S01.E16: The Johnson Case

[chitowngirl]

Olympia tries to impress the partnership board by taking on a complicated murder case.
 

Airdate April 3, 2025 on CBS

[AnimeMania]

Spoiler

 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

1) I don't understand how Olympia's success in the Slamm'd case upset the partners (but not Senior) in the firm

2) I don't understand why anyone in the firm would think that a successful lawyer at a huge firm who has successfully handled defense cases would need "pull" to get a job in the Public Defenders' office.  She'd be taking a huge decrease in pay as she would be employed by the government: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/nyregion/nyc-public-defenders-pay.html

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

1) I don't understand how Olympia's success in the Slamm'd case upset the partners (but not Senior) in the firm

2) I don't understand why anyone in the firm would think that a successful lawyer at a huge firm who has successfully handled defense cases would need "pull" to get a job in the Public Defenders' office.  She'd be taking a huge decrease in pay as she would be employed by the government: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/nyregion/nyc-public-defenders-pay.html

What they said was that clients were upset because of the win against Slamm'd because they felt Olympia upset the apple cart against one of their own. Presumably that then spooked the other lawyers in the firm into giving Olympia the stink-eye.

Frankly, that makes less sense than what you suggested. I tend to doubt that the clients are going to be following the ins and outs of any cases beyond their own or ones that directly affect their industry to know the outcomes. Nor does it make sense if they for some reason were avidly following random court cases that Slamm'd would be such a problem. I mean, as much as a victory as it was supposed to be, it's a $40 million settlement. Not such a high number that it would get all these clients complaining. And even assuming it did, it seems like any lawyer worth their salt would explain that it's good that this brilliant lawyer is on YOUR side, right? 

It would make more sense if someone was attempting to undermine Olympia by spreading false rumors about how clients were not happy with the outcome. But we will see.

Even with the pay decrease, there probably is some element of politics and juice to any job. There are only so many openings, and particularly at a senior level, which is presumably where Olympia would want to be. The stereotype would be that people would hang onto government jobs for dear life because of the pension or the allegedly lower level of work or any number of reasons, or because they are a better on-ramp to things like state judgeships.

Despite the counter-example of Matty, you can't reasonably assume that you can just talk your way into a high-level job anywhere, even in public practice.

Also, the one suspecting it is Sarah, who is paranoid and not particularly adept at reading people. So her jumping to the wrong conclusion isn't off-brand.

Also also, it's not as far-fetched a conclusion in this specific case. Olympia has been burnt out on corporate clients for a couple years now, and wants to do good. Having the chance to cases that mean something is important to her. Being able to work with a law school bestie is valuable. Wanting to no longer work in the same place as Julian adds value too. 

In terms of the money, apparently money is not as important to her as it might be. She is already a junior partner (I am taking it based on how things have been presented) and is willing to give up being an equity partner if she can't win this stupid contest with Julian. 

According to this, Big Law firm partners average about $1 mil a year:
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/how-much-do-partners-make-the-average-at-larger-firms-tops-1m-survey-finds

Even if Olympia cuts down to $200kish or whatever a high-level public sector job might pay for her experience level, she is going to have whatever's she's been banking, plus some of their community property plus alimony and child support from Julian. So she can afford to eat the $800,000 pay cut.

Edited Friday at 03:37 AM by Chicago Redshirt

[Bastet]

I spent the whole episode irritated it was so glaringly obvious Olympia was onto Matty so she was "the Johnson case" but I almost forgave it for how much Skye P. Marshall nailed it in the final, confrontation scene.  I look forward to seeing how this unfolds, especially if Julian is indeed the culprit as that will give Olympia a very complicated set of emotions.  I love her.  I watched this show I wouldn't otherwise give a single glance because of Kathy Bates, and didn't love the pilot - at all - but continued to see how the big twist from the pilot's end would evolve, and quickly wound up watching for Olympia - a character I initially found lacking in dimension - and not only for her relationship with Matty.  She is fantastic, and I will 100% see this season out and then decide whether or not to continue, based on how the big reveal is handled in terms of their dynamic.

Marshall's delivery when Olympia asks Elijah "Have I died and I'm the last to know?" about everyone in the firm being weird was perfect.  I am also down with gouda and Cristal as the meaning of life.

The case, the statute of limitations on IIED, the idea Olympia would have to lobby for a job with the PD office, whatever, I'm trying to let it go as per usual.  "What's Door Dash?" was a good line about the time this man has lost, and I also appreciated hammering home how women, especially women of color, are ignored by men, especially white men.  These things should be obvious, but they're not, so bear repeating.  Matty taking so long to understand the juror, bad enough, but not understanding the complete lack of power of Mrs. B, especially 14 years ago, and threatening her dog?  Oh, hell no.  That she's abandoned all perspective along the way of this quest for justice, and the repercussions to people who aren't evil, better be properly addressed, or I'm bowing out.

I'll need to re-watch this for details as I wasn't 100% focused, but I think despite the total lack of suspense it's a fairly good transition episode as we shift into Matty and Olympia hashing out the events of 14 years ago based on both now knowing who Matty is and what she's after.

[Dowel Jones]

I'm glad there's someone else in this law firm that is capable of sneaky detective work and playing their cards close to the vest.  It was getting annoying to me the way Mattie would just run roughshod over everybody with her 'ah shucks' demeanor.

Please tell me that someone in makeup had that former juror wear his hair like that just for the show. He looked like a relic from a Great Gatsby stage show.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

After Matty told the imprisoned Eugene on the phone that there probably wouldn't be good news, and then the DA got involved, I was pretty sure we would find out that just before his conviction was reversed that the despondent prisoner had killed himself.

Edited Friday at 01:43 PM by ItCouldBeWorse

[Good Queen Jane]

The last scene between Matty and Olympia would have been quite dramatic if I hadn’t seen it a hundred times before in commercials. Thanks a lot, promo monkeys!

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

After Matty told the prisoner on the phone that there probably wouldn't be good news, and then the DA got involved, I was pretty sure we would find out that just before the verdict was reversed, the despondent prisoner would have killed himself.

Thankfully Mattlock isn't that grimdark of a show. I don't mind the occasional bleak outcome or show, but I'd imagine part of what draws viewers to this show is happy endings in an hour, (nearly) guaranteed. It is nice to see people attain justice each and every week and to have characters we care about win victories.

28 minutes ago, Good Queen Jane said:

The last scene between Matty and Olympia would have been quite dramatic if I hadn’t seen it a hundred times before in commercials. Thanks a lot, promo monkeys!

I was thinking that the promo was a dream sequence or some sort of fakeout, like we had around the second episode (where Matty imagined that  the big three had realized she had been lying about being Mattlock because ABC had picked up the show for another 3 years after she said.) In any case, I have to admit I was surprised it was a bonafide spoiler and that it was included. Kudos to @Bastet and anyone else who figured out that Olympia was onto and investigating Matty, because I did not put those pieces together, although in retrospect, probably should have even without the promo. It has been unusual for Olympia to do anything at work that didn't involve any of her three associates, and it was pretty obvious that Olympia's secretiveness wasn't about trying to jump to the PD's office.

Onto a new topic:

I am beyond livid on Mrs. B's behalf that Matty bullied her with a fake kidnapping of Barry Manilow. Yes, I realize no actual animals were harmed in this maneuver, but to deliberately put someone through the mental anguish of thinking that their pet had been kidnapped is some Annie Wilkes shit. That her husband went along with it instead of pulling her back and saying, "Hey, the best way to build trust is not by fake kidnapping a pet, but by just coming clean" is also appalling. God, I hope that when Mrs. B finds out, she puts a couple of boots up Matty's ass.  

 

[AnimeMania]

Who gives someone a dog to petsit and only gives them a bottle of eyedrops. It is not like she didn't have the dog's bed right there on her desk.

Who signed out at a fire drill/alarm is not a good measurement did any guests/clients in the building have to sign the sheet? They would probably need a large diversion, since someone who works at Jacobson-Moore might have more opportunities.

[Percysowner]

1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I am beyond livid on Mrs. B's behalf that Matty bullied her with a fake kidnapping of Barry Manilow. Yes, I realize no actual animals were harmed in this maneuver, but to deliberately put someone through the mental anguish of thinking that their pet had been kidnapped is some Annie Wilkes shit. That her husband went along with it instead of pulling her back and saying, "Hey, the best way to build trust is not by fake kidnapping a pet, but by just coming clean" is also appalling. God, I hope that when Mrs. B finds out, she puts a couple of boots up Matty's ass.  

 

Yeah, I've been able to accept Matty's bad behavior before, by acknowledging that the show wants us to know she is behaving badly and hurting people in her obsession to find the truth, but, as a pet owner and lover, threatening Barry Manilow was over the line, especially since they just had to throw a red hat on Edwin and have him make the meeting.

1 hour ago, AnimeMania said:

Who signed out at a fire drill/alarm is not a good measurement did any guests/clients in the building have to sign the sheet? They would probably need a large diversion, since someone who works at Jacobson-Moore might have more opportunities.

Agreed. Only employees would have been required to sing the sheet. Visiting clients, especially from Wellbrexa might sign the sheet but if they didn't who would know? Consultants like Shae could have skipped signing the sheet and Mrs. Belvin wouldn't know because they aren't there every day, so not being on the sheet wouldn't seem odd. Heck, it's a large firm in a large building, someone could have signed the sheet then sneaked back in to the building.

This does make Shae look more like the guilty party. Her obviously true hatred of people who lie could be based on her feeling guilty for what she did all those years ago. People can change after making one huge mistake. The fire drill sign in sheet is far less probative than it seems at first glance.

I am looking forward to the next 3 episodes. This is great TV.

[Chicago Redshirt]

53 minutes ago, AnimeMania said:

Who gives someone a dog to petsit and only gives them a bottle of eyedrops. It is not like she didn't have the dog's bed right there on her desk.

It depends on how long Mrs.B expected the pet-sitting to go and how many drops were needed. A day or two? I would imagine a partial bottle of eyedrops would suffice. A week or longer? Maybe that might be stretching it, depending on how many doses a day. 

I am also sad on Mrs. B's behalf that she apparently doesn't have anyone closer in her life that she could have entrusted Barry Manilow to.

58 minutes ago, AnimeMania said:

Who signed out at a fire drill/alarm is not a good measurement did any guests/clients in the building have to sign the sheet? They would probably need a large diversion, since someone who works at Jacobson-Moore might have more opportunities.

The rationale, indeed, does not make much sense. Mrs. B's rationale for suspecting it being Senior, Julian or Olympia among the team of people working on the Wellbrexa case was that Mrs. B was cataloguing materials from the case, there was a fire drill, and when she came back there was an empty folder. Senior, Julian and Olympia were the only ones who didn't sign for the fire drill, therefore one of them is responsible.

Putting aside that generally speaking, people don't sign in during fire drills and assuming a bunch of assumptions inherent in this premise (Mrs. B is correct in her belief that the file had the Smoking Gun documents before the fire drill and that someone took the Smoking Gun documents but not the file that they were in around the time of the fire drill) are correct, that still does not narrow it down to one person.

It's a fair assumption that someone familiar with the case and documents had to be involved, because otherwise how would the thief know where to look or what documents were to be pulled? So random guests and clients would not normally make good suspects.

But we now know that there's a team of attorneys that goes beyond Senior/Julian/Olympia. (Plus presumably paralegals and assistants, plus Wellbrexa people).

Signing in during the fire drill is likely not a good measure of much, since people could presumably snag the folder and belatedly sign in, or innocently fail to sign in and have nothing to do with the theft. IIRC the time for the fire drill was like 12:45ish, which is lunchtime for a bunch of folks, and it'd be natural for them to have not been in the office at that time. 

And again, this is presuming that people were acting alone. Senior/Julian/Olympia/Shae/Wellbrexa executives could have told someone not on the team to get the documents in a certain folder.

Honestly, if I were in Matty's shoes, the place I would have started was with whoever was plaintiff's counsel in the original suit. I would have approached them straight up two years ago with what the Reddit thread said, tried to see if there was any seeming validity to it, and periodically follow up as my investigation continued. Or let them take the lead since they are in a better position to challenge Jacobson Moore's burying of documents. 

[Morrigan2575]

2 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

Who gives someone a dog to petsit and only gives them a bottle of eyedrops. It is not like she didn't have the dog's bed right there on her desk.

Who signed out at a fire drill/alarm is not a good measurement did any guests/clients in the building have to sign the sheet? They would probably need a large diversion, since someone who works at Jacobson-Moore might have more opportunities.

Do people actually sign in/out during a firedrill? With ours we go to our designated area and there's a headcount by the area warden, who also does a count before the drill. Finally there's a sweep of the building by the security guards/floor wardens to make sure everyone left the building. 

This seems a pretty flimsy basis, especially when we know 2/3 weren't even in the building that day. I knew Olympia was a fakeout (I'm actually really tired of that hook, it's been overused), i think Julian is another fakeout and it will be someone else entirely. 

[Silver-hyren]

3 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I am beyond livid on Mrs. B's behalf that Matty bullied her with a fake kidnapping of Barry Manilow. Yes, I realize no actual animals were harmed in this maneuver, but to deliberately put someone through the mental anguish of thinking that their pet had been kidnapped is some Annie Wilkes shit. That her husband went along with it instead of pulling her back and saying, "Hey, the best way to build trust is not by fake kidnapping a pet, but by just coming clean" is also appalling. God, I hope that when Mrs. B finds out, she puts a couple of boots up Matty's ass.  

 

Agree! They were already heavy-handed with the parallels of Mrs. B and the client of the week, but IMHO Maddy came out looking *worse* than the foreman that bullied her client.  The writers seemed to think because we “know” Maddy is a “good person” (debatable) that it’s okay.  Also, dear God Maddy has less and less chill.  Wonder if it’s supposed to be deliberate, the stress of her double life wearing her down, or the writers using the most unsubtle writing to get a point across.  Kathy Bates is fantastic but this is still way beneath her talents.  (And yet I keep watching because I want to know what happens.)

Edited Friday at 05:46 PM by Silver-hyren
Clarifying a point

[Dowel Jones]

Maybe it's just the acting, but I didn't think Mrs. Belvin actually went to a dental procedure.  Her reactions seemed off.  I was thinking that she went somewhere else related to Mattie, and that was her cover story.

It would be absolute karma is Barry Manilow had a secret recording device on his collar.

[Percysowner]

8 minutes ago, Dowel Jones said:

Maybe it's just the acting, but I didn't think Mrs. Belvin actually went to a dental procedure.  Her reactions seemed off.  I was thinking that she went somewhere else related to Mattie, and that was her cover story.

It would be absolute karma is Barry Manilow had a secret recording device on his collar.

My impression was that Mrs Belvin was "protecting" Barry Manilow from the anonymous caller by hiding him with Matty. Yes, no dental procedure, but putting Barry someplace safe so she could say no to the caller safely.

[Chicago Redshirt]

23 minutes ago, Dowel Jones said:

Maybe it's just the acting, but I didn't think Mrs. Belvin actually went to a dental procedure.  Her reactions seemed off.  I was thinking that she went somewhere else related to Mattie, and that was her cover story.

Mrs. B concocted the "dental procedure" as a rationale to tell Matty why she needed to have someone look after Barry Manilow for a while, rather than tell that truth that there's this crazy Redditor who's threatening Barry and she was hoping Matty could do a sister a solid and try and safeguard him against the Redditor for a bit.

[Silver-hyren]

At this point, my money’s on Stuart (Senior’s assistant) being the one that hid the documents.  I’m sure he’s forged his boss’ signature countless times before.

52 minutes ago, Dowel Jones said:

Maybe it's just the acting, but I didn't think Mrs. Belvin actually went to a dental procedure.  Her reactions seemed off.  I was thinking that she went somewhere else related to Mattie, and that was her cover story.

It’s pretty explicit that she didn’t have a dental procedure.  She received a threatening note that “the Redditor” was going to dognap Barry M., so she gave him to Maddy to look after for his protection.  The dental procedure was the excuse she gave Maddy for why she had to take him.

Edited Friday at 05:42 PM by Silver-hyren
Punctuation

[AnimeMania]

20 minutes ago, Silver-hyren said:

At this point, my money’s on Stuart (Senior’s assistant) being the one that hid the documents.  I’m sure he’s forged his boss’ signature countless times before.

This was my guess as well, (Protect the big three) then Elijah or Shaw.

[babyrambo]

Didn’t see the promos but I knew Matty was the Johnson case because they were dropping big, obvious hints all episode. Plus it’s been clear that Olympia’s been suspicious of Matty since Alfie left his wallet in her office. The flashbacks to tie things up at the end was the first time a flashback felt unnecessary to me, but I’m glad a confrontation is on the horizon and hope the next episode picks up right where this one left off, like this week did with Belvin. I really want to hear Olympia’s side of whatever happened—I think there will be yet another twist that will reveal either a new player, or that Olympia was behind things but did so under unique circumstances and has evolved. Or something like that. I’m just looking forward to getting this wellbrexa thing over and done with by the end of this season. It was an interesting hook and Kathy Bates’ acting kept me caring but now it’s gotten a bit stale and I’m interested to see how they keep the show going without that angle weighing it down.

Edited Friday at 09:30 PM by babyrambo

[MissLucas]

I didn't see any promos but I got so annoyed with Matty's self-righteousness throughout the episode that I'm quite happy the cat's finally out of the bag. Kidnapping a dog was a new low. But the worst offense in my book is still driving a wedge between Julian and Olympia without any thought about their kids.

[possibilities]

I know that this show, and most if not all tv, plays fast and loose with legal issues, but I'm thinking about what happens when Matty's fake identity is discovered-- does it endanger the verdicts in the cases where she was used in court? 

Obviously, it would be a huge scandal that Jacobson-Moore let this slip by them, and Olympia is already in hot water for all her "do gooder" cases, so I am thinking they won't want to just out her without a plan to cover their asses.

But I don't know what they could possibly do, either. Matty can keep her ruse going for only so long. If she leaves, the show ends, so they also can't just fire her anyway. And if they bury the evidence, that's going to be a lot like them burying evidence in the Wellbrexa case, right? "We were protecting our clients". 

This has become extremely morally murky.

I like the idea that Olympia would understand why Matty is outraged and upset, and would also want to punish whoever hid the evidence. Or, it could turn out that Belvin is just wrong about what happened.

If the former, maybe Olympia could forgive her and they come up with a scheme that is actually not so insane, but I don't know what that would be.

And if the latter (that there was no hiding of evidence and Belvin is just wrong), that is kind of an anticlimax.

 

[Percysowner]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

I know that this show, and most if not all tv, plays fast and loose with legal issues, but I'm thinking about what happens when Matty's fake identity is discovered-- does it endanger the verdicts in the cases where she was used in court?

I was thinking about this today. We do know that Matty WAS a lawyer who practiced 30 years ago. That means she was a licensed attorney in her state. In order to keep her license she would have to 1) Pay the fee to the State Bar Association, which she has the money to handle easily 2) Meet the Continuing Legal Education requirements which means paying for the classes and showing up for them. Some states have self-study classes where you login to a Web presentation whenever is convenient and do whatever they require to prove you didn't just turn the presentation on and then leave. Again, this would be easy for Matty. Many lawyers keep up their bar membership until they die, just in case.

The bigger issue is using the name Madeleine Matlock. If they hadn't made the point that they chose the name based on the TV show, this could be hand waved if Matty's maiden name was Matlock and she passed the bar using that name and practiced under it. In that case, although she misrepresented her background to the firm, she might well be clear legally. Women can and do practice law under their maiden names while using their married names in social situations. I suppose she could also have applied for a name change before she started this deceit just to cover herself legally i.e. she is practicing under her legal name. As long as she reported it to the Bar Association, she should be clear. Or so Google tells me.

[Starchild]

Did I miss something? Matty said she handed Barry off to Adam, making Mrs. B think the bad guy got her dog after all. But there was no Adam. How did Mrs. B. get Barry back?

[shapeshifter]

16 hours ago, possibilities said:

I know that this show, and most if not all tv, plays fast and loose with legal issues, but I'm thinking about what happens when Matty's fake identity is discovered-- does it endanger the verdicts in the cases where she was used in court? 

Obviously, it would be a huge scandal that Jacobson-Moore let this slip by them, and Olympia is already in hot water for all her "do gooder" cases, so I am thinking they won't want to just out her without a plan to cover their asses.…

Might Mattie sign some sort of non-disclosure-type agreement in exchange for Jacobson-Moore not prosecuting her for whatever crimes of deception and corporate espionage etc. she has committed against them?

 

[Percysowner]

2 hours ago, Starchild said:

Did I miss something? Matty said she handed Barry off to Adam, making Mrs. B think the bad guy got her dog after all. But there was no Adam. How did Mrs. B. get Barry back?

I'm guessing that Matty said "Adam" brought Barry back after having had a great time.

[slowpoked]

I may have missed it before, but this episode finally answered that question of what did Olympia ask that court security guard that was kind of bugging me. I thought it was weird to just be a throwaway scene.

So what made Olympia start to suspect Matty? Was it the pen, or was it the ice cream card?

I haven’t seen any promos beforehand so I admit the twist at the end surprised me.

[Starchild]

The impression I got was when she checked the wallet to see who it belonged to, and realized it was Mattie's grandson, she saw an ice cream rewards card (indicating regular visits) for a shop that is in an upper class neighborhood far away from where Mattie and Alfie are supposed to live.

Very unlikely that they'd be going that far out of their way regularly for ice cream. It twigged her suspicion and she started investigating from there.

The flashback to the pen scene was just her remembering that it was Mattie who threw suspicion onto Julian (whom she believed when he said it wasn't him).

Edited Saturday at 09:27 PM by Starchild

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, Starchild said:

she checked the wallet to see who it belonged to, and realized it was Mattie's grandson, she saw an ice cream rewards card (indicating regular visits) for a shop that is in an upper class neighborhood far away from where Mattie and Alfie are supposed to live.

I missed that it was from an upscale neighborhood.

[Chicago Redshirt]

22 hours ago, Starchild said:

Did I miss something? Matty said she handed Barry off to Adam, making Mrs. B think the bad guy got her dog after all. But there was no Adam. How did Mrs. B. get Barry back?

They didn't explicitly say or show, but fanwanking, Matty probably told Mrs. B that "Adam" brought Barry back to her. 

Mrs. B was apparently too paralyzed by fear to think, "How the f--- could Adam have learned what I did with Barry to a)  figure out what I did with Barry b) learn where Matty lives and c) come up with the eye drops for Barry?" And then on the other hand to not say, "I have to get the police (or someone else) involved, because if Matty's telling the truth, this is some crazy stalker stuff going on."

[jabRI]

I didn't mind this episode in that a full firm of lawyers couldn't start doubting her. but how did she get hired in the first place?

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, jabRI said:

I didn't mind this episode in that a full firm of lawyers couldn't start doubting her. but how did she get hired in the first place?

In the pilot, Matty used a combination of pluck, savvy scheming, rainmaking, and luck to get hired.

1. She staked out the attorney for the opposite side of a deal that Jacobson Moore was working on to know his habits, used that knowledge to overhear him say that they'd be willing to pay millions more than their current offer.

2. She circumvented Jacobson Moore's security and got into the partner's meeting (meaning she had done homework about where and when it was, how to get in there, the social engineering to get buzzed through, etc.)

3. She not so subtlely hinted that her application to join the firm was being overlooked because of age discrimination.

4. She told the partners that the top dollar that the opponent would pay was millions more than where it was at (which proved true)

5. Senior was apparently impressed with her moxie, rather than worried that she'd breached security at his firm and had shown other sus behavior.

6. During her trial period, Matty helped rescue the wrongful conviction case and got that client $20 million (of which the firm may have gotten $5-$8)n

7. Matty had constructed enough of a fake identity for "Madeline Mattlock" that it passed the background check Jacobson Moore did. Now it would seem to me at the minimum, she would have had to create a bar registration for Madeline Mattlock in New York and Georgia/Florida, at least one of which would have had to go back decades. She probably would also have to fake her law school credentials in case anyone called whatever school she supposedly graduated from. She could and did list fake references that had Edwin play the role of a former employer/former employers.

It could be to a certain extent that Jacobson Moore wasn't too willing to look the gift horse that Matty represents in the mouth since within just a few weeks of starting, she brought an impressive amount to the table.

[Dowel Jones]

2 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

2. She circumvented Jacobson Moore's security and got into the partner's meeting (meaning she had done homework about where and when it was, how to get in there, the social engineering to get buzzed through, etc.)

And yet she jumps on the fact that the fire drill accountability absolutely must lead to the guilty party because the security system points toward them.

[Percysowner]

2 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

And yet she jumps on the fact that the fire drill accountability absolutely must lead to the guilty party because the security system points toward them.

To be fair, Mattie didn't jump to the conclusion, Mrs. B did. Mattie has taken her word and really hasn't had time to think about other explanations. Now the Olympia knows she's not on the level, Olympia may be able to shed more light on ways someone could have taken those files. Right now, we do know the exact time frame of the files going missing, because Mrs. B had them before the fire drill and they were gone when she came back. Any other explanation for how this could have happened may come up and give us more suspects.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 4/4/2025 at 7:37 PM, possibilities said:

I know that this show, and most if not all tv, plays fast and loose with legal issues, but I'm thinking about what happens when Matty's fake identity is discovered-- does it endanger the verdicts in the cases where she was used in court? 

Obviously, it would be a huge scandal that Jacobson-Moore let this slip by them, and Olympia is already in hot water for all her "do gooder" cases, so I am thinking they won't want to just out her without a plan to cover their asses.

But I don't know what they could possibly do, either. Matty can keep her ruse going for only so long. If she leaves, the show ends, so they also can't just fire her anyway. And if they bury the evidence, that's going to be a lot like them burying evidence in the Wellbrexa case, right? "We were protecting our clients". 

Exactly.

Once Olympia finds out that Matty is not who she claimed to be, she has the ethical duty to immediately notify the NY Bar Association, as well as Jacobson-Moore, of the deception.  Not to do so would lead to consequences for her own ability to practice law.  There is no excuse for the lapse in "ethics".

Now, Matty is a lawyer, who I am going to assume is still licensed in NY to practice law.  So it's not quite like Suits, where every case Mike worked on in the capacity of a lawyer (that is, not work that a paralegal would have been allowed to do) is tainted.  So I'm just not sure about the status of cases where she did lawyer-only work.  I don't think she would have signed any legal documents, but who knows.  This may be a novel circumstance, where a lawyer who was not disbarred continues to practice under an assumed name, and just shows how terrible the vetting is at Jacobson-Moore.

Nevertheless, I am going to assume that Olympia will be enraged at the Wellbrexa situation and will agree to help Matty, even though it means nailing her ex or her ex-father-in-law, and compromising her ethical duties to the Bar and the firm.  She'll probably justify it as pursuing the greater good.  Otherwise, unless she drops dead, enters a coma, or develops amnesia, the show would be over.

On 4/4/2025 at 9:13 PM, Percysowner said:

I was thinking about this today. We do know that Matty WAS a lawyer who practiced 30 years ago. That means she was a licensed attorney in her state. In order to keep her license she would have to 1) Pay the fee to the State Bar Association, which she has the money to handle easily 2) Meet the Continuing Legal Education requirements which means paying for the classes and showing up for them. Some states have self-study classes where you login to a Web presentation whenever is convenient and do whatever they require to prove you didn't just turn the presentation on and then leave. Again, this would be easy for Matty. Many lawyers keep up their bar membership until they die, just in case.

The bigger issue is using the name Madeleine Matlock. If they hadn't made the point that they chose the name based on the TV show, this could be hand waved if Matty's maiden name was Matlock and she passed the bar using that name and practiced under it. In that case, although she misrepresented her background to the firm, she might well be clear legally. Women can and do practice law under their maiden names while using their married names in social situations. I suppose she could also have applied for a name change before she started this deceit just to cover herself legally i.e. she is practicing under her legal name. As long as she reported it to the Bar Association, she should be clear. Or so Google tells me.

I would be shocked if she had legally changed her last name and had reported it to the Bar Association (where she had maintained her standing over the years.)  But it would solve all the ethical issues.

On 4/5/2025 at 12:33 PM, shapeshifter said:

Might Mattie sign some sort of non-disclosure-type agreement in exchange for Jacobson-Moore not prosecuting her for whatever crimes of deception and corporate espionage etc. she has committed against them?

 

No, not unless any lawyers at Jacobson-Moore who are parties to the agreement are willing to risk censure, suspension, or disbarment.  Mattie has to be reported to the NYS Bar (unless  Percysowner's somewhat unlikely theory that Mattie legally changed her name to Matlock and thus has been properly practicing all this time is true.)

Honestly, I don't think the firm would ever prosecute her.  As Mattie said at one point to Edwin, I believe, it would draw plenty of unwanted attention to them.  They would look particularly foolish for hiring a senior lawyer who used the name "Matlock."

Edited 8 hours ago by ItCouldBeWorse

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 4/6/2025 at 11:06 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

7. Matty had constructed enough of a fake identity for "Madeline Mattlock" that it passed the background check Jacobson Moore did. Now it would seem to me at the minimum, she would have had to create a bar registration for Madeline Mattlock in New York and Georgia/Florida, at least one of which would have had to go back decades. She probably would also have to fake her law school credentials in case anyone called whatever school she supposedly graduated from. She could and did list fake references that had Edwin play the role of a former employer/former employers.

This is the big one.  The law firm actually needs her bar registration # for various documents.  (I doubt they'd contact her law school, even if she had graduated recently, much less ~40 years ago, unless it had to do with a reference from a professor.  That in itself would have been suspicious, though; one of the best references she could come up with was from 4 decades ago? Unless she had kept up with said professor in a legal capacity; but said professor would probably also be over 100 now!)

20 hours ago, Percysowner said:

To be fair, Mattie didn't jump to the conclusion, Mrs. B did. Mattie has taken her word and really hasn't had time to think about other explanations. Now the Olympia knows she's not on the level, Olympia may be able to shed more light on ways someone could have taken those files. Right now, we do know the exact time frame of the files going missing, because Mrs. B had them before the fire drill and they were gone when she came back. Any other explanation for how this could have happened may come up and give us more suspects.

I assume they will.  Although I don't know if she would care if Sr. were implicated (which could bring the whole firm down), I doubt she wants Julian to be guilty of hiding the documents.  And new suspects gives the writers more grist for another season.

Edited 12 hours ago by ItCouldBeWorse

[Chicago Redshirt]

11 minutes ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

This is the big one.  The law firm actually needs her bar registration # for various documents.  (I doubt they'd contact her law school, even if she had graduated recently, much less ~40 years ago, unless it had to do with a reference from a professor.  That in itself would have been suspicious, though; one of the best references she could come up with was from 4 decades ago? Unless she had kept up with said professor in a legal capacity; but said professor would probably also be over 100 now!)

It's fair that each employer is different. I've had to send in certified transcripts from my law school at points. Something like that, I suppose, could be faked or subject to monkey business if the registrar's office from the law school was paid enough. Or they could have made up a fake law school profile and had Edwin ready to man the phone if someone attempted to check the records of Dewey Cheatem School of Law.

I would imagine that the standard background check most firms would do would include a call to the law school to confirm John Doe graduated when he said he did.

Each year, we get sent new IDs from our bar and individual attorneys dutifully copy those IDs for our admins so that they know our registration is current.

At this point, I'm guessing most bars have a function online where you can look up an attorney online and it will tell you when they were admitted to the bar, their status, possibly their contact information.

So I find it hard to believe that not only did Jacobson Moore not check that out when first hiring Matty, but neither did Shae and revenge-mode Sarah. Given all we've seen her do, I would imagine Matty took steps to suggest that Madeline Matlock had passed the bar 40+ years ago somewhere and was inactive of late.

[mostlylurking]

On 4/3/2025 at 9:05 PM, ItCouldBeWorse said:

don't understand why anyone in the firm would think that a successful lawyer at a huge firm who has successfully handled defense cases would need "pull" to get a job in the Public Defenders' office.  She'd be taking a huge decrease in pay as she would be employed by the government: 

I didn’t get that either.  Like sure, let’s go do more work for drastically less pay!  No thanks.  Also, Hot ADA’s office was way too nice for a city official. They tried to mess it up a little with all the papers and files everywhere, but still.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 4/3/2025 at 11:22 PM, Chicago Redshirt said:

What they said was that clients were upset because of the win against Slamm'd because they felt Olympia upset the apple cart against one of their own. Presumably that then spooked the other lawyers in the firm into giving Olympia the stink-eye.

Frankly, that makes less sense than what you suggested. I tend to doubt that the clients are going to be following the ins and outs of any cases beyond their own or ones that directly affect their industry to know the outcomes. Nor does it make sense if they for some reason were avidly following random court cases that Slamm'd would be such a problem. I mean, as much as a victory as it was supposed to be, it's a $40 million settlement. Not such a high number that it would get all these clients complaining. And even assuming it did, it seems like any lawyer worth their salt would explain that it's good that this brilliant lawyer is on YOUR side, right? 

It would make more sense if someone was attempting to undermine Olympia by spreading false rumors about how clients were not happy with the outcome. But we will see.

Agreed.  Perhaps in an area like tobacco litigation, the big law firms stick to either prosecution or defense.  But there's a reason that successful former (criminal) prosecutors make good defense lawyers and vice versa, and it hold in civil cases, too.  It pays to know how the "other side" thinks, and to know what strategies they employ.