S01.E04: The Rabbit and The Hawk

[chitowngirl]

Olympia tasks Matty with getting close to their client, who is fighting for justice in the wrongful death of his wife.

[AnimeMania]

[DanaK]

This was a good one. Senior and company were ratfinks, though I find it hard to believe that Olympia didn’t already know how ruthless Senior could be

I thought it was interesting that Matty and her husband fought over her use of the grandson. I’m glad they made up

I enjoyed Julian helping Olympia get out her frustrations on Senior by bringing several of his glass awards for her to hit with the golf club. Though all that glass flying was rather dangerous 

[shapeshifter]

40 minutes ago, DanaK said:

I enjoyed Julian helping Olympia get out her frustrations on Senior by bringing several of his glass awards for her to hit with the golf club. Though all that glass flying was rather dangerous 

That was the one bit I didn't like.
I kept thinking it would come back to bite Olympia.
But great episode. I was considering ditching the show, but now I'll stick around.

[dancingdreamer]

I was glad Matty and  Edwin, got things out in the open, and solved things regarding  Alfie. She was leaning  on him far too much. I didn't  like to see the wobble in their marriage . Elijah was being nasty to Olympia,  obviously  she did the right thing breaking  things off.Julian, played by Julian  Ritter, really  looked like his father tonight. 

[Bastet]

Gods, must every episode after the pilot start with the annoying ass Alfie?  He's the worst combination of acting and characterization I've come across in a while.

Double gods, the actor playing the victim's husband turned in an absolutely awful performance as a recurring serial killer on Cold Case, and that's all I could see every time he was on screen -- to the point I spent much of the episode thinking he killed his wife.  Even though he wasn't an unbearable actor this time, he was so bad in that role, I just couldn't get see anything else.

A second flashback where at least we see something new (that Matty snapped a picture of Sr.'s signature) rather than a straight rehash of everything we just saw, it but undercut by the earlier annoyance of us having to re-hear the argument she and her husband had just had in the previous scene.  And see Olympia and Julian signing the forms again.  Good grief. 

On the good side:  "Teach me your ways, Betty White" -- yay for the return of Sarah calling Matty by incorrect pop culture references.

The onions amused me, not so much how she used them to cry to Mrs. B. because I don't like dogging (no pun intended) on someone for having the love for their pet they should feel if they're going to have one, but leaving a pile of them for her husband's dinner cracked me up.

"I'm going to choke you out" when Billy ignored Sarah's admonition and did the "aww" sound was great.  While I'd read it was coming, I appreciate how casually it was included that Sarah's potential love interest would be a girlfriend, too.

Julian bringing Olympia some of Sr.'s prized shit to destroy was fun.  And of course Sr. is friends with Dubya and Rove.  But also of course it's not going to be as simple as he's the bad guy in the drug case.  We'll learn a lot more over time.  I just want Olympia to be not only uninvolved (which I strongly suspect) but unaware.  I love how disgusted she was that it cost them $4 million to do the Texas Two-Step shenanigans, when for just $2 million more the firm could have done the right thing.

Edited Friday at 09:11 PM by Bastet

[andromeda331]

I don't know how I feel about Matty using a dead dog story to get information. As a dog lover no Matty don't do that to someone. But it did help get her what she needed. As a dog lover I probably would have done the same thing as Mrs. B. 

I like Olympia and Matty being allies. 

I knew Sr was up to something when he insisted on 8 in the morning but didn't know what it was. That's why I hate lawyers.

Although Matty, Olympia and Billy are why I like lawyers. Sarah was really annoying again. This time about Billy's girlfriend. She kept harping on why she made the mistake. Just apologize and move on.

I'm surprise Matty and her husband had a fight over Alfie. He's seemed completely on board with everything including Alfie's part. If he had doubts I wish we had seen that. It would have added more to that part of story.

I wish Alfie was older and had issues. He's way too perfect and well adjusted for a kid who had a drug addict mother who died and the law firm is partly responsible. He just acts like he's having fun or it's a game.

[basil]

4 hours ago, Bastet said:

Double gods, and speaking of terrible acting, the actor playing the victim's husband turned in an absolutely awful performance as a recurring serial killer on Cold Case, and that's all I could see every time he was on screen -- to the point I spent much of the episode thinking he killed his wife.  Even though he wasn't an unbearable actor this time; I just couldn't get past it.

I LOVE John Billingsley. One of my all-time favorite HITG! actors. A great working actor, he has never been out of work. I thought his acting was fine here, but he is saddled with crappy writing.

I genuinely dislike the writing in this show. I adore Kathy Bates,but I loathe her character. She is manipulative and conniving, willing to sacrifice her grandson and her marriage in the service of revenge for her dead daughter. 

I can't imagine it will be worth it. She may well win, but will come out of the other side with a damaged grandson and marriage - and her daughter will still be dead.

I'm not liking this at all.

 

[Ellee]

I think Sr.’s signature is easy for someone to forge.  Did he sign or did someone else sign?

[Chicago Redshirt]

9 hours ago, DanaK said:

This was a good one. Senior and company were ratfinks, though I find it hard to believe that Olympia didn’t already know how ruthless Senior could be

I thought it was interesting that Matty and her husband fought over her use of the grandson. I’m glad they made up

I enjoyed Julian helping Olympia get out her frustrations on Senior by bringing several of his glass awards for her to hit with the golf club. Though all that glass flying was rather dangerous 

I assume that she intellectually knew how ruthless Sr. is. But she probably did not have it directed at a) her or b) one of her clients, an innocent widower. And as she framed it, it wasn't even so much about the money because the maneuver did not save all that much, all things considered. It was about "fuck you, old man."

Seems to me that trying for a Texas two-step here isn't something that is going to be accomplished overnight and isn't going to go through automatically. But I guess simplified for TV.

I would worry that at some point Sr. is going to wonder about the mementos that were smashed and Jr. won't have any explanation for what happened to them.

8 hours ago, dancingdreamer said:

Elijah was being nasty to Olympia,  obviously  she did the right thing breaking  things off.

We haven't really seen much about the Elijah-Olympia relationship or given much of the backstory about it. But that Elijah was a little extra nasty to her in the context of this case doesn't necessarily justify breaking up with him. I'd also say he didn't do much that the show is treating as wrong. Although it would be clearly unethical for him to call Artist Dude knowing that he's represented by someone; the only ethical way for him to reach out to Artist Dude would be through his attorney.

A theory that I'm floating is that none of Matty's Big Three suspects is actually guilty and it's Elijah. I would bet most of my worldly possessions it can't be Olympia, Sr. is too obviously a red herring. I guess it could be Jr., but so far he seems too soft.

6 hours ago, Bastet said:

Gods, must every episode after the pilot start with the annoying ass Alfie?  He's the worst combination of acting and characterization I've come across in a while.

Double gods, and speaking of terrible acting, the actor playing the victim's husband turned in an absolutely awful performance as a recurring serial killer on Cold Case, and that's all I could see every time he was on screen -- to the point I spent much of the episode thinking he killed his wife.  Even though he wasn't an unbearable actor this time; I just couldn't get past it.

Yeah, not a fan of the kid character, but what can you do.

But I'll stand up for John Billingsley, aka Dr. Phlox from Star Trek: Enterprise. The second Trek alum I've noticed after Nicole de Boer aka Ezri Dax. Hopefully they keep giving Trek actors work.

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I don't know how I feel about Matty using a dead dog story to get information. As a dog lover no Matty don't do that to someone. But it did help get her what she needed. As a dog lover I probably would have done the same thing as Mrs. B. 

I know exactly how I feel about the ruse of a dead dog. I hate it. At some point I hope Mrs. B sniffs out that Cookie never exists and exposes Matty for the fraud she is. 

1 hour ago, Ellee said:

I think Sr.’s signature is easy for someone to forge.  Did he sign or did someone else sign?

As a head of the firm, there's probably a stamp of his signature that would allow any one to sign off on documents on his behalf. But then again, as we saw in this very episode, it's not that difficult to get the actual executive to sign off on something without reading it or knowing what it's about. So it's entirely possible any Jr., Olympia, Elijah or anyone else could have just stuck it in a stack of things for him to sign and he did it without knowing the ramifications or thinking twice about it.

[babyrambo]

Elijah’s behaviour in this episode tells me that Olympia was right to break up with him. He had every right to be hurt but his attitude and pettiness was annoying. Either way, the show seems far more invested in the relationship between Julian and Olympia, so no big loss there. And despite Senior being a viper professionally, I really like his & Olympia‘s personal relationship and the obvious fatherly fondness he is for her. I hope her fun little golf session at the end doesn’t come back to bite her in the butt.  

4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I'm surprise Matty and her husband had a fight over Alfie. He's seemed completely on board with everything including Alfie's part. If he had doubts I wish we had seen that. It would have added more to that part of story.

Same. I bought it but a little ground laying would’ve been better storytelling.  

I also didn’t expect them to bring up the issues with the grandson’s involvement so early on, but seeing as the season’s so short, it makes sense. Alfie really shouldn’t be this close to his mother’s case, but unless they find someone else to help with tech support (which I’m really hoping for) he’s always going to be over-exposed and no kid should be so heavily leaned on to decipher the ins and outs of their mother’s death. 

It’s a rough situation, and although I like that they’re showing the toll this rouse is taking on Matty’s life, I’m starting to wonder about the longevity and logistics of the show. Especially once Matty’s deception is revealed and she solves her daughter’s case. 

[Ellee]

The look Sarah gave Billy at the end.  Was it because she likes him or because she is once again left alone?  Another storyline is developing  

Julian swiped some of Sr.’s prized ‘loot’ a couple of weeks ago.   I laughed at the entire scene of Julian/Olympia and the breaking of the ‘loot’ as improbable as it was. 

[DanaK]

Was Sarah apparently being gay brought up before or was this the first mention she's into girls?

[AnimeMania]

43 minutes ago, Ellee said:

The look Sarah gave Billy at the end.  Was it because she likes him or because she is once again left alone?  Another storyline is developing

I thought it was because Billy told his girlfriend to find a girlfriend for Sarah and Sarah said not to. I thought seeing Billy and his girlfriend together was making Sarah reconsider her decision.

[Ellee]

@AnimeMania  I didn’t think of that.  I immediately went to ‘Billy is the only one Sarah knows so she must like Billy’ line of thinking.

@DanaK I don’t remember it being said that Sarah was gay before this.  I’ve always seen Sarah as a young woman out to be successful at her job and be noticed  

That is why I like these forums.  Reading everybody’s views.  

Edited Friday at 06:02 PM by Ellee

[Unathletic Club]

I disliked the breaking of the glass mementoes. Someone is going to have to clean that up and I'm betting it won't be Julian or Olympia. 

I want to root for  Matty but the ease with which she lies is a problem.  She doesn't mind manipulating anyone if it gets her what she wants. Kind of like drug companies and bad lawyers, though admittedly on a much smaller scale. 

And yet, I know I'll continue to watch, as I want to know what happens. Even though I think Matty would benefit from therapy more than from  revenge. 

Given a choice I would prefer So Help Me Todd.  

[Nashville]

2 hours ago, Ellee said:

The look Sarah gave Billy at the end.  Was it because she likes him or because she is once again left alone?  

I took it as indication of Sarah feeling conflicted.  Sarah is 110% into a full court press career-wise, of course, but I think her drive towards her personal goals might be getting attenuated by a couple of distracting factors:

1. Olympia telling Sarah the avenues Sarah pursues in her obsessive drive to put (and keep) herself front and foremost among her contemporaries are actually counterproductive in some cases; problem/solution-oriented as Sarah is, I honestly don’t think Sarah actually ever saw any downside to her incessant pushing until Olympia called Sarah’s attention to it.
2. IMHO I don’t think Sarah actually considered personal relationships to even BE an option at this stage in her life/career - at least, not until Billy (a) called Sarah out for her inattention in maintaining any non-work relationships, and (b) demonstrated (with the introduction of his girlfriend) that such personal relationships could actually exist in reality.  Seeing Billy with his sweet baboo, though, seemed to touch a nerve of loneliness in Sarah which (I think) surprised even Sarah.

Edited Friday at 06:14 PM by Nashville
Typo

[Ellee]

Accckkk. I forgot this …

What did you all think of Olympia and Maddie naming themselves as ‘Allies in the Viper’s nest’?  Complete with knowing looks. 

[Bastet]

3 hours ago, DanaK said:

Was Sarah apparently being gay brought up before or was this the first mention she's into girls?

It was noted in the media a couple of weeks ago, that we were going to learn that about her, and that was referring to this episode's brief mention.

10 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I wish Alfie was older and had issues. He's way too perfect and well adjusted for a kid who had a drug addict mother who died and the law firm is partly responsible. He just acts like he's having fun or it's a game.

That's why the "No one in this house is happy/On that, we agree" moment made no sense.  They should all be frequently unhappy, especially the kid, but that's not what they've shown us.  Don't consistently show me one thing for three episodes, tell me the opposite for one scene in the fourth, and expect me to take the latter as canon.

[shapeshifter]

32 minutes ago, Ellee said:

What did you all think of Olympia and Maddie naming themselves as ‘Allies in the Viper’s nest’?  Complete with knowing looks. 

I think both Olympia and Maddie were sincere in the moment, but their mutual agreement that they are "Allies" and not "Friends" kind of means they are always just a step away from being Frenemies, and just 2 steps away from being Enemies.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nashville said:

I took it as indication of Sarah feeling conflicted.  Sarah is 110% into a full court press career-wise, of course, but I think her drive towards her personal goals might be getting attenuated by a couple of distracting factors:

1. Olympia telling Sarah the avenues Sarah pursues in her obsessive drive to put (and keep) herself front and foremost among her contemporaries are actually counterproductive in some cases; problem/solution-oriented as Sarah is, I honestly don’t think Sarah actually ever saw any downside to her incessant pushing until Olympia called Sarah’s attention to it.
2. IMHO I don’t think Sarah actually considered personal relationships to even BE an option at this stage in her life/career - at least, not until Billy (a) called Sarah out for her inattention in maintaining any non-work relationships, and (b) demonstrated (with the introduction of his girlfriend) that such personal relationships could actually exist in reality.  Seeing Billy with his sweet baboo, though, seemed to touch a nerve of loneliness in Sarah which (I think) surprised even Sarah.

If the show lasts long enough and/or if the writers have already scripted it, I think Sarah has potential to be a wild card who could be enlisted to be a spy for the Big Bad, and then possibly a double spy for Mattie, and even a triple spy.

Or Sarah is just a peripheral character who is a bit "on the spectrum" and fills whatever role is needed for an episode or plot arc.

On the third hand, Sarah could be Matties real ally. 

[possibilities]

2 hours ago, Ellee said:

Accckkk. I forgot this …

What did you all think of Olympia and Maddie naming themselves as ‘Allies in the Viper’s nest’?  Complete with knowing looks. 

I felt myself stiffen into a defenseive posture, worrying they would betray each other. We already know maddy is lying to Olympia, and that Olympia has trouble trusting people. I don't see how this fails to end in a messy way. And that makes me really sad.

[Dowel Jones]

On a side note, my sister-in-law was watching a cute chipmunk through some binoculars at their house, and the same thing happened.  Hungry hawk suddenly entered her field of vision, and Chips was now breakfast.

[preeya]

IMHO, I don't think it is possible for a law firm to go bankrupt in the manner set forth in this episode. Bankruptcy is not a rubber stamp process. It involves the Courts, the government, filings, documentation, etc. and depending on the size of the firm it could take months, or even years for it to be finalized. 

[Irlandesa]

14 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

A theory that I'm floating is that none of Matty's Big Three suspects is actually guilty and it's Elijah. I would bet most of my worldly possessions it can't be Olympia, Sr. is too obviously a red herring. I guess it could be Jr., but so far he seems too soft.

That's where I'm leaning right now too, especially since they're moving Elijah off to TX for a while.  I'm wondering if they hope we forget about him only to be surprised when he returns at the end of the season.

I think Julian is more than meets the eye.  The one thing I noticed is the Beau Bridges isn't a regular cast member.  He was credited as an "and Beau Bridges" at the end of the guest stars which means that's what he is too. So that did make me wonder.

10 hours ago, DanaK said:

Was Sarah apparently being gay brought up before or was this the first mention she's into girls?

It was the first time mentioned on the show but I knew she was gay because there was an article written between the first and the second episode about which couples need to get together.  They mentioned Sarah and some other woman we hadn't even met yet so I thought it was pretty strange and possibly revealing.  Sarah's sexuality hadn't been mentioned on the show yet and I'm not even sure if we've even met this alleged love interest.

48 minutes ago, preeya said:

IMHO, I don't think it is possible for a law firm to go bankrupt in the manner set forth in this episode. Bankruptcy is not a rubber stamp process. It involves the Courts, the government, filings, documentation, etc. and depending on the size of the firm it could take months, or even years for it to be finalized. 

It wasn't the law firm that went bankrupt.  It was the corporate client being accused of not taking care of the buildings which caused the woman's death.  I believe they were moving assets to a subsidiary in TX so any judgment/settlement agreement would bankrupt the company.  And I'm guessing whatever is left in the company can't come close to covering the agreement so the clients won't get the money in the end.  It was pretty sad. 

[buckboard]

A number of people seem to be upset that Matty fabricated owning a dog that died, but I haven't noticed any mention of people being upset that she lied about having a dead husband and needing the job to support her grandson.  

No dog was killed in the making of this episode.

 

[Chicago Redshirt]

2 hours ago, preeya said:

IMHO, I don't think it is possible for a law firm to go bankrupt in the manner set forth in this episode. Bankruptcy is not a rubber stamp process. It involves the Courts, the government, filings, documentation, etc. and depending on the size of the firm it could take months, or even years for it to be finalized. 

The episode explicitly named a real-life sketchy maneuver called the Texas two-step.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy#:~:text=A Texas two-step bankruptcy,that new company declare bankruptcy.

So the actual bankruptcy doesn't need to be finalized hypothetically for the writing to be on the wall and for the bad assets to be sent off to the spun-off company. Once that is accomplished, it doesn't really matter how long it takes the new company to be bankrupt. The point is that it won't have any assets worth a damn anyway.

It seems to me that a real-world plaintiff in the position of the client of the week would probably have more options than just taking it on the chin. But I'm no expert on corporate law. 

1 hour ago, buckboard said:

A number of people seem to be upset that Matty fabricated owning a dog that died, but I haven't noticed any mention of people being upset that she lied about having a dead husband and needing the job to support her grandson.  

No dog was killed in the making of this episode.

 

So let me talk about some of the reasons that the dead dog in the way it was done is worse IMO:

1. Maddy was not explicitly trying to garner sympathy from anyone by pretending her husband was now dead. It's just a part of her made-up backstory. Maddy could just as easily said her husband had just left her. In fact, Maddy often acts as though she's better off not having fake husband around because he was an unfaithful jerk. By contrast, the lie about Cookie was targeted at Mrs. B to manipulate her in particular because Maddy knew she was a dog lover. So targeting someone with a manipulative deception is way worse IMO than just generally putting up a fake front. If we looked at a scenario in which Mrs. B was a recent widow, it would be IMO worse for Maddy to manipulate Mrs. B in particular by saying she literally was also just widowed.

2. There's a difference between saying "My husband died some unknown time ago" and "my loved one just died, so cut me some slack." The current lie played on urgency in a way the passive lie about dead husband did not.

3. Fictional husband presumably had a full life and could take care of himself, had something like 60+ years. Fictional dog is dependent on Maddy  and needed her, and pets are always gone too soon.

4. People's mileage will vary, but the pain of losing a pet for me has been as high if not higher than losing some of my human relatives and friends. Part of that is the pets were my responsivity in a way my relatives were not. 

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

The STUPIDITY of how the Firewall/Ethical Wall was somehow a concept that no one had ever heard of just drive me batshit crazy.

[preeya]

10 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The episode explicitly named a real-life sketchy maneuver called the Texas two-step.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy#:~:text=A Texas two-step bankruptcy,that new company declare bankruptcy.

So the actual bankruptcy doesn't need to be finalized hypothetically for the writing to be on the wall and for the bad assets to be sent off to the spun-off company. Once that is accomplished, it doesn't really matter how long it takes the new company to be bankrupt. The point is that it won't have any assets worth a damn anyway.

It seems to me that a real-world plaintiff in the position of the client of the week would probably have more options than just taking it on the chin. But I'm no expert on corporate law.

It further states:

Bad-faith bankruptcy

While US bankruptcy law does not explicitly define bankruptcy "in bad faith", courts have routinely applied certain standards, and creditors can bring motions to dismiss bankruptcies for bad faith. Types of bad-faith bankruptcies include those in which a new company is created for the purpose of filing bankruptcy, and when a company uses bankruptcy for an improper purpose, such as reducing debts that it would be able to pay outside of bankruptcy.[1] When a court rules that a bankruptcy was filed in bad faith and dismisses it, the company loses the protections of bankruptcy and cannot discharge its liabilities.[1]

Texas two-step proponents, like Johnson & Johnson and its lawyers, have argued that Texas two-steps are not inherently bad-faith, and that in the context of mass-tort litigation bankruptcy is fairest way to address large numbers of personal injury claims. Unlike in traditional courts hearing cases brought by many different people, bankruptcies must treat all similar claimants similarly.

In Johnson & Johnson's Texas two-step, bankruptcy judge Michael Kaplan ruled that handling complex litigation brought by many different plaintiffs was a legitimate use of bankruptcy.[4][14] Many of those plaintiffs disagreed and argued that Johnson & Johnson's goal was to protect itself from having to pay plaintiffs for the injuries it caused,[2] and together with the US government appealed the ruling to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.[4][14] The 3rd Circuit overturned the bankruptcy court's decision and ruled that LTL Management LLC's bankruptcy should be dismissed on the grounds that it was not filed in good faith, because LTL's funding agreement with Johnson & Johnson meant that LTL was never in financial distress.[9][10]

Edited Saturday at 03:29 PM by preeya

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, preeya said:

It further states:

Bad-faith bankruptcy

While US bankruptcy law does not explicitly define bankruptcy "in bad faith", courts have routinely applied certain standards, and creditors can bring motions to dismiss bankruptcies for bad faith. Types of bad-faith bankruptcies include those in which a new company is created for the purpose of filing bankruptcy, and when a company uses bankruptcy for an improper purpose, such as reducing debts that it would be able to pay outside of bankruptcy.[1] When a court rules that a bankruptcy was filed in bad faith and dismisses it, the company loses the protections of bankruptcy and cannot discharge its liabilities.[1]

Texas two-step proponents, like Johnson & Johnson and its lawyers, have argued that Texas two-steps are not inherently bad-faith, and that in the context of mass-tort litigation bankruptcy is fairest way to address large numbers of personal injury claims. Unlike in traditional courts hearing cases brought by many different people, bankruptcies must treat all similar claimants similarly.

In Johnson & Johnson's Texas two-step, bankruptcy judge Michael Kaplan ruled that handling complex litigation brought by many different plaintiffs was a legitimate use of bankruptcy.[4][14] Many of those plaintiffs disagreed and argued that Johnson & Johnson's goal was to protect itself from having to pay plaintiffs for the injuries it caused,[2] and together with the US government appealed the ruling to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.[4][14] The 3rd Circuit overturned the bankruptcy court's decision and ruled that LTL Management LLC's bankruptcy should be dismissed on the grounds that it was not filed in good faith, because LTL's funding agreement with Johnson & Johnson meant that LTL was never in financial distress.[9][10]

I think/hope a real-life judge would see that the move to shunt the liabilities to Shell Corp. was in transparent blind faith in these circumstances.

However, we are supposed to add this to the suspension of disbelief inherent in the premise of the series.

It should be obvious to an experienced attorney who has at least some proof that a firm helped spark the opioid crisis that the best way to try to find the culprits isn't by joining a high-powered law firm as a pretext to get access to its documents to try to get proof. 

A) Those documents may or may not exist currently. The firm might have been smart enough to not document what they were doing at the time, or now 10-15 years later, might have been smart enough to shred any that did.

B) As a entry level attorney, the prospects of her getting access to them are relatively small

C) Assuming the documents do exist and she can gain access to them, she has only procured them through a false premise, by repeatedly lying to reinforce that false premise, and with an axe to grind in that she blames the company for the death of her daughter. I'm fairly sure any defense attorney would shred Maddy.

Q: Your actual name is Madeline Kingston.

A: Yes.

Q: But you suspected my client's firm of having a role in covering up the opiod crisis.

A: Yes

Q: So you created a fake persona. 

A: Yes.

Q: You claimed your name was Madeline Matlock.

A: Yes.

Q: You pretended you were in desperate need for money.

A: Yes.

Q: That wasn't true

A: No.

Q: You created a whole fake backstory for Madeline Matlock

A: Yes.

Q: You even adopted a fake Southern accent

A: Yes.

Q: You got hired by my client's firm on false pretenses.

A: Yes.

Q: All so you could search that firm for proof of complicity in the opioid crisis

A: Yes.

Q: And you took on a number of cases for my client's firm.

A: Yes

Q: And in each of those cases, you lied to your co-workers.

A: Yes.

Q: And in each of those cases, you lied to your clients.

A: Yes.

Q: And in each of those cases, you lied to my client and your other bosses.

A: Yes.

Q: And you did so for weeks/months/years.

A: Yes.

Q: And now you're here claiming that you found a document tying my client to the opioid crisis.

A: Yes.

Q: And to get this document, you lied to more firm employees.

A: Yes.

It would be tough to sustain a prosecution given how tainted Maddy and any documents she provides the prosecution would be.

[incandescent]

8 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Q: You even adopted a fake Southern accent

A: Yes.

 

Objection! She'll lie about a dead dog and deadbeat husband, but we have no reason to believe Maddy's lying about the accent. She keeps it up with her family, they've mentioned moving to New York to further their investigation, and it is of course how Kathy Bates always talks.

[Yeah No]

Please tell me I'm not fantasizing that in real life a single law firm wouldn't represent both sides in a case because it's a conflict of interest and unethical. And then for Senior to make sure his client couldn't pay took it over the top! I don't know how anyone with a law degree could watch this kind of stuff without throwing something at the TV. I think that's even worse than or at least just as bad as Matty lying to them about her history and motivations and even the fictitious dog. Lawyers and law firms have a responsibility to their clients and this was a violation of that in so many ways my head was spinning. I don't expect that much realism on these shows but that was just over the top!

Also, most of them talk too fast on this show. They need to take it down a notch. I don't want to have to take a Xanax to watch a TV show.

[Bastet]

11 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Please tell me I'm not fantasizing that in real life a single law firm wouldn't represent both sides in a case because it's a conflict of interest and unethical.

The firewall is a real thing in firms.  More often where a concluded case and an active case have conflicting interests, but even with two ongoing cases. 

13 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

And then for Senior to make sure his client couldn't pay took it over the top!

The Texas two-step is real, too (unfortunately); the Johnson & Johnson reference was accurate.

Both concepts were presented in the completely simplistic terms one would expect from TV, and then some, but the concepts themselves are indeed used.

19 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I don't know how anyone with a law degree could watch this kind of stuff without throwing something at the TV.

I usually avoid most legal shows to begin with and wind up giving up in frustration at some point on the ones I do try due to distraction by the inaccuracies outweighing my enjoyment, but sometimes there's enough to keep me going.  I love Kathy Bates, like Matty, and have come to quite like Olympia, too, so I'm committed to seeing this first (short) season through and then taking it on a weekly basis next season.

[Chicago Redshirt]

10 hours ago, incandescent said:

Objection! She'll lie about a dead dog and deadbeat husband, but we have no reason to believe Maddy's lying about the accent. She keeps it up with her family, they've mentioned moving to New York to further their investigation, and it is of course how Kathy Bates always talks.

Fair enough. It may be that she naturally does have a Southern accent.

To my ear, though, she lays it on way thick when she's at work compared to when she's at home. Or maybe it's that when she is at work, she uses folksy expressions that make the same voice seem more Southern.

In real life, I have known Southerners who purposely minimize their drawls in public but have it come out more when they are drinking, or emotional. This could be some sort of flip on that.

[Yeah No]

8 hours ago, Bastet said:

The firewall is a real thing in firms.  More often where a concluded case and an active case have conflicting interests, but even with two ongoing cases. 

The Texas two-step is real, too (unfortunately); the Johnson & Johnson reference was accurate.

Both concepts were presented in the completely simplistic terms one would expect from TV, and then some, but the concepts themselves are indeed used.

I usually avoid most legal shows to begin with and wind up giving up in frustration at some point on the ones I do try due to distraction by the inaccuracies outweighing my enjoyment, but sometimes there's enough to keep me going.  I love Kathy Bates, like Matty, and have come to quite like Olympia, too, so I'm committed to seeing this first (short) season through and then taking it on a weekly basis next season.

I knew about the Johnson and Johnson case, I'm just struggling with the other part. I'm sure it's as you say just because it's being handled so simplistically that it seems unrealistic. Although when I googled on it all I could come up with is how it would be unethical for a law firm to represent both sides on a case and therefore it's only done in rare cases where both parties give informed consent and are only arguing over minor details and not a big issue (like in this case). But even on sites where lawyers weighed in on the subject all of the comments I saw said it was unethical in general and one party should be referred to another firm. So that's interesting. Maybe the show is implying that the firm in general is not above stretching the accepted ethics to suit themselves, which plays into the general theme.

I'll have to run this by my good lawyer friend and see what he says about it, although I know he takes a dim view of both legal and police TV dramas to the point of avoiding them altogether. I generally have myself and like you and others here I'm watching this because of Kathy Bates. I'm also watching "Elsbeth", and "High Potential" so I'm in the deep end of the pool with having to suspend disbelief these days after avoiding similar shows for a long time. I love the idea of a mature woman being the star of any show where she gets to be the hero so I admit I got sucked in on that basis too. 

[Ellee]

Question.  With this Texas two-step … does the plaintiff have any recourse? 
 

And, if lawyers from your firm pulled this on you, what would your feelings be?  Realizing I was outsmarted is one thing but I think I’d have to do more - a lot more.  
 

I am really enjoying this forum.  Thank you to all posting. 

[DearEvette]

Finally something remotely interesting happening with the Matty cover story. 

The argument about Alfi was interesting because it seemed to point to Matty having tunnel vision about her daughter and feels like she is stuck in the 'Anger' step of the grieving process. So much so that she it sounds like she has pulled her husband and Alfi along into her wake. Her husband said he wasn't 100% on board with what she was doing, so I wonder if he went along initially because maybe he thought she'd lose interesting and it was a way of dealing with her grief.  And Alfi, well he is a kid who probably thinks this stuff is all so cool.

I still think it is the least interesting part of the show mainly because they haven't given me any reason to care about her daughter.  They only told us she died do to opiod dependence and that Matty blames the firm. There are so many holes there since opiod use and abuse is nation wide and has so many tentacles, reducing blame to one law firm feels non-sensical and simplistic. I think if the her daughter was more a victim of something like the woman in this episode's case where she died from something a local company caused and the firm helped cover it up or did the Texas Two-Step shenanigans because a legal feint like that is in the hands of the lawyers and isn't a behemoth like the opiod epidemic where many are at fault, it would feel more believable to me.

It doesn't help that the writing creates artificial wins for her.  She just so happened to get into file room just before the necessary documents would be shipped off site. She just so happened to need to see the signatures of her top three suspects managed to get into Sr's office and lo and behold there was a paper with his signature on it that she could snap a picture of when he so conveniently turned around.  Sigh.

I do like the actors and the characters and the cases, but the dead daughter conspiracy part just annoys me.

The actor who played the widow will always in my head be associated with his Museum security character from the Roshomon Job episode of Leverage.

I really need them to let Jason Ritter do more.  I get that Matty is Olympia's associate, but you don't hire Jason Ritter for him to be essentially a walk on with a few lines each episode.

[Bastet]

14 hours ago, Yeah No said:

to represent both sides on a case

There was a degree of separation here; they didn't have Building Owner as a client and simultaneously or later take on Widow Suing Building Owner as a client, shrugging, eh, we'll just create a firewall, no problem.  Big Financial Company was the ($10m/year) client.  When Olympia took on Widow's case, there was no conflict with BFC.  Fast forward to the time of this episode, with Widow's case (now Widower's case) in its final stages, and BFC bought a bunch of real estate, with Widower's building being one of them. 

Now there is a conflict of interest, so Sr. tells Olympia the firm has to withdraw as counsel.  Olympia didn't want to lose 18 months of work, or dump a widower, and Julian said it would send a bad message to their other small clients about loyalty, so Sr. agreed if she could get Widower to waive the conflict (because BFC would waive, as they do whatever he advises), the firm would navigate the "legal landmine" that is a firewall.  Thus began negotiations between the principals, with a mediator, as to what, if anything, could be shared.

That was the writers' effort at providing a basis for the firm doing something they, like all firms, typically don't do (because one of the fundamentals of practicing law is avoiding anything that could even be construed as a conflict of interest, so to take on a clear one requires special circumstances that justify it and a lot of work to pull off [and it would pretty much have to be done by a large firm like this; it's a lot harder to actually create a firewall in a smaller firm]).

Edited Yest. at 03:49 AM by Bastet

[Bastet]

50 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

I think if the her daughter was more a victim of something like the woman in this episode's case where she died from something a local company caused and the firm helped cover it up or did the Texas Two-Step shenanigans because a legal feint like that is in the hands of the lawyers and isn't a behemoth like the opiod epidemic where many are at fault, it would feel more believable to me.

Matty believes - per a Reddit post the son found, so I do hope she's done some investigation into the validity of that claim, because, hello, Reddit - someone at the firm hid documents that, had they been introduced (in whatever case the firm was handling, presumably representing a pharmaceutical company which makes opioids), "could have taken opioids off the market ten years earlier". 

So first, could have, not would have.  And then:  Ten years earlier than what -- they're still being prescribed, it's not like similar documents were later revealed and they were banned.   Maybe ten years before her death?  Next:  The market is huge, involving many pharmaceutical companies.  And there's a legitimate usage of opioids.  So I sincerely hope the writers have come up with a remotely plausible explanation of what kind of documents could have had a reasonable chance of resulting in opioids being banned, full stop.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

It doesn't help that the writing creates artificial wins for her.  She just so happened to get into file room just before the necessary documents would be shipped off site. She just so happened to need to see the signatures of her top three suspects managed to get into Sr's office and lo and behold there was a paper with his signature on it that she could snap a picture of when he so conveniently turned around.  Sigh.

Maybe they should've gone with "Columbo" instead of Matlock? 
I was going to suggest "Jessica Fletcher," but there'd have to be murders.
And "Matlock" triggers more fond memories in viewers.

 

"The Good Wife" did the Chinese Firewall, but I don't recall the cases, but it was explained in a more believable way to me.

 

Was anyone else expecting a reveal that John Billingsley's character killed his wife?

[Bastet]

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Was anyone else expecting a reveal that John Billingsley's character killed his wife?

That's what I said, but only because the actor (terribly) portrayed a serial killer in two episodes of Cold Case and that's my only association with him.

Edited Yest. at 01:08 AM by Bastet

[shapeshifter]

39 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Was anyone else expecting a reveal that John Billingsley's character killed his wife?

33 minutes ago, Bastet said:

That's what I said, but only because the actor (terribly) portrayed a serial killer in an episode of Cold Case and that's my only association with him.

I can't count how many times I've seen Billingsley be either the red herring or the killer. A couple of other shows where he was the killer include 2.4 of The Closer, and 1.12 of The Rookie. But yes, Billingsley does tend to chew the scenery.

 

 

[seacliffsal]

At this point, I'm wishing it was more of a remake of Matlock and that Maddie was trying to get back into the field and having to work her way up.  

The argument about Alfie seemingly came out of nowhere as there had not been an issue about his involvement prior to this episode.  I am totally on the husband's side on this issue.  Alfie is too young to be involved to the degree that he is, and he is learning that vigilante justice is the way to go (Mattie taking matters into her own hands, etc.) as well as encouraging Alfie to hack, spy, etc.  Let him deal with his grief but still be a kid.

[Zaffy]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

At this point, I'm wishing it was more of a remake of Matlock and that Maddie was trying to get back into the field and having to work her way up.  

Yep, yep and yep.
This whole arch about her dead daughter and her seeking revenge/justice kind of ruins the show for me. I think it is too much and unnecessary. The fake story she uses would be much better as a series background. Plus, WHO in her right mind  involves a kid into this? Grandpa makes some valid points, but it is too late. The kid is already in this and it is definitely not good for the boy.
And for how long they gonna keep with this story? I read it was renewed for a 2nd season.
Plus,  Maddie using a fake name isn't legally destroying all cases she has been working in if she gets revealed? She wants justice for her daughter by compromising justice for other people?

[shapeshifter]

6 minutes ago, Zaffy said:

The fake story she uses would be much better as a series background…And for how long they gonna keep with this story? I read it was renewed for a 2nd season.

Any chance they’ll have Mattie let go of her vendetta and realize she’s finding a new life working again?🤞
Maybe this episode’s argument was a precursor to that eventuality?

 

9 minutes ago, Zaffy said:

Plus,  Maddie using a fake name isn't legally destroying all cases she has been working in if she gets revealed?

My Social Security ID has a different version of my name than the one I typically use. When dealing with banks and lawyers they always tell me it doesn’t matter.🤷🏻‍♀️

[Zaffy]

29 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

My Social Security ID has a different version of my name than the one I typically use. When dealing with banks and lawyers they always tell me it doesn’t matter.

But this is not a typo, she is impersonating...basically she does not exist as a person. I have no clue about American laws, but somehow I do not think it is legal. Except if she has legally changed her name into Maddie Matlock.

[Chicago Redshirt]

11 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I knew about the Johnson and Johnson case, I'm just struggling with the other part. I'm sure it's as you say just because it's being handled so simplistically that it seems unrealistic. Although when I googled on it all I could come up with is how it would be unethical for a law firm to represent both sides on a case and therefore it's only done in rare cases where both parties give informed consent and are only arguing over minor details and not a big issue (like in this case). But even on sites where lawyers weighed in on the subject all of the comments I saw said it was unethical in general and one party should be referred to another firm. So that's interesting. Maybe the show is implying that the firm in general is not above stretching the accepted ethics to suit themselves, which plays into the general theme.

I'll have to run this by my good lawyer friend and see what he says about it, although I know he takes a dim view of both legal and police TV dramas to the point of avoiding them altogether. I generally have myself and like you and others here I'm watching this because of Kathy Bates. I'm also watching "Elsbeth", and "High Potential" so I'm in the deep end of the pool with having to suspend disbelief these days after avoiding similar shows for a long time. I love the idea of a mature woman being the star of any show where she gets to be the hero so I admit I got sucked in on that basis too. 

It's possible in the abstract to believe that the same firm will have a true firewall and fight equally hard on behalf of each of their clients. 

But it just strains disbelief that a real-world David like Widower would say to himself, "I trust you're going to fight as hard on my behalf as that big ass firm that is going to pay millions a year in billings and who's got executives who were probably Sr's frat brothers." No way would anyone sign off on that, no how. Especially in this case where the firm does not seem to have any particular expertise in this area, and where its relationship was generally with Widow rather than Widower.

9 hours ago, Ellee said:

Question.  With this Texas two-step … does the plaintiff have any recourse? 
 

And, if lawyers from your firm pulled this on you, what would your feelings be?  Realizing I was outsmarted is one thing but I think I’d have to do more - a lot more.  
 

I am really enjoying this forum.  Thank you to all posting. 

I don't practice this type of law and I'm not in private practice, plus the rules can vary from state to state.

That said, I can't believe that if Team Olympia went to the bankruptcy judge and said, "This two-step was done specifically to get around the agreement that was signed. Please invalidate the merger and let us go to trial against Original Company." a judge would side with them.

I would also think that Widower would potentially have a case for legal malpractice or to file some complaint against the firm or its lawyer. Elijah contacted Widower suggesting he take a lowball settlement before the firewall was put up. 

If I was in Olympia's position, it's hard to say. I mean, I know what I signed up for and who I was dealing with. These people are high-powered litigators at a big firm in the biggest city in the country, led by a power player in Republican circles. I can't be shocked, shocked that they are going to do what it takes to win, and that they don't mind screwing over the little guy. I'd also have to expect that my hands are probably not exactly clean. The real question for me-as-Olympia is: why do I want to keep doing this? Presumably Olympia is a multimillionaire in her own right as a partner at this firm for some time (I'm guessing at least a decade for her to be a suspect in burying the opioid documents). She presumably also is entitled to millions more from the forthcoming divorce. She can quit at any time to head up her own pro bono firm or do whatever it is she wants to do.  

5 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I still think it is the least interesting part of the show mainly because they haven't given me any reason to care about her daughter.  They only told us she died do to opiod dependence and that Matty blames the firm. There are so many holes there since opiod use and abuse is nation wide and has so many tentacles, reducing blame to one law firm feels non-sensical and simplistic. I think if the her daughter was more a victim of something like the woman in this episode's case where she died from something a local company caused and the firm helped cover it up or did the Texas Two-Step shenanigans because a legal feint like that is in the hands of the lawyers and isn't a behemoth like the opiod epidemic where many are at fault, it would feel more believable to me.

 

Great points about how it would be better if the firm represented someone/some company that had a closer tie to the daughter's death.

Because that's the other thing: even assuming smoking-gun document is found and on top of that Maddie's digging it up doesn't invalidate it, then what? Does Maddie really believe either criminal or civil liability might attach to whatever the firm might have done? What does "making them pay" look like? Putting Sr./Julian/Oly behind bars for providing sketchy legal advice? Bankrupting the firm? 

Also, it sounds like Maddy has come to suspect the firm because of something she saw on Reddit. Which again, gives Reddit a ton more credit than it probably deserves.

8 minutes ago, Zaffy said:

But this is not a typo, she is impersonating...basically she does not exist as a person. I have no clue about American laws, but somehow I do not think it is legal. Except if she has legally changed her name into Maddie Matlock.

There's a concept called "the fruit of the poisonous tree" that essentially says that the police can't use illegally obtained evidence against you. However, there are ways around that. For instance if the evidence would have been discovered anyway through legitimate means, it still can be used.

I don't know if it would be applied to the acts of private citizens. But let's say it does.

A judge could decide that despite Maddy's sketchy means, the truth about the firm's activities could still be considered by a jury, that there was some reason not to invoke the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

At trial, the plaintiff's attorney or prosecutor would try to argue that Maddy's various lies would not matter because the document(s) and the events they describe are true and Sr./Julian/Oly really engaged in whatever.

Hypothetically, any defense attorney would point out that Maddy has lied about so many things, that she is biased because she is still grief-stricken about her daughter. 

It would be up to a jury to decide which side to believe.

There are the other ramifications that might come once it was revealed that Maddy was practicing law under a made-up persona.

I doubt that there has been actual precedent but I would think someone with a bar license who faked a law license under another name and practiced law under that name would face discipline up to disbarment, no matter that it was for a good cause. I would think that it might lead to at least some of the cases she participated in being sent for new trials. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, Zaffy said:

Yep, yep and yep.
This whole arch about her dead daughter and her seeking revenge/justice kind of ruins the show for me. I think it is too much and unnecessary. The fake story she uses would be much better as a series background. Plus, WHO in her right mind  involves a kid into this? Grandpa makes some valid points, but it is too late. The kid is already in this and it is definitely not good for the boy.
And for how long they gonna keep with this story? I read it was renewed for a 2nd season.

I will say that it was the twist that kept me coming back after the pilot. But it is a premise that really cannot sustain itself for very long. It doesn't make sense as presented that Madeline Kingston doesn't hire an actual IT person rather than her 13 year-old grandson. Even putting aside the cost to Alfie's emotional and scholastic well-being, the simple fact is there are professionals who can do the job better. She's rich enough to have a driver and to rent a front apartment in Queens.  

I assume they will keep the premise going for multiple seasons, at least 3. One point of comparison is the show "Suits," which has an equally untenable premise: a partner at a high-powered NYC firm that ONLY hires Harvard Law grads decides to hire a college dropout with a photographic memory and have him fake being a lawyer. I think the show ran for 8 seasons, about 5 of which had them more less keeping it secret that the associate never got a law degree. 

[Dowel Jones]

I question whether to corporate culture in the firm would be strong enough to withstand a ploy like Sr. and his cohorts pulled against the rest of the firm.  What that does is to destroy any trust that partners have in the owners of the firm, because at any point in a future case they may get thrown under the bus, and the old axiom of "It's not personal, it's business" won't hold up.

[Yeah No]

4 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

It's possible in the abstract to believe that the same firm will have a true firewall and fight equally hard on behalf of each of their clients. 

But it just strains disbelief that a real-world David like Widower would say to himself, "I trust you're going to fight as hard on my behalf as that big ass firm that is going to pay millions a year in billings and who's got executives who were probably Sr's frat brothers." No way would anyone sign off on that, no how. Especially in this case where the firm does not seem to have any particular expertise in this area, and where its relationship was generally with Widow rather than Widower.

I don't practice this type of law and I'm not in private practice, plus the rules can vary from state to state. 

Thank you, I have been very busy in the past couple of days but this has been circling around in my brain - how this guy could be convinced to accept the situation and even worse how accepting of it he was when he got screwed, technically by the same firm that represented him. It just makes no sense unless the guy is a total idiot.

4 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I would also think that Widower would potentially have a case for legal malpractice or to file some complaint against the firm or its lawyer. Elijah contacted Widower suggesting he take a lowball settlement before the firewall was put up.  

Yes!

[Chicago Redshirt]

7 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

I question whether to corporate culture in the firm would be strong enough to withstand a ploy like Sr. and his cohorts pulled against the rest of the firm.  What that does is to destroy any trust that partners have in the owners of the firm, because at any point in a future case they may get thrown under the bus, and the old axiom of "It's not personal, it's business" won't hold up.

Well, I would imagine that most of the people who have signed up with this firm are going to be pretty fine with the little guy being screwed over in this instance or at least are going to rationalize it as "all's fair in love and war."

Implicit in working for a big law firm is a Faustian bargain: work crazy hours for big corporate clients with sketchy morals and you will rake in the dough. I just Googled and found an article from a few years back that the average base for a first-year associate at a NYC big law firm was around $250k in 2022. My impression is that Sarah and Billy have been on the job for longer than that, so they probably are making more. And of course, then there are bonuses. Anyway, as a non-corporate lawyer, it could be sour grapes talking, but I don't know if I could swallow my feelings and ethics in those kinds of situations. But then again it's not as though any lawyerimg/job doesn't have its own ethical challenges. I just think that it's likely that by its very nature, corporate lawyering would be better insulated from the sorts of ones we're talking about here.

There shouldn't be the fear of "this could happen to me" because the firewall situation is rare. 

Olympia seems to have been developing somewhat of a conscience and is seeking to do pro bono stuff, and the firm is letting her do that as long as it's also making money. Maybe they will take it to a place where Olympia decides to break off and do a boutique firm that specializes in helping the little guy and tries to bring Billy,Sarah and Maddy with her, presenting a problem for Maddy because the opioid documents would still be at the original firm.