Jump to content

Suits


  • Please log in to reply

3654 replies to this topic

#2521

Nanrad

Nanrad

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 1:48 AM

I actually didn't mind that about Mike. Yeah he broke attorney/client privilege, but the guy was high while driving. Mike's parents were killed by a drunk driver, so it makes perfect sense that despite being an attorney he'd want to see his client rightfully pay for what he did. The guy deserved more than a fine, community service, and settling with the family. He should be in jail.


The guy did deserve all of those things, but his attorney isn't supposed to be working against him regardless. My problem isn't about morality or right and wrong, but business ethics. It was unethical for Mike to do that. In the show The Good Wife, Alicia had to struggle defend clients that she knew was guilty, but did it because it was her job. With Scandal, Olivia found out that her client was guilty, but couldn't say anything because of attorney/client privilege. I understand Mike's motivations, but he should have taken himself off of the case rather than continue. Harvey wanted to and Mike said he could handle it--clearly he couldn't.

As for Mike going to work high, he doesn't drive. Mike either takes public transportation, or rides his bike. He's not getting behind the wheel of an automobile. Make no mistake I hate that they had Mike go back to smoking dope, but he's not driving while high. That's where the problem comes in.

I did like that Mike gave the family the full $100,000, when they only wanted $20,000.


Well, in general I think Mike is a hypocrite, so there's that. But, you are right, those are two different things. But, I noticed that both Mike and the client used the same phrase about getting high, which is why I said Mike was hypocritical. The same thing this guy used to justify his behavior is exactly what Mike uses.

I just knew that Mike was going to get them the full 100,000. That's great and all, but I really do see Mike as weak when it comes to those sort of matters. Also, I didn't like him confronting that lawyer from his parents case either. People say you can't put a price on loved ones, but then they turn around and sue people. Make up your minds, people. WE can villainize that lawyer, but at the end of the day, he was just doing his job. Someone had to defend the drunk driver. Unlike Mike, that lawyer actually served the interest of his client.
  • 3

#2522

BestestAuntEver

BestestAuntEver

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 9:22 AM

Except for a couple of scenes this episode was bad. What happened? I have no words for the crap that she said or the way she acted. I was pissed at Mike most of episode. He was an ass throughout. He created most of his own damn drama & then was mad with everyone else. This was not must watch TV.
  • 0

#2523

YumYum

YumYum

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 9:43 AM

This episode was a bloody soap opera. I was so disappointed! Mike's turned into a royal pain in the ass. Somehow last season's crispness was missing.
  • 0

#2524

Tarasme

Tarasme

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 10:13 AM

I am of two minds about last night's ep:

1. TPtB stuffed in SO MANY PLOT points, so much content, it was impossible to do anything justice. From Mike's affair, to his drug use, to his feelings about his parents deaths, to his attitude towards those things he *feels* are wrong, etc. etc.

Then there's little miss Harvard set up to expose Mike, Louis being demeaned, undermined, and shut out to save M's- and everyone else's- ass, Louis's S&M interest, Harvey's domestic fantasy, Donna being BRILLIANT, Rachel being AN ASS, etc. etc.

Too much.

Then, conversely
2. I'm glad they got all that shit out of the way.

Hubbysme bought a new bigger sharper tv for the family for Christmas- I must say, though I knew it before, definitely reinforced that GM, for me, is definitely one of the top 5 most handsome charismatic men on television.
  • 0

#2525

Facilier

Facilier

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 10:33 AM

This show is starting to slip into that irksome thing Community did where it's getting hard to see why the character is still part of the proceedings without stepping out of the show's world and remembering they are a core cast member. That pushes my suspension of disbelief which I need to get immersed in a show.

This episode alone Mike purposefully lost a client $80,000, lied to his mentor (in claiming he was good for the case when he clearly never had any intention to offer the client competent representation), broke privilege, and didn't make a single legal argument. Why would the firm not fire him at this point? That way they get to keep what is supposed to be a brilliant new first year associate, and even for Harvey there is an immediately and impassionately available replacement from the DA office, who seems to have some serious law game.

The desperation to keep the boy genius on board when he is unable and unwilling to apply his talents to the firm's benefit and is at this point the catalyst for most of the tension through the entire office is just... sad.
  • 2

#2526

Nanrad

Nanrad

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 11:05 AM

Can TPTB please get over this Mike getting exposed thing? It's getting tiresome that it is brought up every few episodes.
  • 0

#2527

dubbel zout

dubbel zout

    Stalker

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 11:12 AM

despite being an attorney


But he's not an attorney, and once again, no one seemed worried about that until Ms. Harvard Class Secretary showed up and could blow his cover. I wish the show would resolve this once and for all. The longer Mike works for them without being legit, the more the firm is on the hook. I get that's part of the story, but Jessica looks like a moron for keeping the secret. It's definitely not in the best interest of the firm to have a fake lawyer working for them in an actual lawyer capacity.

Louis's S&M interest


Please, no more of Louis in Fifty Shades of Gray.

Edited by dubbel zout, Jan 18, 2013 @ 11:13 AM.

  • 0

#2528

coppersin

coppersin

    Video Archivist

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 11:37 AM

Help, please?

I've only seen a couple of eps, so I'm sure I'm missing something, but I don't understand why Mike is working there at all. I won't get into the 'how' since we're apparently handwaving how an uneducated kid is doing his job without getting caught/exposed, but what I don't get is the 'why'?

I assumed he was a slacker genius, or amazingly gifted, or something, but I haven't seen anything yet that explains why his superiors are taking such a stupid risk.

Has this been explained? Or is it part of the handwaving 'just ignore it' too?
  • 0

#2529

Nanrad

Nanrad

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 11:43 AM

copper, it was explained in the very first episode. Mike is incredibly smart and have fantastic memory. Harvey wanted to hire someone like him and chose Mike because of his abilities and he didn't like any of the other candidates.
  • 0

#2530

Homo_Sapien

Homo_Sapien

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 1:21 PM

Somehow last season's crispness was missing.

Yeah. It felt as if the 'new and shiny' has worn off this show. We found ourselves channel surfing during the episode and not in a hurry to get back.
We were anticipating the show's return ... but it feels as if TPTB are settling into a groove of playing the same notes over and over.
  • 0

#2531

GoMocs

GoMocs

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 1:24 PM

Any real attorneys out there reading this? If so, question:

If Mike and Harvey filed the plea agreement with information that they knew to be untrue, that is assuming it states that the defendent was sober, wouldn't they be in violation of some court rules, sorta like suborning perjury?
  • 0

#2532

Nanrad

Nanrad

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 1:27 PM

I'm not an attorney, but I was under the impression that when they filed for the plea, it was before the client admitted he was under the influence of marijuana. The guy admitted to it after the fact, which is when Mike tried to throw his client under the bus. I would assume that they wouldn't be in violation of anything or perjuring themselves.
  • 0

#2533

fauntleroy

fauntleroy

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 2:08 PM

Presumably Mike with his new-found interest in right and wrong will tender his resignation in the morning. Or do his shiny new ethics only extend to strands of plot they need to finish off like married hottie girlfriend or tie up like pot-smoking case of the week. The scene with the attorney who didn't recall his parents was more than just gratuitous, it was plain stupid. Is he acting out grief for granma? Surely he could do more constructive things. Maybe he should work part-time at the local bike shop building fixies. Might open the show up a bit, nice view into another world.

The depiction of pot smoking continues to annoy--it's like a big sign "disreputable behavior happening here"! He smokes pot with the wayward wife. You betcha he wouldn't do that with a more virtuous girlfriend. Pot = reversion to corrupt old life. Subtle as a brick.

That new DA hire looks like Naomi Watts. Making Louis give up his new hire was painful. What is up with the by now nearly ritualistic ongoing humiliation of this interesting character? And according to the preview for next week it keeps up. Repetitive and unnecessary. Maybe the writers are running out of ideas which is too bad since they have had plenty of time during the hiatus.

Too much emphasis on coupling, like soap opera. The whole thing was disappointing. Next week I guess there will be some new threat to the firm itself!! Yawn. They need to focus on just doing cases, with Harvey being the man and Mike, Louis and others helping out. I don't care whether Mike and Rachel blah blah blah, or about that Australian (?) woman, or Louis's dominatrixie-or-not recruiter.
  • 0

#2534

randomname1

randomname1

    Video Archivist

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 2:44 PM

In my forty years plus of tv watching, I honestly can't think of a show that I loved so much in the first season being such a huge disappointment in the second. All the magic is gone. The Hardman stuff in the fall was just awful, and I could barely watch it last night--it was all so over-the-top and melodramatic, but obvious at the same time. Yuck.
  • 0

#2535

BeetFarmGirl

BeetFarmGirl

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 2:45 PM

That new DA hire looks like Naomi Watts.


And she was in one of my favorite bad movies Center Stage I hope they keep her.

As for Rachel, I can't even. In that one scene she went from jealous over Mike's hook-up, angry on behalf of the woman who was his 'second choice' to judgemental that he hooked up with a married woman, to angry that he accused her of being judgemental, to angry that he thought of her as a goody-two-shoes, to flaunting the fact that she purposefully went after a married co-worker to 'look what you missed out on' sexy times back to judgemental because relationships with married folk only end one way.

In one 2 minute scene.

Stop trying to make Mike & Rachel happen, show.

The show also needs to give up on the whole " H-P only hires from Harvard" because I doubt DA Jody Sawyer went to Harvard.
  • 3

#2536

Nanrad

Nanrad

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 3:04 PM

The depiction of pot smoking continues to annoy--it's like a big sign "disreputable behavior happening here"! He smokes pot with the wayward wife. You betcha he wouldn't do that with a more virtuous girlfriend. Pot = reversion to corrupt old life. Subtle as a brick.


That is becoming so tiresome. When the wife was trying to share the joint with Mike, it was really set up like she was sharing coke or something with him. I groaned.

Beet, I agree. On tumblr, there are people acting as if she was wrong or had a point, but she really doesn't. Rachel switched her stance too many times to even take her seriously and she made herself look like a goody two shoes. Every time she figured out about the "wrong" Mike did, she was quick to judge him (even Harvey) and talk about how much higher her expectations were of him.
  • 0

#2537

fauntleroy

fauntleroy

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 4:18 PM

The show also needs to give up on the whole " H-P only hires from Harvard" because I doubt DA Jody Sawyer went to Harvard.

By the way, besides this being tiresome and lazy and unnecessary, is this even legal? Is it not discriminatory?

Maybe they can get away with it, but discriminatory hiring practices don't seem like the sort of thing they should be so pleased with themselves about. Imagine them bragging we only hire Christians, or white people, or heterosexuals. How is college any different.
  • 0

#2538

IvyDarling

IvyDarling

    Stalker

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 5:46 PM

By the way, besides this being tiresome and lazy and unnecessary, is this even legal? Is it not discriminatory?

It's very legal. It's only discriminatory if they hire based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and the like. Wanting to hire from only certain schools is very legal and is done at many BigLaw firms. (For example, Wachtell only does on campus interviews at the Top 7 schools plus Howard). Law school is different because students aren't a protected class the same way the categories I listed above are.
  • 1

#2539

DearEvette

DearEvette

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 6:46 PM

And she was in one of my favorite bad movies Center Stage I hope they keep her.


Ahem... Center Stage was a damned cinematic masterpiece. I will keep believing this.
  • 2

#2540

Shippaisha

Shippaisha

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 8:35 PM

Someone help: where have I seen Louis' prospective associate before? She's not Divya from Royal Pains is she?
  • 0

#2541

BestestAuntEver

BestestAuntEver

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2013 @ 8:44 PM

She play Raj's sister, Pria/Prya (sp) on The Big Bang Theory.
  • 2

#2542

HoneyBee

HoneyBee

    Stalker

Posted Jan 19, 2013 @ 2:14 AM

Wow, Rachel made this episode unbearable. And what's worse, that it seems I'm the only one in my group and even on tumblr who hates her. Everyone else is like, "Yeah! Girl power! Tell him Rachel! You hate her because you're jealous."

What.

I do like Patrick Adams' performance. He plays the character well, even when Mike is unlikable in most time.

By the way, besides this being tiresome and lazy and unnecessary, is this even legal? Is it not discriminatory?


It's very legal. It's only discriminatory if they hire based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and the like. Wanting to hire from only certain schools is very legal and is done at many BigLaw firms.


But under certain circumstances, can they turn a blind eye? Oh, you know what. Never mind, I totally forgot that Mike didn't go to law school at all. Sorry. In my mind he went to law school but not Harvard.
  • 0

#2543

MommaLode

MommaLode

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 19, 2013 @ 9:32 AM

OK, I hope they lose this 'let's make Mike self-righteous' storyline. It's annoying. He's smoking pot and judging the other guy?

And I'm glad they aren't glorifying pot smoking. Actually, the whole pot theme was unnecessary and stupid, but at least they're portraying pot smoking as unnecessary and even detrimental at times.

And what might be dumb question: Is it mandtory to get a law degree to become a lawyer? Is passing the BAR good enough?

Edited by MommaLode, Jan 19, 2013 @ 9:36 AM.

  • 0

#2544

Nanrad

Nanrad

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 19, 2013 @ 10:59 AM

Wow, Rachel made this episode unbearable. And what's worse, that it seems I'm the only one in my group and even on tumblr who hates her. Everyone else is like, "Yeah! Girl power! Tell him Rachel! You hate her because you're jealous."


I agree. I'm friends with this girl on tumblr who said Mike should pay for hurting Rachel and I was like, "But, he didn't do anything wrong--he unintentionally hurt her." And she said it didn't matter because if someone was hurt unintentionally or not, they still had to pay. That's irrational to me. Keep in mind that I don't care for either character, but it's Rachel's fault why she was in that situation to begin with. She needs to be consistent to Mike and tell him what she wants rather than keep changing every five minutes.

Edited by Nanrad, Jan 19, 2013 @ 5:12 PM.

  • 0

#2545

fauntleroy

fauntleroy

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 19, 2013 @ 11:15 AM

He's smoking pot and judging the other guy?

The distinction seemed to be between impairing yourself recreationally with marijuana (which is merely degenerate according to the writers), versus doing so and then driving. But since they didn't make it clear whether this impairment actually caused the client to hit the victim, who was after all cloaked-in-black and ran into the road, at night, even the moralizing about driving under the influence didn't ring true. Of course it matters legally, but since Mike pointedly kept scoffing at the legal process in favor of pure "right and wrong", you'd think he'd wonder, say, to what extent the driver really was impaired, and whether that impairment contributed to the hit or the more likely (to me by the facts we were given) scenario that escaping-ninja guy would have been hit by any driver regardless.

I drive through an urban area at night on a regular basis, and the number of people dressed in dark clothes who just cavalierly walk right into the street, assuming the traffic will see them, is amazing. They couldn't make themselves more difficult to see if they tried.

The contributing extent of the impairment would be difficult for Mike to learn for sure, but he could have asked the kid at least, since the kid was being honest anyway, whether he thought his impairment contributed to the accident.

In other words Mike was moralizing right or wrong, about a legal distinction (DUI), not an actual situational distinction. There are going to be cases in which impaired drivers get into accidents that are not the result of their impairment, but are simply bad luck. A moralizer such as Mike, as opposed to a lawyer, should be interested in learning if this were likely to be the case in this specific situation, before passing such righteous judgment.
  • 0

#2546

Pache

Pache

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 19, 2013 @ 12:41 PM

I hated the Mike story this week. His acting as an attorney when he isn't one is putting the firm in danger of many malpractice suits. He has no right to then compound the whole thing by behaving unethically. Yes, he felt sorry for the family of the tagger, but the family of the driver was PAYING him to settle the case and his job was to make the best deal for his CLIENT, not someone else.

Rachel, Mike asked you to sleep with him, you said no. You are not married, engaged, dating exclusively or really dating at all. That means that neither one of you owes the other exclusivity. Mike wanted to spend a night with someone and feel better about losing his grandmother. You said no. She said yes. It was NONE of your business. Mike has tried to get into a relationship with you and YOU keep pulling away. So guess what girl, he's free to do what he wants and you have no right act out about it. Feel hurt, go for it. Feel mad, fine, but don't take it out on him.

Then there's little miss Harvard set up to expose Mike, Louis being demeaned, undermined, and shut out to save M's- and everyone else's- ass

,

And

Making Louis give up his new hire was painful. What is up with the by now nearly ritualistic ongoing humiliation of this interesting character? And according to the preview for next week it keeps up. Repetitive and unnecessary. Maybe the writers are running out of ideas which is too bad since they have had plenty of time during the hiatus.


This angers me so much. Hiring Mike to be a lawyer was unethical. Jessica keeping Mike on and permitting him to act as a lawyer is unethical. Once Jessica found out that Mike wasn't a lawyer, she should have started assigning him to tasks that don't require being an accredited attorney. Trashing Louis's rights to hire and associate to cover for your illegal and unethical actions make you Harvey and Jessica lousy people. I know Louis has been and can be a creep. I know that especially in season one, Louis may have deserved the contempt Harvey and Jessica showed him. I know that Harvey and Jessica despise Louis. I know we are supposed to despise Louis. But every time Harvey and Jessica screw Louis over, I just root harder for him. Right now, I want Louis to find out about Mike, quit the firm and turn the entire MESS over to the Bar Association, because that is what SHOULD happen. Mike is not such a special snowflake that he deserves all this protection. Harvey is not such a special snowflake that he deserves an associate who is not legally qualified just because he likes Mike and likes putting one over on the legal world.

I'm on team Louis! and I don't care about his sex life either way, I'm still on team Louis.
  • 0

#2547

seacliffsal

seacliffsal

    Video Archivist

Posted Jan 19, 2013 @ 7:44 PM

This episode was the first time that I really thought that Mike is just too much drama and they should just cut him loose. At this point, Harvey is having to spend too much time covering up Mike's mistakes, and a senior partner (Louis) is being denied the traditions (as Jessica pointed out) that go along with being a senior partner such as hiring an associate. Jessica is choosing covering up Mike's lack of a law degree over a senior partner who brings in thousands of dollars to the firm of which she will take her cut. It no longer makes sense. I think that everyone, including Mike, would be better off if they fired him.
  • 3

#2548

scotchellie

scotchellie

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jan 19, 2013 @ 8:48 PM

Count me as one who was rather disappointed with this episode. I've waited for months for this to come back on and it just didn't quite gel for me at all. I don't even want to get started with the worst part of it for me, which was Rachel. She just doesn't work and the games she plays are just ridiculous. She is by far the most bipolar character I have ever seen, which wouldn't be so bad if it was intentional. Only it's not. She is just written badly, like the writers just don't know what to do with her or where to take her. It's starting to have the unfortunate effect of making me dislike the actress as well.

For the rest of it I got the sense of this being a transitional episode of sorts. Mike is realising that he needs to get his shit together. Good, because he's rubbish right now. The married piece of tail is gone. Louis got himself some and now she's gone. Zoe a.k.a Mrs. Macht is out of there, too. Hopefully this is all by design and a sign that they are going to start paying attention to the central characters and the firm and winning some cases again rather than it just being coincidence that it appears they are streamlining things.
All in all just a very odd and disjointed episode.
  • 1

#2549

HoneyBee

HoneyBee

    Stalker

Posted Jan 20, 2013 @ 3:08 AM

I did like the music though. Anyone knows where I can find the information about the music?
  • 0

#2550

McBline

McBline

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jan 20, 2013 @ 3:57 AM

Jessica is choosing covering up Mike's lack of a law degree over a senior partner who brings in thousands of dollars to the firm of which she will take her cut.

No. Jessica is choosing covering up Mike's lack of law degree (and that is wrong from her) over a senior backstabber who can't even be trusted to stay bought once he is given what he wants. As he successfully demonstrated not long ago.
  • 2