Sunday, 9 March 2014

Dressed for success at the expense of ethics?



Suits has become my all time favourite law show – it is sleek, funny, sophisticated and engaging. The complex characters draw you in to the high stakes world of corporate litigation. If you haven't had the pleasure of viewing this series, you can check out the trailer here

Harvey Specter, Mike Ross, Rachel Zane – these young lawyers are impeccably dressed and live for the law and for their careers, but the question that lingers from week to week (apart from the ongoing Mike/Rachel relationship) is whether the blurry ethical decisions they regularly make are worth it. The premise of the show itself is based in this murky grey area: with the central character, Mike having no actual law qualifications at all (having not actually attended law school or passed the bar), and yet by deception practices law (with great success) under his mentor Harvey Specter. Albeit, his photographic memory, genius intelligence, and dogged determination earns him some credence in the practice of law, yet his deceit keeps him in a constant panic of being found out. 



Thankfully for Mike, Harvey lives in the ethically grey – and together they use their particular legal skills sets to serve the best interests of their clients. Despite the ethical issues they often skirt around (misrepresenting facts in negotiations, not passing on information to clients, lying) we love their transgressive ways because they are usually acting to serve their clients.

As viewers, we love the conflict created by these murky situations. It is these ethically grey decisions that compel us to watch each episode – to see how and why the characters will respond to difficult situations – to see what crazy strategy will work for each character – and to see how these decisions impact on the bromance between Mike and Ross. 

But... at what point do we no longer appreciate or approve of the characters blurring the lines between ethics and morality? To what extent is it ok for a lawyer to transgress the ethical norms of the profession? Have you thought any action of either Mike or Harvey has gone too far? Let me know your thoughts?

By the way – a big shout out to my law and pop culture class who have begun their adventure into the world of law on the screen!





11 comments:

  1. I started watching Suits in preparation for this semester, and now I’m completely hooked. However, entertainment value aside, this show has a lot to say not only about ethics in the legal profession as discussed in the original blog post, but also the adversarial nature of it. Moreover, in many ways Suits fuels the layperson’s perception of lawyers as being unscrupulous, underhanded and unremitting in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

    Michael Asimow begins his article titled Popular Culture and the Adversary System with the idea that “the central precept of the adversary system is that she sharp clash of proofs presented by opposing lawyers, both zealously representing the interests of their clients, generates the information upon which a … decision maker can most justly resolve a dispute”. I feel like this idea is strongly supported by the actions of the lawyers of Pearson Hardman, and in particular by Harvey Specter as he teaches Mike the art of winning. Harvey generally avoids going to trial where he can, instead relying more on negotiations toward settling. He ‘wins’ by invariably uncovering some pivotal fact that positions himself and his client more strongly in negotiations before offering a deal favourable to his client. Often, uncovering this fact involves transgressing ethical norms, such as through indirectly threatening to perjure himself to win a class action suit. However, the formula that Harvey follows expands the idea that the mechanics of the adversarial system are confined solely to the courtroom.

    Asimow also states that “[t]he dominance of the adversarial system seems paradoxical because the general public despises and distrusts lawyers”. Indeed, the lawyers of Pearson Hardman go to extreme, often ‘ethically grey’ lengths to win for their clients and secure their enormous paycheques. However, while this show reinforces the public’s distrust in lawyers, it also in many ways reinforces the legitimacy of the adversarial system. That is, we see through the heavy involvement of Harvey and Mike’s clients that the adversary system allows litigants to make their own strategic choices about their cases. The show also reaffirms the public’s distrust toward the independence, neutrality and trustworthiness of public officials, as in one particular episode Harvey is discriminated against by a judge who believes that Harvey slept with his wife. By default, a distrust of public officials means the public will trust the adversarial system, in particular due to the power it affords solicitors, far more than an inquisitorial system.

    Finally, I will touch on your point regarding the conflict that the ethical decisions of the show’s characters create. I, too, feel like this is one of the show’s great strengths, and this goes a long way to suggesting why pop culture is obsessed with the adversarial trial. People love contests, and the transparency of the whole legal process in Suits gives viewers an idea of who is ‘winning’ at any given time. This ‘tug-of-war’ is akin to watching a sports match, although for the characters of Suits, the stakes are generally much higher.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The plot of Suits is quite poetic. The emotionless, ethically grey Harvey Specter mentors the emotionally driven Mike Ross who harbours the biggest ethics violation of all.

    -- “As viewers, we love the conflict created by these murky situations. It is these ethically grey decisions that compel us to watch each episode” --

    I agree viewers watch for the conflict created by the actions of the characters. However, I believe viewers appreciate more the glamorous lifestyles depicted in law shows, and to the greatest extent in Suits. The money, the cars, the skyline, the suits all combine to portray a world of sophistication that unsurprisingly appeals to lay viewers.

    The opening theme of Suits depicts the protagonists walking through the streets of Manhattan in a confident manner. The accompanying theme song is Ima Robot’s Greenback Boogie. Greenback Boogie (greenback being street slang for money) regards the money and power that comes from working a high profile job. Lyrics from the song include:

    “See the money wanna stay”

    and

    “Everybody wanna know
    How it feel,
    Everybody wanna see
    What it’s like”

    As a legal professional I am fully aware of the inaccuracies and impossibilities of shows like Suits. As a viewer, however, I can fully appreciate the glamorous, classy and charming nature of the show and must give credit for doing so successfully what they sought to do: dramatise the realm of corporate law.



    -- “At what point do we no longer appreciate or approve of the characters blurring the lines between ethics and morality?” --

    Mike and Harvey’s conduct, as far law shows are concerned, is far from egregious. Harvey hardly stoops to extortion, duress, fraud, manufacturing/concealing evidence, etc. (for a good example see Alan Shore of The Practice/Boston Legal). However, comparing their conduct to that of real life attorneys there are multiple ethics violations throughout. In fairness, Harvey’s recklessness is almost always in the best interests of his client and always gets the job done [SEASON 3 SPOILER ALERT] (as demonstrated by his questionable defense of Ava Hesington’s murder charge and his subsequent apology to her).

    Having said this, Harvey often makes enemies of other attorneys for personal reasons at the risk of his client's best interest. For me, putting one's own personal issues ahead of the client's is the line which no attorney should cross. [SEASON 3 SPOILER ALERT] Ava Hesington repeatedly shows her displeasure for the "blood fude" between Harvey and Cameron Dennis. This saga is then followed immediately by another cameo by Eric Close as Travis Tanner, which is then followed by Harvey's old law school rival Elliott Stemple, played exceptionally by Patrick Fischler. The run in with Stemple epitomises this impropriety, so much so that Stemple blatantly brings it to the attention of Harvey's client as a tact to try and get him to settle. Despite Harvey's habit of coming out the victor in almost every situation, if opposing council is able to use Harvey's history as a bargaining chip in negotiations then I would submit that he has well and truly overstepped his ethical boundaries as a fictional attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Suits is one of my favorite TV-shows of all times but the series raises a lot of interesting questions regarding how far a lawyer is willing to go in order to win a case. The opening lyrics to each episode in Suits tells us that everybody want to know how it feel and that we all deserve the finer things in this life. The lyrics tells us that lawyers have a life that we as viewers should desire and they live a life so much better than the life of us ordinary people. This view of lawyers life's as being something we should envy is very literate portrayed in one of the opening scenes in the first episode. Mike (a non lawyer) wakes up alone in a small and dark apartment looking tired and stressed. Harvey (a successful lawyer) on the other hand wakes at the same time up in a beautify big apartment, looking flawless and with a half naked girl in his bed. It is obvious that people like Mike should envy the life of lawyers like Harvey. Once Mike start working as a lawyer he gets a gorgeous girlfriend, nice suits and eventually a beautify apartment. Viewers should envy and desire this lifestyle but the questions is; could you handled the situations they face when needing to make decisions that are both ethical and morally questionable? The lawyers life looks very nice on the surface but once you look under the rug it reveals hard work, late nights and a lot of decisions that is not always a hundred percent whiting the laws boundaries.

    As mention above in the post, Harvey lives in the ethically grey and Mark as his counterpart often are more conflicted when it comes to transgressing the ethical and moral lines. As the series goes on Mark becomes more and more like Harvey doing questionable things just to win a Case. In William Simons article, Moral pluck: Legal ethics in popular culture, he state that violation rules in sometimes the right thing to do. Immanuel Kant on the other hand believes that lying is always wrong even when necessary to save an innocent life. The lawyers in suits has chosen a third option , they go beyond the ethical and moral boundaries several times but not just to save the innocent but to win their cases. Suits then raises the question if it is a part of a gods lawyers job not to care whether or not the person you representing is innocent and do the same moral and ethical questionable things regardless of the persons guilt in order to win their case.
    Is it just the innocent who deservers lawyers working in the murky areas of the law or do the rule apply to the guilty as well?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I too watched a few episodes from this show to get a better understanding of it. This show is incredibly appealing to the senses, even the name ‘Suits’ implies a particular style to the audience. The glamorous lives, the one liners, the ethical dilemmas all leave us wanting more and with something to talk about after the episode has ended. It is no wonder many are addicted to the show with how aesthetically pleasing it all is and as law students we can’t help but be drawn to the high-rise life that the show presents. What ‘Suits’ also does, effectively, is it causes us to put ourselves in the characters’ shoes; what would we really do in their situation and would we do any different from what they have done?

    Every ‘Suits’ episode contains a deep plot with the development of its very strong characters. We feel like we know these characters even on a personal level due to the backstories that are revealed. The cases continue to fascinate the viewer due to the fact that they are not clearly black and white. There are always various shades of grey; something that law students will be very familiar with when reading real cases for ourselves. The fact that the cases in ‘Suits’ encompass serious risk taking also makes it more captivating. There are high stakes involved which makes us more vested in the characters and their development and change.

    Then there is the juxtaposition of an ethical Mike who evades the system by not actually being qualified and the emotionally distant and selfish Harvey. I appreciate how the show reveals that an education in the law does not necessarily make you the best person for the job. I constantly ask myself what will happen if Mike is found out. Despite the fact that Mike has never attended law school or taken the bar exam, he provides a perspective of morals and ethics. Harvey, on the other hand, continually pushes the boundaries with no regard for emotions. The comparisons drawn between these two characters are enough to keep you watching.

    With regards to acting transgressively in the best interests of the client, I think that in the context of popular culture the audience wants the characters to contravene the law; it does make for better television. The ethically grey cases that are presented to us every week continue to show us how little legal loopholes can provide an outcome that the client is pleased with. However I can’t help but question this kind of act; I am a bit of a goody-goody with this sort of thing, I like to know that proper procedures are being followed just so that it is the same for everyone with no special treatment. Yet ‘Suits’ creates situations where we as the audience believe that acting transgressively is morally acceptable. Just like the ethics in the show, there is no black and white only grey.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Suits sets itself up as a show where the actions and decisions of the main characters are ethically questionable. A serious of dubious dealings lead Mike Ross to an unplanned meeting with Harvey Specter, who proceeds to hire Mike as his new associate. Harvey does this knowing that Mike is attempting to evade a drug deal sting operation, and despite that fact that (apparently more importantly) Mike has not attended Harvard or any other law school. The decisions do not get any simpler from there, and the ceaseless desire to win - for the clients, for the firm, for themselves - combined with the appeal of the sleek and sophisticated world of corporate litigation, keeps the characters positioned in the ethically grey.

    It is the navigation of the 'murky grey' areas that makes Suits such an intriguing show. Viewers are given an insight into the conflicting issues and difficult situations that the characters face, which allows the viewer to consider for themselves what they would do if placed in such a position. The actions of Mike and Harvey are generally morally justifiable, which leaves the viewer wondering: Is it ok for a lawyer to transgress the ethical norms of the profession if they believe that something is right or wrong? Many representations of law in popular culture portray the rules surrounding the legal profession as a hindrance to rather than a facilitator of justice. This idea is perpetuated through shows like this, where the viewer approves of ethical transgressions because they were performed for morally 'right' reasons, to achieve the 'right' result for the client.

    William Simon discusses legal ethics in popular culture, suggesting that 'ethics' encompasses a duty of character and personal integrity, and is not simply a matter of duties to society. The actions of Harvey and Mike may demonstrate what Simon calls 'moral pluck', whereby their transgressions are resourceful actions, brought about in situations where the rules of the profession are too rigid, contradictory, ambiguous, or non-existent. Misrepresentation of facts in negotiations, not passing information to clients, and lying, were examples mentioned in the original post, but the viewer forgives this misconduct because the lawyers are acting to serve their clients. Almost as clarification to the viewer of the point where the blurring of ethics and morality goes too far, the character Travis Tanner is introduced to challenge Harvey, and creates something of a hero/villain dichotomy. In S01E09, we see how far Harvey is willing to bend the rules to achieve a 'win' when he implies to Tanner that he is going to perjure himself. Mike's shocked reaction to this directs the viewer to the slippery slope that was almost embarked upon when he states: "I can't believe you. You were going to perjure yourself just to win. I thought you didn't cross lines. That that's the difference between guys like you and him". Harvey explains that he had no intention of actually following through with his threat, but Tanner did not know that - "A man who is willing to break the rules can't imagine someone else wouldn't". This reaffirms to the viewer that Harvey's transgressions are acceptable, because there is a clear moral boundary that he will not cross, and we believe again that his actions are 'right'.

    For me, the idea that the individual has to know (or at least have some understanding of) the extents to which he or she will or will not go in certain situations, is an important notion for basic existence and functioning. Morals and ethics can call for a complicated balancing act, made more complicated if the individual does not know where they stand or what they believe is right. Forethought into what is individually and socially appropriate can help people to navigate through 'murky' situations, and Suits provides an ideal (and fun!) example of seeking balance in difficult situations, and testing characters' and viewers' standards along the way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just like everyone above, I have absolutely loved Suits. There is something about the way each character attacks a problem that leaves me with so many mixed emotions. I think that my feelings go to the heart of the issue that you have pointed out in your post, at what point do we no longer appreciate or approve of the characters blurring the lines between ethics and morality?

    I saw a comment above that highlights the juxtaposition between Harvey and Mike, however I would argue that the show relies on the juxtaposition of Harvey and Louis to answer the question of ‘how far is too far?’
    I found it interesting how different the two characters could be, yet at the same time try to solve a problem in almost the same way.

    Harvey is the quintessential morally grey lawyer, willing to break the code of ethics to get what is best for his client. Many times throughout the first season he has to tell Mike that it is his job to not care about the client, but instead it is to win. Harvey employs a number of shady tactics to get the win, most notably when he blackmailed his arch-nemesis Travis Tanner so that his clients could gain compensation. Whilst the outcome is ‘just’, it does make you wonder how far Harvey will push the envelope to get what he sees as the right outcome.

    Louis will also do anything to win, however try as he might he always fails when attempting to transgress the law. The tone was set in the second episode after Louis tried to blackmail Mike with the drug testing policy. Afterwards there were a number of incidents where he tried to bypass the law to achieve his desired outcome, offering a witness a position as Jessica’s secretary, hacking into Harvey’s computer, and stealing information from a printer. However, just like the drug test, Louis ultimately fails.
    What is remarkable is that Louis always goes back to the rules for comfort. He is the quartermaster of the firm, his love interest Sheila is devoted to procedure, and when he finds out Mike got an A+ in a subject that has never given one before, he was overwhelmingly in favour of turning Mike in.

    By showing Louis as a stickler to the rules yet trying to be transgressive like Harvey, the show is saying that to be successful as a lawyer, you need to have the ability to get around the obstacles of the law to get what is best for the client. It is no mistake that Louis, who is unsuccessful in transgressing the law, is less successful than Harvey as a lawyer, and the other protagonists rub it in over and over again.

    So how far is too far? I would argue that Suits sets up the audience to agree with a lawyer like Harvey who transgresses ethics regularly, even to the point of hacking into a rivals phone. The most unlikeable character throughout most of the series is Louis, the person who tries to be like Harvey, but in the end goes back to the confines of the rules. It is only when Harvey accepts Louis, or treats him callously, that the audience shares an appreciation for him. I think what Louis and Harvey demonstrate in Suits, is that a balance needs to be struck between transgression of the law and sticking to the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think Suits is really interesting not only in terms of the ethically grey but also in regards to the meetings of two worlds. The first of these worlds is that of the legal sphere, inhabited by characters such as Lewis Litt, Rachel Zane and of course, Harvey Specter. On the other hand we have the ‘real world’ of Jenny and Travis. Mike straddles these two worlds, creating the majority of the intrigue within the show, aside from the legal crisis of the week.

    The world of the lawyer is occupied by fast cars, expensive suits and exclusive parties. The real world is the bicycle that Mike uses to get around, hung up on hooks in the modest apartment that he lives in, showing that in his complex, there is not even a secure lockup for his belongings. The best material juxtaposition of this is when Mike rides his bike to a chic motor club, but this pales in terms of conflict into the character conflicts created by the two worlds.

    The whole love triangle of Rachel-Mike-Jenny in the first season exemplifies this, the struggle between the real world and the legal. It is consistently shown in the series that the values of these two worlds are not at all similar and this is where Mike is drawn into even more conflict, as despite his status as a ‘fake’ lawyer, he is in the ‘real world’ a good, moral man who cares for his grandmother and intensely disapproves of his friend lying to his girlfriend. Whilst I haven’t watched enough of the show to see how this triangle is resolved, it would be my guess that Rachel is chosen by Mike, as he is drawn further into the legal world and away from the ‘real’.

    This disparity in conceptions is shown even in the opening theme. As pointed out by Seppy, the lyrics of the song refer constantly to prestige and money, reinforced by the shots of Harvey looking powerful and in control, shot entirely in blue. However, when we see Mike in the opening, he is themed in red, and only is drawn into the blue colour scheme when he arrives next to Harvey, and walks next to him.

    Therefore I would argue that the ethically grey zone that the characters inhabit is created by the incompatibility of the morals of the real world and that of the legal world, where Mike is intimately familiar with the intricacies of the letter of the law, thanks to his photographic memory, but hamstrung by his own ethical compass, which conflicts with the customs and practices of those who exclusively reside in the glamorous legal domain.

    I also find that there exists some irony with any portrayal of a law show such as Suits, when the driving purpose of the cases they receive is to reach some sort of conflict resolution, but in the process of doing so, in fact generate more conflict for the audience to observe and enjoy. This has the effect of, as the Anonymous post on the 26th of April points out, creating better television for consumption as well as normalising the transgressive nature of the majority of the lawyers that appear on the show.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am yet to find an individual who has viewed at least one episode of suits, who does not like it. For me, it is to law students what Grey’s Anatomy is for medical students, only a lot more interesting, combining wit , humour, and straight out ‘well played..’ moments, not to mention perhaps the best TV ‘bromance’ I have seen. Like many of my classmates,I am hooked, and will be an advocate for its promotion, though I am still making my way through the series.
    The phrase ‘sometimes good guys have to do bad things to make bad guys pay’ is one that stands out when I think of ‘Suits’ , and I believe the series demonstrates this perfectly. However, there is no clear cut, no black and white in Suits. Everything is grey, and the already thin line of ethics and morality is heavily blurred – and it is this passive venture into murky waters that makes the show so appealing.
    Like in ‘Suits’, the concept of ‘transgressive lawyering’ is depicted in many recent legal dramas, with a focus on a ‘moral pluck’(Michael H.Simon’s piece) – the concept that the lawyer commits an act of transgression in the vindication of justice. The show heavily deals with questions of ethics and morality. Popular culture allows us to delve into moments we know we can only see on screen, and ‘Suits’ demonstrates this perfectly. The pair regularly transgress ethics, from clearly going against client instructions, to heavily misrepresenting facts, and interviewing adverse parties, not just in the interest of money, (which, in ‘Suits’ , frankly, does grow on trees) , but , in the best interests of the client. Is it the concept of ‘best interest’ which sweetens any bitterness of ill-feeling we may have towards a transgression of ethics? I believe so. (Even though Harvey often tells Mike that their goal is to win, not to please the client.)
    Harvey, to me, lacks emotion, empathy and compassion, while Mike demonstrates a genuine care and interest in his clients. However, Suits originally builds on the premise that Mike is a deceptive ‘lawyer’ (in fact he doesn’t even have a law degree..) and thus effectively a fraud, however , his character draws me to him. As the series progresses, we see Mike becoming more like Harvey in regards to his ethics and actions. However, while Harvey exudes a rough demeanour, he does not like wins which feel dirty. In many ways, I feel that Mike deserves more legal glory than many Harvard graduates (what about the fact that he takes LSATs for money, making sure to get some incorrect answers so as not to be sus…simply brilliant.)
    I agree with ‘notjoshbarber’ that Suits invites the audience to agree with a lawyer like Harvey, who regularly transgresses ethics. Their transgressive ways and wit seem to serve their client’s best interests- and after all, isn’t this what a lawyer sets out to do This is turn, makes me wonder and at times even question my own values – something I wonder if this will carry forth in the formative years of my career…
    But, to what extent? I believe that if a lawyer genuinely acts in the best interest of the client, which in turn serves to be in the best interest of society, a transgression of legal norms is acceptable. Moreover, if their actions are true and do promote the best interests of society, they can further serve to gradually change the ethical norms of the legal profession – which I do not feel are stagnant, rather, evolve and mould over time , in response to the progress and growth of society.
    Shirin

    ReplyDelete
  9. I love, love LOVE Suits! Apart from having a major crush on Mike and Harvey, the reason I particularly enjoy suits is that it can teach you about yourself and your ethical stance on many situations. I find that in watching the lawyers of Pearson Hardman and the way they transgress moral norms within their professional field, my reactions to these choices can help me see where I draw the line. Typically, I think people find it difficult to actually know their moral standpoint on a situation, or know where their boundaries are and how far they would be willing to go to win a case, for example. Suits provides a platform for us to delve deeper into our own moral standpoint and to find out where our ‘line’ falls, by assessing our reaction to their actions, I can see where I drew the line. I find this a really important aspect of Suits, and something I find myself reflecting on after each episode.

    Despite being uncomfortable with much of the lying, deceit and ethically questionable actions taken by Mike and Harvey, I find that no matter how far they transgress from the moral norms, if they win the case for their client, I can forgive them. This thinking, however, cannot be successfully transferred to real life practice for obvious reasons. In Suits, the consequences of the lawyer’s ethically questionable actions are not the focus of the show, and are often not addressed. At times, we see them getting caught out and having to deal with the consequences, but the consequences on people they lie to or blackmail are not necessarily always dealt with. I think it is the removal of this aspect of their transgression that allows us as viewers to be comfortable with a lot of what they do. We see them transgress and consequently win the case for their client, but we are not privy to all the impact their actions have.

    I think the show also highlights an interesting point, in that breaking the ‘red tape’ or the boundaries of the legal system doesn’t always result in a bad outcome, and consequently suggests the importance of having your own moral compass to decide when and when it is not ok. The fact that Mike practices without any formal training highlights this point, as although he has no qualifications and is therefore breaking the rules, he is able to practice successfully as a lawyer.

    I really enjoy suits for its entertainment value, but I think it is also a useful educative tool in helping me stop and look at my own morals and learn where I draw the line.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lawyers have a hard enough life trying to improve the stereotypes they are given in today’s society. For example, take a quick look online at some lawyer jokes, and you will find and endless supply of jokes putting down the work of lawyers. For example,

    Q: What do you call 5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
    A: A good start!

    Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
    A: His lips are moving.

    Q: Where can you find a good lawyer?
    A: In the cemetery

    But even though most of society have these views against lawyers, it should still be seen as a noble profession. Though noble, shows lie Suits and Boston Legal do put the image of lawyer back into question. As viewer we love when these characters in law shows blur the lines between ethics and morality. The only people it effects in the shows is usually the “bad guys”. The problem in real life is that the “good guys are also getting effected by these lawyers. So it is really a case by case basis as to what we see s right and wrong in a lawyers actions and how much they do to blur the lines between ethics and morality. As soon as it starts to have an impact on us, or someone we care about, transgressive lawyers go from hero to zero.

    In many cases a transgressive lawyer will do something a little wrong, to get a very right result. This comes back to something is our society that revolves around the concept of “A LITTLE WHITE LIE”. Something we are brought up being told is ok by our parents when we catch them lying to someone. It is tough to draw and boundary from where this line stays white or where it starts turning into darker shades of grey and deception.

    No one likes to be lied to, especially a legal system based on truth such as ours. But transgressive lawyers generally are looking to get a benefit out of a hopeless situation. The transgressive lawyers on our tv screens are helping society think differently of lawyers. It is because of these portrayals that we are probably seeing law school full world-wide with students that are likely to gain no employment in the field of law.

    The actions of Mike or Harvey, or even the characters off Boston Legal are not always fair on everyone involved. But they are usually based on working towards a utilitarian outcome. So we let the little bad, turn itself into the bigger good. Without transgressive lawyers we may not ever see the David and Goliath battles on our TV screens or in the real world. These types of lawyers play there part to make up the great system that we operate under.today.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Very good and interesting, I appreciate your work. Tutuapp

    ReplyDelete