Watch the remaining 10 lawyers battle it out tonight on The Law Firm. Please discuss tonight's episode in this thread. Thank you!

Wow! I must say, I absolutely love this show!

I've always enjoyed the whole courtroom process on TV, and it has intrigued me ever since OJ's trial was televised on CNN. (Not enough to attend school for so long though :lol:)

I think that this is one of the best new reality shows to come out for a long time, and I'm already looking forward to next week.

I was quite shocked that Olivier got away with a slap on the hand for cursing at the judge when he lost... I hope that he will end up getting a harsher punishment than that.

I could not understand how Anika could possibly believe that she is a good lawyer, after trying to argue that the guy really may have been a terrorist. While I don't think I saw enough of Elizabeth I was surprised that he gave her the boot over Olivier, but maybe once I look through my notes again, it will all make sense.

Elizabeth made the mistake of making the case too serious, as did Anika. Their case was based off of how insane the charges were, and they had a very strong case. However, they took it too seriously. I mean, really, Eat Me? Who would think that Eat Me would be serious? Then again, that judge was very, very angered in general that such a thing would happen, so I don't know how well the "make light of it" strategy would have worked...

I am so upset! We got a new VCR on the weekend (actually 'personal video recorder' from the cable company), and I didn't program it correctly for last night's episode. I am eagerly awaiting the recap.

I agree. last night's ep was amazing. The line of the night was Keith in response to Aileen's brutal cross. "He'd have admitted to the Kennedy assassination if she asked him." That was awesome.

As for Olivier, he got lucky that the other two bungled their case so badly. Hanging by a thread.

Right now I think Keith and Aileen are the two to watch. By far the best lawyers.

I missed the first episode but fortunately was able to catch last night's. It was great entertainment! I'm a practicing lawyer (and was a commercial litigator for about 4 years before switching to transactional work), and I was engrossed throughout the show.

I would have fired Olivier on the spot -- you can't have an attorney giving the firm a bad reputation among judges, no matter how talented he may be. If he had pulled a stunt like that in a courtroom, the judge very likely would have recommended state-bar disciplinary proceedings against him. I guess RB either really sees something in Olivier or has been persuaded that they need to keep him around for the Omorosa factor.

In the EATME case, I think there was no way the defense could have won with that judge. He was obviously incensed by the poster itself, and I don't think anything could have changed his mind. Still, Anika was so pigheaded about a totally ridiculous approach to the case that she did deserve to go. It looks like Elizabeth dropped the ball, too -- the defendant was a sitting duck -- but I still would've fired Olivier instead.

One way in which the show is not at all like real trial work is that (at least based on what they show on tv) there doesn't appear to be any LAW involved. Nobody ever talks about the law, whether the plaintiff has a claim, whether the defendant has any defenses, etc. It's all been boiled down to who's "right" in a sort of 11-o'clock news sort of way. But my wife, who's not a lawyer, says that law would put folks to sleep. She's probably right.

Anyway, I plan to keep watching.

Welcome Hugo! I'm happy to say I work with lawyers and I agree with everything you said. Especially, about the law not being included. I think it would be an asset to throw out some legal verbiage or some caselaw on this show. I would assume they don't think that the masses would understand, but then again I could be wrong. You have shows like Numbers and CSI utlizing terminology, etc. to get the point acrossed and people are watching why not with the law?

I say if they are going to continue advertising that they are trying real cases why not use real law? ;)

Thanks for the welcome! I'm glad there's a forum on this show. I'm sure there will be lots to discuss. It will be interesting to see how Deep and Chris develop. Mike's physical size probably works well in his field of criminal defense, but in my experience some of the toughest civil litigators have been little guys that at first glance would appear to be weak.

Ok, here's the reason that I don't want legal verbiage on this show... I'm recapping it. My VCR is broken, and so I can't tape it, so I rely solely on my notes. You throw some sort of legal jargon into the mix, and my brain will be going insane. On the other hand, from the standpoint of someone who likes the show, I think that it would be a good idea :lol:

Hello everyone. I am also an attorney. I do trial work, primarily in the area of children and family law. I have to say, that I enjoy this show very much. Despite them tailoring the presentation of the cases for the purposes of reaching an audience of non-lawyers, I think it offers very good insight into the thought process of trial attorneys, without getting bogged down in dense legalise. Let's face it, the purpose of the show is to entertain, not to document actual trial work. If you want a completely realistic portrayal of a trial, tune into Court TV. I don't even know any lawyers who watch that channel on a regular basis.

I think that the major reason that legal principles and case law do not appear in the show is because those most commonly appear in pre-trial motion hearings and at the appellate level. I also think that the producers/Roy Black don't want to saturate the show with discussions of law from one particular jurisdiction in order to appeal to a national audience.

Has anyone else had the sinking feeling that these cases are not as "real" as the advertisements claim? I don't want to come off as a conspiracy theorist, but some of those witnesses, especially the dog guy from last week and the web designer from tonight, seem to be laying it on a little thick. Of course, the behavior of actual witnesses if often stranger than anything you see on tv or in movies. I am also somewhat uncomfortable with the ethics of having teams of lawyers competing against each other during the course of actual legal proceedings. To my knowledge, it is barred by the rules of ethics for an attorney to have any financial stake in a legal proceeding in which they participate.

That being said, I love the show and I can't wait until next week. And BTW, I concur with Hugo. I would have fired Olivier on the spot.

Welcome to ART Ken! It's good to hear from the lawyers on the show! Hope you stick around, cause I find your opinions, as well as Hugo's, as lawyers to add a new dimension to the discussion.

Ken, I agree with you that it seems unethical to have lawyers who are competing against each other trying these cases. And while I think that it would take a particular kind of person to consent to have their case handled in this manner--on a reality show rather than in a traditional manner--the clients ring true. In my time as a litigator (which is over, as I have changed careers), I have had clients that made me want to look for the hidden camera and expect Ashton Kutcher to come parading down the hall to tell me that I was being "Punk'd." I thoroughly felt Regina's pain as she tried to reign in that "BIG DOGS RUNNING, BIG DOGS OUT" freak. It is not easy to get some people to pretend to be normal long enough to testify. That's why I think the clients are just being themselves.

I wouldn't mind a bit more legalese in the show either. I'm currently in the middle of a career change, and am half-way through a law clerk course, and I like testing my little knowledge against the outcome of the cases.

That's an interesting point about the ethical issues. The parties must sign some kind of waiver that I guess is expected to hold up under CA law. Plus, I suspect that, in terms of damages, this show has the same set-up as Judge Judy, The People's Court, etc. -- for agreeing to have your case tried on the show, the show agrees to pay you a certain amount ($5-10,000, let's say), from which the "judge" (who is here technically acting as an arbitrator) is supposed to make any award. So, if you're a defendant and you lose, the worst that can happen is that all of your fee goes to the plaintiff. And, as a plaintiff, you're guaranteed that the defendant will pay the judgment, and you won't have to chase him/her around with execution proceedings. (That's based on a radio interview I heard once about The People's Court, BTW.) And no lawyer's fees!

It seems to me that Judge Judy also had a disclaimer at the end of the show explaining that things run the way that you explained Hugo, and I would guess that you're probably right about that. It would definitely lessen the blow for someone who got stuck with Anika to argue their case.

Thank you all for the welcome.

Yes, if you agree to have your case decided on The People's Court, the show pays any judgment awarded in the case. I found this out because 3 or 4 years ago, my band was stiffed by a local club so I filed a small claim against the club owner. A few weeks after I filed the claim, I was surprised and amused to receive a letter, via FedEx, from The People's Court, indicating that they wanted to have my case resolved on TPC. Unfortunately, the club owner expectedly declined and my 15 minutes never materialized.

The one distinction I find between the setup of The Law Firm and The People's Court is that, on TPC, each side's only goal is to win their case. On The Law Firm, although the primary goal of each team is to win the case, you also have this sub-plot of each attorney competing against every other attorney, even attorneys on their own team. I am quite sure that the producers had each client sign a waiver, releasing the show from liability and the individual lawyers from potential malpractice liability. Although I have some discomfort with the ethics of all of this, I think the other side of this coin is that the show will hopefully educate the public as to the thought process of lawyers and possibly change the general negative perceptions of attorneys.

As for witnesses, I have definitely had my share of wack-jobs. On one case, I represented a father who's daughter had been taken by DSS from her mother's house. Since my client lived in the Dominican Republic, he was wondering what he would have to do to in order to take temporary custody of his daughter. When I advised him that, since there were no allegations against him, all he really needed to do was to establish some sort of stable residence. He informed me that he was currently staying with a friend who would let his daughter stay in the house for a while. I advised him that there wouldn't be any problem with that, so long as there were no drugs in the home and there were no individuals with felonies on their record living in the house. He paused, looked me straight in the eye and said with a straight face: "Who doesn't have felonies?" Let's face it, as lawyers, we're not always dealing with rocket scientists.

My favorite part of the show is Roy Black's critique at the end of the show. When he raised his hands at the end of the last episode and started ranting about "Eat Me," I busted a gut, because my wife and I (my wife is also an attorney), were raising that very point during the course of that trial. How the defense team missed the boat on that obvious theme/tactic is beyond me. When Anika completely undermined her own defense by trying to show that maybe the plaintiff actually was a dangerous person, I almost choked. It always shocks me when I encounter one of these types at trial, who don't even seem to understand their case. What was even worse was her repeatedly stating, after she completely botched the case, that she was a good attorney and that it was the firm's loss. Uh-huh.

Those are some great stories. I'm surprised that a lot of people do agree to go on Judge Judy and the like. Take the guy who claimed (on The People's Court) that some stripper's fake breasts injured his neck -- whatever made him think that he would come off looking good with a claim like that?

That is funny as hell, Hugo. Do you remember when Ike Turner was on Judge Joe Brown? I was more embarrassed for Ike than he was for himself. Sad to say, that was not Ike's lowest moment.