue she did not "knowingly" violate the law. Yet, you can also argue she is incompetent since that is obviously not the standard. So, either way, there is basis to argue unethical conduct.
Siegler, not surprisingly, has denied she engaged in misconduct and has asserted she never withheld evidence. Reportedly, attorneys are now re-investigating all the murder cases she was involved in.
Sadly, this is not the first "TV prosecutor" with a history of allegations of unethical conduct. The other, of course, is Nancy Grace,
who has been accused of being an unethical prosecutor who violated the rights of accused persons.
A few days ago I posted some links with information and comments about the TV series Better Call Saul (see here). Now here is a podcast featuring Nicole Hyland, author of the blog The Legal Ethics of Better Call Saul. Here is the official description of the program:
In this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi
interviews Nicole Hyland author of The Legal Ethics of Better Call Saul
blog. Together they discuss the ethical blunders of Saul Goodman, why
he’s so likeable, and whether ... he’s a good person. Tune in to hear
how Saul’s questionable antics stack up against real life rules of
professional conduct and how what’s technically legal isn’t always
what’s right.
You can listen to the program by clicking on the play button below. If you can't see the play, you can go to the Lawyer to Lawyer website here.
For those of you who enjoyed (or just watched) the TV series Better Call Saul, here are a few links. The Legal Ethics of Better Call Saul.
In this blog New York lawyer and Legal Ethics Forum contributor Nicole Hyland has been posting excellent comments on the ethical issues raised in every episode of the series.
Anyone who knows me knows I like to watch legal themed movies and TV shows (and read novels too). I have written reviews of some of those shows and movies here on the blog, and I often make references to, and show clips of, movies in class.
The most recent TV show I have been watching is Better Call Saul which is a prequel to the very popular series Breaking Bad, focusing on lawyer Saul Goodman from that series (although one of the first things we learn in the new show is that Saul Goodman is not his original name).
I like the show, and I really like the blog The Legal Ethics of Better Call Saul by Nicole Hyland. In the blog, Nicole discusses the ethical issues of each episode of the show in great detail. If you have been watching the show, you really ought to check out the blog.
This week's episode of The Defenders again provided some material for discussion. (For a discussion of previous episodes go here and here.) If you want to watch the episode before reading my comments on it go here (select the video tab and click on the episode aired Oct 20).
The main story in this week's episode was definitely lame. But, as expected, there was an ethics related side story of interest. In fact there were two different ethical issues in this week's show: whether a lawyer can have sexual relations with a client and whether the attorney can disclose confidential information about a client.
As usual, the episode revolves around two stories - one case handled by Nick (Jim Belushi) and another case handled by Pete (the other guy whose name I don't know). In this episode, the ethical issues are both related to Pete's case. He is hired by an attractive young woman who is obviously interested in having more than a professional relationship with Pete. Nick reminds him he can't sleep with a client. Pete assures him he never has and that he won't in this case either. After Pete negotiates a plea bargain, he does spend the night with the client rationalizing that since the case is over he is no longer her lawyer. While at her place, he discovers incriminating evidence that suggests she was guilty of the crime and that she is planning a future crime.
Pete goes back to Nick, tells him what he discovered and that he thinks he has to report her to the authorities. Nick first asks him whether the plea bargain has been accepted by the court already. When Pete says no, Nick concludes several important things: the client is still a client, which means that Pete slept with a client, and the information he acquired is confidential.
At this point there is a memorable moment in TV history. Nick pulls out a book from his bookshelf and reads part of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct out loud. Someone writing (or consulting) for this show actually knows what they are doing. Typically, other shows would have started to talk about "privilege" instead of confidentiality. I was very pleasantly surprised to see they got it right!
Watch the show to see how they handled it all in the end....
Frequent readers of this blog know by now that I have been reviewing episodes of The Defenders -- I still owe you the comments about the last one, but they are coming, I promise -- so I thought I'd pass along the address of this new website which reviews Law & Order SVU every week. It is run by Allison Leotta, a federal sex-crimes prosecutor in Washington, D.C. The blog is called Prime Time Crime Review and you can access it by going here.
Tonight's episode of The Defenders again provided some good material for discussion. (For a discussion of previous episodes go here.) If you want to watch the episode before reading my comments on it go here (select the video tab and click on the episode aired Oct 13).
The theme in tonight's episode was perjury. It is first mentioned when the lawyer goes to interview his client's alibi witness. The witness says the client was with him at the time of the crime. The lawyer then tells the witness they have to make sure the stories match or that they keep the stories straight or something like that. I don't want to worry about possible perjury, he says. Well.... first question: was the lawyer really interested in making sure the stories matched or was he suggesting to the witness to start lying now and not change the story later because as long as he (the lawyer) does not know the truth, then he does not know there is any perjury going on...?
That aside, the case then gets more complicated and in another scene, in the middle of an argument, the lawyer yells at his client "start telling me the truth now!" So the client does and now the lawyer really knows the truth.
Two interesting questions arise in this second scene. When the lawyer is yelling at his client to tell him the truth, he actually says something along the lines of "just tell me the truth, I know you did it all along..." OK, what does he really mean when he says he "knew" the client was guilty all along. If he really knew it, then wouldn't that mean he also knew the alibi testimony was false, in which case he had solicited perjured testimony in the previous scene? ...or at least was ready to use perjury in support of the alibi?
Or, was it that he didn't really mean that he "knew" but just that he suspected and is now seeking confirmation....? Which leads to the discussion of the old question on when do lawyers really know anything?
But once the client tells the truth, everything changes, of course. Now the lawyer knows for sure and he understands the consequences. Now it is clear; he knows the alibi is false so, in another scene, he argues with his partner about how he can't use the alibi witness any more.
But the problems don't end there. Things get more complicated and the lawyer eventually decides he actually has to bring the alibi witness to testify.... why? I am not going to tell you. Go watch the show ....
I have been following the new "lawyer shows" on TV for the past three weeks (see here) and, at the risk of getting laughed at, I have say that the one I like the most is "The Defenders"! From the promos I thought this was going to be an over the top, dumb disguised detective show. I was right; but also wrong.
Most lawyer shows are not really about the law, but about the personal lives of the lawyers or they are what I call disguised detective shows - more about "who-done-it" than the legal issues related to the cases. "The Whole Truth" is a good example of this second category. The Defenders has a little of all that, and it is not perfect by any means, but each episode has given me serious material to discuss in class. Granted, the material usually relates to a short segment of the episode, but that is more than I can say about The Whole Truth which has contributed nothing to my class so far.
For example, two weeks ago episode 2 of the Defenders included a story line that combined issues of the duty to safeguard client property, client confidentiality, evidentiary privilege and duties to disclose information to the authorities, among others. In one scene a client brings the lawyer a large amount of money in cash which he says he took from his job's safe, used it to bet on a horse and won. The client's boss reported the stolen money and the cops are now looking for the person who took the money. The client is panicking and brings the money to the lawyer. Because the horse won the client actually has more money than what he started out with. ...So the lawyer then has to decide who has a right to the value added by the horse and whether to keep the money in his office, to give it back to the client or to give it to the authorities. He also has to decide whether to disclose the identity of the client when talking to the authorities. Sounds familiar? These are issues we discuss in class when studying the concepts of confidentiality, privilege and handling of evidence and the case People v Meredith. You'll have to go watch the show to see what happens. You can watch the full episode here. (Select the episode from 9-29-10).
Last week's episode, raised questions about the proper function of the judicial system, the dangers of overzealous prosecutors and overworked public defenders. (I think the criticism of the public defender system was not handled well, but that is a different matter). The episode also dealt with improper conduct by a lawyer and the issue of a lawyer having to testify in a trial while representing one of the parties.
It also had a scene where the lawyers discuss the notion of "truth" as it relates to a trial. This is something I spend a good deal of time talking about in class. Whether it is in the context of litigation, the adversary system, duties during discovery (the problem of "the properly asked question"), conducting client interviews or dealing with possible perjury, the concept of "the truth" is very important. Here is the video of that scene (after a short commercial). If you want to watch the full episode, it should start automatically a few seconds after the scene is over or you can go here. Here is the video:
"The Defenders" is on on Wednesday nights on CBS. Hopefully, it will last longer "than Outlaw"...
Back in June, I posted the comment that appears below about three new TV shows expected to start this fall. One of them - Outlaw - previews tonight on NBC and I have seen commercials for one of the others - "The Defenders". But I have not heard anything at all about the third one.
Unfortunately, although as I expected, the (p)reviews for Outlaw are not good. The Washington Post wrote that "the show is so ludicrously dumb that your eyeballs will hurt from rolling so much." See the full review here. It concludes the show "should be dismissed." Go here for more on the story.
The Blog of the Legal Times said it will blog on the show tomorrow.
Here is my post from last June:
With the recent demise of the original "Law & Order" and "Raising the Bar," the major networks are apparently feeling the need to introduce new law related shows. Here are the trailers. One is called "Outlaw" about a Supreme Court Justice who decides to retire and go into private practice. Another is called "The Defenders" and is about a pair of criminal defense lawyers. The third one is "Harry's Law" about people brought together by fate to form a law firm.
I enjoy watching law related shows and movies and reading "legal thrillers" as much as anyone, but I often wish they were much better than what they usually are. I will give all of these a chance but from what I can see in these trailers at least two of them appear to be based on tired old stereotypes: either every client is innocent (Outlaw) or criminal defense lawyers are sleazy (The Defenders), aside from the fact that apparently all lawyers are young, beautiful, fit, sexy and have lots of sex in the office and law libraries. Outlaw also seems to have the stereotypical "team" of characters (common to so many "heist" type movies): the outlaw, the rebel, the intellectual, the smartass, the computer genius, etc. If they add a demolitions expert maybe they could compete with the A-team. The Defenders looks like it might be more of a comedy "detective" show; more about trying to figure out "who did it" than about legal issues.
Harry's Law seems to escape the mold - or at least part of it. This one is produced by David E. Kelley, producer of three relatively successful law related shows. The trailer has some pretty funny lines and Kathy Bates is always entertaining. But, given that I didn't like any of the three previous David E. Kelley shows, I will have to wait and see...
But I am getting way ahead of myself. Let's give them all a chance.... Maybe they will last longer than the last few attempts ... Does anybody remember "Shark" or "Eli Stone"?
"The Deep End," a new tv show about lawyers premiered Thursday night on ABC. The plot revolves around the lives of four first-year associates at a prestigious Los Angeles firm. I did not watch it so I can't comment but here is a link to a review by a number of first year associates who did watch it. In a nutshell, most of them thought it was terrible.
In answer to the question "what was the most unrealistic part of the show?" one of the associates interviewed said: "I think the most unrealistic part of the show was the casual attitude the one first-year had about having sex with a client and the casual attitude the partner who knew about it. . ." Another said "The most unrealistic part of the show had to be the managing partner telling an associate in his first week to blow off all the ethical rules so that the firm could maintain a big client."
I also liked three of the answers to the question "What advice would you give to characters on the show?" The comments I liked in answer to this question were: "Stop sleeping with clients", "read the ethics code" and "morals and ethics are not the same thing, so stop getting them confused."
