Chicago Redshirt

My memory is not necessarily the best, but I don't think Rome made anything up. He might have exaggerated things slightly, but the basic info (as I remember it) that he was spreading was accurate.

I don't find it that tough to believe Kyle would insult Sue. I do disbelieve that he would make that particular insult/reference. Maybe it's me falling for stereotypes, but it doesn't seem like he's the sort of personality where he would reference Lewis Carroll. Until/unless TPTB bring the receipts showing Kyle literally telling Andy that, I am going to operate under the assumption that Andy made it up to poison Sue and Caroline against Kyle. (Apologies if they have shown Kyle and Andy talking about Sue/Caroline in that way and I spaced out about it These extended episodes are hard to keep things straight.) "Please, sir, may I have some more botox?" I dunno... Wanting to weaken the Tuku block makes sense. But if I were one of the castaways, I would be worried that Kyle is going to immunity-run his way to the FTC. (Of course, I would have tried to put his ass on the jury last week when he was vulnerable). Anyway, I might want to keep Gabe around because he seems to be one of the few people to have given Kyle a challenge. Sue is another. So maybe the vote should have been Caroline? Split up a strong duo, weaken Tuku, hopefully take out Kyle whenever someone else beats him, and if not, Gabe is still around.

Even for Accused, this plot made little sense. Margot is a pragmatic, anal-retentive rules follower who will deny a patient an appointment because she was 45 minutes late. She also was put in financial hardship because her impractical husband got himself in debt. So naturally, because she had a good time reviving her interest in dancing and because a few compliments were thrown her way, she's willing to a) throw a lot of cash at a guy she met b) then take a gun and threaten said guy and c) take said gun and threaten law enforcement officers. If we're going to go this route, might as well go all the way and have Margot sleep with Alexei and/or spend a lot more time with him to get it in the realm of suspension-of-belief-land that she would think that a dance studio would be worth investing tens of thousands of dollars to support. Also, accepting the premise that Alexei is a wanted criminal in at least two other states, it is ridiculous that a) Connie would somehow find about it, b) be able to tell Margot and c) have Margot act on that knowledge before frigging law enforcement could try to arrest Alexei. It is also wild that law enforcement brought five gajillion officers and Alexei still got away apparently. And that nobody capped Margot for pointing a gun at them. It seems bizarre that any prosecutor would try to accuse Margot of wire fraud or conspiracy in the scam. There presumably would be no evidence of Margot having any financial ties to Alexei or conspiring to do anything with Alexei beyond going out on a date with him. That is, until she somehow found time and ability to access Alexei's bank accounts and return/secure the funds for the people he had scammed. Margot's defense lawyer wouldn't have had to be a brainiac (see what I did there, Supergirl fans?) to show that Margot was innocent of the wire fraud. Are we supposed to believe that Alexei was genuine in some level of at least remorse for scamming Margot, if not romantic feelings for her? My quick attempt to script doctor: Get rid of all the dental office stuff, Margot is in debt stuff. Flip some of the backstory on the friends. Now Margot is the well-to-do widow of the entrepreneur and has money and a background with finances. Connie is stuck in a not-so-great marriage and is in debt with an impractical husband. She, Connie and the third friend regularly go to exercise class together and get introduced to Alexei simultaneously. Alexei tries charming all three, and strikes up things with Margot. Margot doesn't just do the Instagram video and develop a business plan, but also starts hitting up friends to support him, including Connie and the other friend. Connie gives Alexei expensive gifts, and money for the studio. And yes, she sleeps with him. This triggers Connie's jealousy and when she has the conversation with the business person who handles real estate, she calls the police. Connie shows up to rub it in Margot's face that she fell for a scam artist. Margot rushes down to confront Alexei, and you can have that confrontation play out a number of ways. You could have Alexei trying to be remorseful, much as it was in the original. You can have him be a true villain and be like "You really think I would be interested in someone your age?" You can have him become physical with her. Ultimately, in a fit of passion or in self-defense, she shoots him just as a detective is heading to interview him.

Madeline Kingston apparently did pass the bar at some point and is rich. Between those two things, I can suspend disbelief that she could construct a "Madeline Matlock" persona/paper trail enough to fool a superficial background check. She would have to get currently registered for the bar in NY or elsewhere. I can also buy that her hiring was fast-tracked/unconventional because she fed info that allowed the sale that the firm was brokering to go for as many as $4 million more than they would have settled for and she was key in getting a $20 million verdict. I think the twist that she's really rich and out for vengeance/justice is something that differentiates the show from your run-of-the-mill legal drama and also gives a potential showcase for Kathy Bates. Unfortunately, the premise is not sustainable long-term IMO. We'll see more about the relationship between Matty and her daughter. But just because Matty's now rich doesn't mean the daughter had access to that wealth. Matty could have cut her off precisely because of her addiction, or the daughter could have wanted to avoid tapping the wealth because she wanted to hide her addiction. It's even possible that Matty wasn't rich when daughter was still alive, say, because she and hubby received an inheritance, won a lawsuit, or something else in the interim.

There are services, as I understand it, that summarize jury verdicts with information about not just dollar amounts but some of the facts of the case. So it would be possible for Jacobson Moore to say "OK, in these 5 prison litigation cases where the plaintiff succeeded, the average victory was $1 million, and we got $2 million, so we're going to take our third off the $1 million that we got that was above the average." Seeing as how they get to pick and choose the points of comparison, I would imagine they would do so in their favor. And, I suspect that we have put more thought in on the subject than the writers, who just wanted to create conditions where Team Olympia can go from handling a wrongful conviction case to a wrongful termination case to a product-liability case when in real life most lawyers are very specialized in what their practices are.

The general standard contingency fee for a law firm is between 30-40 percent. in some cases, the winner can seek attorneys' fees from the loser. And the firm can also deduct costs and expenses from the award. But a firm acting pro bono is acting in the public interest and so is likely doing the work as charity. Maybe they still take their fees if they win, maybe they take them at a reduced rate. Honestly, I don't know. Lawyers are generally expected to donate some minimum amount of either time or money to public interest legal work, particularly for those who cannot otherwise afford it. The American Bar Association recommends that attorneys do 50 hours a year of such work. Firms often have their associates do such cases as a way to get their associates experience that's risk-free to the firm and to toot their own horn about how much they care. At the same time, the attorneys still have to do the work to keep the bills paid. In the world of the show, Olympia is a high-powered corporate lawyer who has become less interested in high-powered corporate work and pitched getting to do more public interest work on the condition that the firm still makes money as described above. I'm not sure if all the cases taken are supposed to be under the public interest deal. Some of them clearly are. The impression I was under was the case from the pilot was the first test case for the concept. The settlement that client originally was offered was $2 million. They won a $20 million verdict. In real life, it seems like that is about par for the course or a little under given how many years that client served. Episode 2 was an acquittal in a criminal case, so that was clearly pro bono and there would be no profit. I suppose that their client there could sue either the cops or someone else for false arrest. Episode 3 was a $9 million verdict in a wrongful termination case. I'd assume that was a separate thing from the public interest deal, and that the firm would be entitled to $3 million-ish. Episode 4 was a nominal $6 million victory. But that was not under the public interest deal as the client was the spouse of a longtime client, and of course, the Texas Two-Step means that they were not likely to get the $2 million-ish that they otherwise would. Of course, the other half of the firm got to bill for their representation of the original corporation and for pulling off the Two-Step, so the firm probably billed a couple hundred thousand for that work. . Episode 5 was the prison case, and the team won $2 million per woman, or $6 million at least if all three of their original plaintiffs were in the mix, possibly more as there were seemingly other inmates who were affected. Episode 6 was the retrial of a case from two years ago, so it seems like the firm would likely be getting its 30 percent of the $8 million total award, assuming it holds up. So in summary, Team Olympia has won $43 million in verdicts/settlements (not including the building case) in the short time that Matty has been around, which let's say is about six months. The income to the firm would likely at least $4 million and could be as much as $14.

No psychological expert here, but I think that there would still be ample psychological stress from having to relive the death of a son, to have attacks on your parenting, to endure microaggressions about your sexuality if you attend the trial on a day to day basis whether you testify or not. I could buy that it would have been particularly acute during the prep phase and so that is why there was the decision for Not!Angela to be the one to testify. The real reason, of course, was for there to be to contrivance of Matty educating Olympia about her own pain and getting Olympia to figure out how to get Not!Angela to open up. As if Olympia's $1200/hour charging self needed help figuring out how to do that.

The pregnant woman was one of the clients of the week. At the original trial, neither client testified. which Olympia and co. thought might have caused the loss. (Again, it is unbelievable that there could be a trial where either plaintiff did not testify). At this retrial, the original plan was for the Latina femme to testify on behalf of both clients. But as you gathered she was pregnant with another child, and on doctor's recommendation was supposed to avoid stress. Apparently the thought was that testifying would have been too stressful but sitting though a trial about the death of your son was not. Anyway, Olympia and Co. wanted to have a plaintiff testify so they tried to work with the other client, who was stoic and resentful about having to open up about this.

Two years ago Matty was scouting Jacobson Moore to figure out whether to pursue the Reddit lead about the firm causing the opioid crisis. Olympia ran into her and got coffee all over her blazer and was bitchy toward her. Matty apparently took this as a sign that Jacobson Moore needed to be taken down a peg. The interaction with Matty (combined with having just lost the case against the baby food manufacturer) also apparently crystalized for Olympia both that she wanted a divorce from Julian and that she wanted to stop being as much of a corporate drone and do more meaningful cases. Not that it necessarily matters, but the years could be fudged. It could be 10 years, plus or minus a couple, and Alfie could be anywhere from 12-14 or so with not much problem. But I would say Ellie wouldn't necessarily have had to be on Wellbrexa itself to trigger Alfie's radar. Ellie could have gotten addicted through any number of brand name opioids or even generic ones. It's just that (hypothetically in the show's premise) if Wellbrexa got what was coming to it 14 (or however many) years ago, it would have shown how dangerous opioids were back then, and opioids would have been taken off the market more than a decade ago, which would then have led in some way to Ellie still being alive. They haven't drawn the causal connection very tightly on that last bit. But it could be because Ellie had been taking Wellbrexa herself. It could be that Wellbrexa cleared the space for other Big Pharma companies to sell opioids that ended up being what Ellie took. Probably other possibilities as well. I know the hero of the show has to get the win, but the explanation for the Baby Formula worker contaminating the food is such a stretch. Especially because a) wouldn't they have shut the machinery down while he was holding the pipe b) wouldn't they have figured about the contamination risk c) wouldn't other people have gotten sick from the same batch that he contaminated? I don't see how Our Heroes made their case here, when there's still the strong possibility that Dante's death was either just one of those things or was caused by his moms. I guess the notion of the former foreman having a pricey lifestyle was a bit of a red herring.

But even Batman can't be everywhere at once. Even though this played out over 8 weeks for the episodes, the time frame from episode 1-8 in in-universe time is probably a couple weeks at most. And who's to say that he isn't investigating some aspect of this, but just hasn't gotten to the big players yet?

This is more of the backstory and the Kathy Bates acting I was hoping for, and I'm glad it delivered. I am still hungry for more about adult Ellie and her addiction, and Matty's interactions with that. It is easy to have fond memories of innocent 5 year old Ellie on the playground. Not quite as easy to have such memories about 35? year old Ellie sneaking around, stealing money, being abusive, lying about her fixes and what not. The notion that this was two years in the making is scary and again doesn't really make sense that Matty would have gone and stayed this route. I did like the notion that Matty's chance encounter with Olympia set off so much in both of their lives. The fact that Senior was so much in her camp made me think that there had to be an affair or something worse than what was portrayed in this episode leading to the divorce ask. I cannot ignore the absurdity of the COTW "You won't have to testify" business, though. There is no conceivable way that a lawyer trying to bring a case on behalf of a client would without having the client testify both at a deposition and at trial. Promising a client "you won't have to testify" at the onset would probably be malpractice. I'm not sure how the plaintiff would establish what supposedly happened or her damages WITHOUT her own testimony. The defense would have a right to know what they would say and to attack the plaintiff's theory of the case, including by cross-examining the plaintiff. Nor would any competent lawyer want to try to bring a case without the plaintiff's testimony even if they technically could. One would want the jury's sympathy, and that could really only be accomplished through both parents testifying. One of the things that appeals to me about Olympia is that as written and acted, the character is organically and definitively Black. Hollywood has a tendency to do one of two things with diversity: cast actors who are diverse but for all intents and purposes play characters that could be of any background, or put their race so far in the foreground and make it all that they talk about and/or stereotypical. You could have the actress who plays Olympia play Sarah and nothing would seem off thus far. But if you had the Sarah actress play Olympia it wouldn't fit. Olympia feels like a fleshed out human, or at least as much of one as one can expect this far into a show. I do wonder if they will bring more of her Baptist background into the mix, and if she's still a believer. It doesn't strike me that there's a big interracial marriage component among Black Baptists, but maybe that's my ignorance.

Sometimes I wonder if the jury gets to know what we the audience knows. and how. Presumably, the only people who know that Justin gave clean urine to Wrestler are Justin and TJ, and TJ died before he could say anything. Justin would be pretty dumb to admit to it. I guess the wrestling authorities might have analyzed the sample, figured it was clean, figured that given Justin's cause of death involved steroid use that someone switched the sample, and since Justin was in the restroom at the time, might have been involved. I think that even if you point to all of Justin's actions and call them reckless/grossly negligent, it's a tough thing to argue that those actions were the cause of Wrestler dying, directly. Yes, TJ would not have competed without Justin's help/intervention, and yes, TJ died because he competed. But I think that oversimplifies the notion of causing the death. Sometimes I think it would be better as civil trials. I could more easily see Justin found liable for the death because of the lower standard of proof than I could him being guilty of it beyond a reasonable doubt. The way that would need to be proved would be through expert testimony, not Justin getting asked about Icarus and Daedalus and what not. I think that you could make the defense that Justin was aware that Wrestler passed a medical screening and therefore did not have any reason to believe that the steroid use (or cutting him off from it cold turkey) might cause the death without throwing Erica under the bus.

Michael Chiklis did his usual good job. But it does seem a stretch that he'd be found guilty under the circumstances. Here's the definition of involuntary manslaughter in Pennsylvania:

I would say Perry Mason has had a bigger grasp on pop culture than Matlock. Perry had a series of books, a TV show that ran 9 years in its original run and then was a series of TV movies, plus was widely syndicated. There was also the relatively recent revival. I daresay most anyone who'd gone to an American law school in the last 50 years would have at least heard of Perry Mason and the notion it popularized of getting a witness to break down and confess on the stand to their guilt. Matlock, I think, was far less popular and more generational. I at least only had heard of Matlock because it was used as a joke on the Simpsons about old people loving it. .

I don't know if it's absolutely clear but Luca Falcone (the boss) is (I believe) a cousin to Viti. I don't think that Luca's wife has any biological relation to Viti or even any close kinship by marriage.