S01.E09: Pimento

[queenanne]

For a little general perspective, some individual stories I found:

 

Not clear if felon, but here’s a drug addict and former gang member (and Bingham McCutchen was a top-drawer firm):

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/felon-back-in-court-mdash-as-an-attorney/

 

Appellate clerk and lawyer-to-be:

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/10/219295368/the-incredible-case-of-the-bank-robber-whos-now-a-law-clerk

 

I think the point is it's unusual and they'd really have to justify it, but it has been done.

[shapeshifter]

...We don't know the whole family history, but they came from Cicero, Illinois - a blue collar town. So Chuck wasn't some silver-spoon character who came from privilege. Yet Chuck made good by getting into a good law school and making a big success as a lawyer. Whereas Jimmy was involved in petty crime and various shenanigans from which he had to be rescued. Two brothers, two personalities...

Thanks for reminding me of this; I had forgotten it was the character's (Jimmy) background as well as the actor's (Odenkirk). This gives a better understanding of Chuck's paranoia of his success being tarnished by his midwestern-twang-speaking relations--which likely contributed to his current medical condition.

Do we know if Hamlin had a similar background, or rather, if his father did?

Because it sure seems like Chuck and Hamlin are treating Jimmy like a hot potato, if y'all know what I mean.

[editorgrrl]

Do we know if Hamlin had a similar background, or rather, if his father did?

All I know about Howard Hamlin is he wears expensive suits and a wedding ring. Just as all we really knew about Saul Goodman was his loud suits & gift of gab.

[Irlandesa]

If you're made of money, you can get the same degree over again. In fact, you may only have to take half the classes, since credits from certain courses will transfer over. I had one college take D's as transfer credits as long as I had enough corresponding B's.

Was it the same degree?  I actually had a similar experience where I had to consider possibly getting a degree I almost had at another school and it didn't look like anyone would accept that. Luckily, it worked out but a "better school" likely wouldn't let Jimmy enroll for another J.D.  But perhaps if he decided to go further and get the law equivalent of a PhD. 

[lucindabelle]

For those who say Jimmy was unethical for the scam he tried to pull on the kettlmans, as he informed them when crazy pants threatened to call the police, criminals have no rights. The police lie to suspects to get them to confess.

The scam with the billboard was definitely a scam.. Hell it was the same guy we saw in the flashback, wasn't it? But it was only advertising, it's not like he was suing anyone. No truth in advertising! Stop the presses!

On this show heres been zero evidence, as in zero, of Jimmy being a "chimp with a machine gun." Au contraire, he's acted against his own interests to get kim her Job back...

Chuck sounded just jealous and its such childish jealousy. I bet as a kid he felt Jimmy was the flashy charming one while he buckled down and he's never gotten over it. He's secretly pleased when Jimmy fails.

And let's face it, taking those public defender cases left him so broke he lived in his office. His fucking brother didn't even invite him to live in, while Jimmy ran all his errands for him.

Jimmy found out that Chuck was playing him via instinct. Chuck was smart enough to erase the call but jimmys instincts had him call the phone company. Just as his instincts told him something was wrong when the old lady said she was waiting for her allowance. And ethics? Charging $150 for a completed will? Pennies!!!

Jimmy climbed into a dumpster to get at the truth.

He could have had Chuck conmitted and controlled his assets. No, he's been taking care of Chuck for years... Receiving as mentioned not one client referral not even the offer of a room, that we know of.

Chuck has NO basis for his complains hat I see. Zero. Zilch. I hope he dies in there.

(And if chuck is right LATER ON doesn't change what we've seen so far. At this point, chuck has no basis for his comments.)

Edited April 2, 2015 by lucindabelle

[haydensterling]

I cannot shake this episode.  I'm still so angry.

Let's face it--Chuck is jealous of Jimmy.  As far as I'm concerned, he should be.  

 

Jimmy may have been of a dubious character back in Cicero, but he also has a quick mind, has a sort of silly, self-deprecating sweetness about him, works hard, takes what seems to me to be a genuine interest in other people, is charismatic as hell, and most importantly, he has heart.  A lot of fucking heart.  Jimmy actively cares about the people in his life, and I don't care too much if he calls the older clients 'geezers' behind their backs when he clearly also gives a damn about what happens to them. Correct me if I'm not remembering this one hundred percent, but didn't Kim say that Jimmy would be good at elder law, or make the implication?  She was right--Jimmy would have been good at it, if Chuck hadn't essentially broken that heart and given him that shove down the road to becoming Saul.  

 

What does Chuck have when you stack him up against Jimmy?  Not a whole lot.  He's bitter, resentful, and he's been screwing his brother over for years.  Years.  I don't care if Jimmy skated through life and Chuck had to watch that. The fact that Chuck has been fucking with Jimmy so hard and for so long makes him a fairly repellent individual, in my book.  I see Chuck as being so afraid that his brother might be a better lawyer--on top of being a more decent human being, for god's sake, let alone all the other positive qualities Jimmy (and the writers) have shown us, that Chuck becomes nearly grotesque.  He'll fuck Jimmy over, but he'll also let that same brother take care of him for the past eighteen months.   Sewing his damned space blanket into his suit for him.  Sitting with him on the bench, feet in the grass.  Ah, fuck.  

 

All that Jimmy's done for Chuck and he's nothing but a chimp with a machine gun?  Sorry, but Chuck has profoundly misread the situation. 

It's such a betrayal, to learn that Chuck was that calculating and that aware of what he was doing.  Hell, it's why he got sick. The guilt was eating him alive.  And such a coward, that he had to hide behind Hamlin.

 

Vince really knows how to write dysfunction.  I think this might be the theme of the show.  Dysfunctional families and relationships, and the absolutely ruinous damage they cause, well into old age.  Mike is still trapped, Jimmy is just starting to realize he's been trapped. 

 

Oh well.  I'm hoping this will cause a big setback for Chuck, and by the time Christmas rolls around, Santa will have dropped some nice, expensive electronics down the chimney.  I'm not sure I'll get what I want on either count--I'm notoriously bad at reading what kind of curveball Vince is going to throw, and I was always completely blindsided by everything that happened on BrBa--but I can dream.

 

From what I've seen of Jimmy so far, there's nothing in the writing or Odenkirk's take on the character that tells me Jimmy wouldn't have been perfectly happy up in that office with the good view, regardless of whether or not Kim had joined him there. What Jimmy really wanted was for Chuck to be proud of him, to have his brother's approval and love.  That would have made him happy.  Chuck threw all that away. I have no sympathy for him. Damn, did Michael McKean play that scene brilliantly or what? I hate him. 

I'm kind of ashamed to say that I wasn't sure if Bob Odenkirk could pull off being a lead in a dramatic series.  But damn, did he play that scene brilliantly or what? I love him, and Jimmy needs many hugs, but Bob needs some Emmys and some Golden Globes, because he deserves them.

I'm hoping we don't lose this Jimmy too quickly.  I like him a lot, and I'd even love to see some flashbacks to when Chuck and Jimmy were kids.  Where the hell are their parents, anyhow? Am I forgetting something else?  

I'm still so blown away by the Jimmy/Chuck interaction that I didn't even get to Mike.  What I loved about his monologue to Pryce was that he's basically describing himself and Jimmy. Mike's a criminal, Jimmy's going to become more of one--goddamnit Chuck!--but neither of them are going to become Walter Whites. 

As an aside, if anyone here's ever read the book You Can't Win, by Jack Black, that whole speech from Mike is basically what the book's about.  You may be a bad guy, but you can still be a good bad guy.  Good bad guys are called 'Johnsons' in the book.  

 

Mike and Jimmy are Johnsons.  

 

I'm afraid to watch next week.  

[ketose]

Was it the same degree?  I actually had a similar experience where I had to consider possibly getting a degree I almost had at another school and it didn't look like anyone would accept that. Luckily, it worked out but a "better school" likely wouldn't let Jimmy enroll for another J.D.  But perhaps if he decided to go further and get the law equivalent of a PhD. 

It wasn't really the same degree program, (science vs. engineering) but the core courses were the same. I very much suspect that any advisor would suggest not getting the same degree twice, even if a school were more prestigious. But, like I wrote, if you're not looking for financial aid, I don't know that it is a major factor if you have a degree or not. If Jimmy were accepted and was 1-2 classes short of graduating. there'd be no issue. At the same time, many schools require you take 25-50% of courses locally so that you are truly a graduate of the college that grants the degree.

[ToastnBacon]

Chuck has NO basis for his complains hat I see. Zero. Zilch. I hope he dies in there.

Peter Gould, writer and executive producer, for Better Call Saul disagrees with your analysis.

Peter Gould from an interview with Entertainment Weekly

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/03/30/better-call-saul-peter-gould-jimmy-chuck?asdf&hootPostID=632f845adf3e413ddf898dd4ca5c0c9a

“Part of the reason Jimmy’s always gotten into trouble is because he could never equal Chuck,” Gould continues. “Chuck was always the good brother. But from Chuck’s point of view, Jimmy was the one who got all the attention. Jimmy was the kid who would make everyone laugh with a joke. And Chuck, for all his ability and all his brains, really doesn’t have the common touch.

And we realized—and it came as a shock to us—that on some level, Chuck is jealous of Jimmy. And that Hamlin wasn’t the problem for Jimmy, really; it’s Chuck. Chuck does not want Jimmy in his law firm. It makes Chuck deeply uncomfortable for so many reasons—some of them legitimate—to have Jimmy be a lawyer at his level.

And one of the things I love about the scene at the end of episode 9 that [co-executive producer] Tom Schnauz wrote, and that Bob and Michael played, is that Chuck is not all wrong. Especially those of us who watched Breaking Bad know that there is an element of truth to what he says: ‘The law is sacred. If you abuse that power, people get hurt. This is not a game.’ And that brings up the question: How much is that a self-fulfilling prophecy? Does Jimmy act out because deep down, he believes what Chuck thinks of him?”

[queenanne]

Oh, that's really good knowledge from Gould; thanks.  (Though it still, IMO, skirts the issue that Jimmy is good at practicing law and it's almost mean to try to stop him making a living at it.)  I didn't... think that the team of TPTB was not respecting law, per se; but that "the practice of law", is partly different animal from "law and order".  We mean and have been discussing them together, but maybe Odenkirk is being TOO good, and instilling too much essential glowing decency and vulnerability in Jimmy, for the producer-intended outcome.  Because I think I get what Chuck thinks, and they're not talking about him being afraid of a re-occurrence of Slippin'.  I mean he is, but Gould is not talking about it in this speech, unless it's snipped.  And we get lost in the forest of Chuck's personal struggle, so maybe we can't see the "worrying about Jimmy disgracing him" trees.  At least I wasn't.  I just following the story along for the ride and trusting what they unfolded at the time. At this point I'd almost forgotten about the neighbor's-paper gambit.

 

If Chuck is objecting to "the gentlemanly practice of law" being sullied by Jimmy (which I think he partly is), I guess it's compelling; but I'm so used to looking at it differently based upon my past informings.  It isn't that long ago in the grand scheme of things, that to be "a lawyer" was to be a tradesmanlike swot looked down upon by the gentry, as opposed to an elite educated member of society - you have to work for a living, imagine that, how quaintly grubby -  and you only regretfully and under great duress, dared to dun "a gentleman" for his law bills, after the first genteel reminder.  I'm sure they still took people to debtor's gaol, but it was considered a veritable sin to nag Lord Whomever to give you the lucre you'd earned in the commission of his work.

Edited April 2, 2015 by queenanne

[lucindabelle]

I said THAT I SEE. So I am not wrong, he is obviously talking about something I haven't seen. SO FAR there is nothingl hat shows chuck is right in any sense.

And the rest of his post completely underscores what I wrote, which is that Chuck is jealous in a puerile way,

Personally, it's obvious to me that Chuck is a snob, how far Jimmy get in with the equivalent of a restaurant jacket when chuck is wearing a tux?

Man, sometimes people disagree just to be disagreeable. I'm entitled to my opinionl what is more, creators Are not the final arbiters on what they create, that is the intentional fallacy. Thi is true of ANY kind of art. But thank you for showing how much Gould agrees with my take on the jealousy.

Besides which, executive producers arent actors. If you think that writers somehow control what actors do and what audience members take in, you are misunderstanding how drama works.

Edited April 2, 2015 by lucindabelle

[ShadowFacts]

What's brilliant about the writing is that the whole Sandpiper case is a microcosm of how Jimmy and Chuck could have worked together.  They complement each other in their styles and abilities.  Had Chuck done the better, more decent thing years ago, he wouldn't have had a psychotic break (or whatever it is), Jimmy could have let his ethical side dominate, and HHM would be raking in the big bucks.  We don't know what financial ground HHM will be on in the future (and I don't really care); we do know a lot about Jimmy's future path.  Chuck's fate is the big question for me.  His future seems bleak to me.  He's one sad panda.  Of his own doing. 

[ghoulina]

Rewatched last night, and the scene that really stood out to me was when they were leaving to go meet with HHM. Jimmy making Chuck a suit lined with his space blanket was just SO sweet. And you could tell how genuinely concerned he was for his brother. He told him - ANY time you want to go, just say the word. It was clear, to me, that his top priority was Chuck. I wish that went both ways. 

 

Another thing that really stood out was Howard saying (after the room had cleared and he was breaking the bad news to Jimmy) - "It's easy money, Jimmy". To me, that is the crux of how Chuck feels about his brother, and how he has portrayed him. Someone who is after the easiest way. Who just wants to make a buck. But that is not the Jimmy we've seen. When they received the document dump from the Sandpiper lawyers, Jimmy didn't even balk. He rolled up his sleeves (literally) and was ready to get to work. I just really believe that the stunts are a last resort, and that Jimmy really WANTS to do the hard work and be a legitimate lawyer. 

 

And the more I think about, the more I think that Howard probably would have taken him on if not for Chuck. Maybe not in the beginning.....but now? With this big case? Yea, I think he would. Because....why else would Chuck need to call him in the middle of the night? If Jimmy was SUCH a helpless screw-up, and Howard was ostensibly told all about his history when he passed the bar exam, then he wouldn't need Chuck calling him and telling him not to take Jimmy on. He'd know, he'd do it on his own. That's what makes the entire thing all the more treacherous to me. Howard is a big boy. At this point he presumably has all the facts. He could, and should, be able to make this decision on his own. But Chuck just had to make darn sure it went down the way HE thought it should. Vile, really vile. 

[ToastnBacon]

I said THAT I SEE. So I am not wrong, he is obviously talking about something I haven't seen. SO FAR there is nothingl hat shows chuck is right in any sense.

And the rest of his post completely underscores what I wrote, which is that Chuck is jealous in a puerile way,

Personally, it's obvious to me that Chuck is a snob, how far Jimmy get in with the equivalent of a restaurant jacket when chuck is wearing a tux?

Man, sometimes people disagree just to be disagreeable. I'm entitled to my opinionl what is more, creators R won't the final arbiters on what they create, that is the intentional fallacy. Thi is true of ANY kind of art. But thank you for showing how much Gould agrees with my take on the jealousy.

Besides which, executive producers arent actors. If you think that writers somehow control what actors do and what audience members take in, you are misunderstanding how drama works. I'm putting you on ignore now, since this is not the first time you've attacked something I've written.

In that case, the part you haven't seen is that Chuck isn't 100% wrong about Jimmy.

The point is both characters have their flaws, and Jimmy's flaws run just as deep as Chucks.

It isn't as simple as Jimmy = Right and Chuck = Wrong.

[RedBaron]

Come on, Toast, you are not the final arbiter on this.  Your opinion just differs from some others.  I get that you feel you are 100% right but the bottom line is it's your opinion and if that other poster disagrees they are not "wrong" as you have called other posters before when you disagree with them.  I hate to see the thread get contentious in any way since the discussion has been so deep and interesting.

 

It's great to see the differing opinions -- that's a credit to the show.  That's what makes the writing, acting and production of this show so good.  People can draw their own opinions as the characters and story because they are so complex.

Edited April 2, 2015 by RedBaron

[lovinbob]

There's such a chicken or egg thing here. Jimmy can't get ahead as a lawyer because people don't take him seriously. So he has to resort to marketing gimmicks and somewhat "slippery" tactics to get clients and to succeed. So people don't respect him. "You're the kind of lawyer guilty people hire." Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

I'm gratified to see this comment from Gould:

Especially those of us who watched Breaking Bad know that there is an element of truth to what he says: ‘The law is sacred. If you abuse that power, people get hurt. This is not a game.’ And that brings up the question: How much is that a self-fulfilling prophecy? Does Jimmy act out because deep down, he believes what Chuck thinks of him?”

This is what I've been thinking about since I first watched it. Chuck's words, as much as they bothered me, were prophetic. Saul Goodman was a very capable, even brilliant, lawyer who used very slippery tactics. He dominated the realm that he was relegated to, and he could have gotten killed countless times.

 

So did Chuck's rejection doom Jimmy to become Saul? Or was he always going to be that lawyer? There's no way to know.

 

I also like that interview with Gould because I appreciate knowing that McKean is part of what inspired the plot to go as it did. He plays haughty and duplicitous very well. He always appears to have his nose in the air, and his arched eyebrows can seem sinister.

 

Chuck's snobbery toward Jimmy is not at all surprising--guys like Jimmy are up against guys like Chuck all the time. Add to that the fact that Jimmy may have caused Chuck quite a bit of pain in his life, I can see where he's coming from. But my heart still breaks for Jimmy.

 

Would love to know what their family's back story is.

[Irlandesa]

It all boils down to whether or not  Jimmy would have become Saul if his brother would have helped him out.  That isn't a question anyone can truly answer even if they've seen all of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. It's a hypothetical. 

 

No successful person has gotten there without some help.  No one has rehabilitated without some sort of help. I know a lot think they did it on their own but someone, somewhere along the line gave them the benefit of the doubt.  Without that chance, who knows what would have happened to them?  This isn't to rob people of their own choice but anyone who thinks that Jimmy would have walked the straight and narrow if he worked at HHM is just as right as someone who thinks he wouldn't have.

 

All I know is that I've seen Jimmy seriously trying to do the right thing.  Sure, he has a certain flair but he works hard to do the right thing and it keeps not paying off for him.  But if it did...?

 

{Or what lovinbob said as I was writing this up.)

Edited April 3, 2015 by Irlandesa

[henripootel]

The scam with the billboard was definitely a scam.

I'm gonna split hairs here - it was a 'set-up' to be sure but I'm not sure I'd call it a scam cuz it wasn't a con meant to extract money from any particular person.  'Publicity Stunt' might be best.  I split this hair for a purpose: not sure this event adds weight to Jimmy slipping back into 'Slippin' Jimmy'.  Nobody got hurt, nobody got robbed = not Slippin' Jimmy (IMO).  One might even call it 'enterprising'.  

 

I'm still wondering whence Jimmy got "Saul Goodman".  It occurred to me that this might be Howard's real name (who changed it to be 'less ethnic' for the intermountain west) and Jimmy took it as one final 'fuck you'.  Now that Howard seems less of a villain than a proxy for Chuck's dickishness, I'm not so sure.

Edited April 2, 2015 by henripootel

[RedBaron]

 

I'm still wondering whence Jimmy got "Saul Goodman".  It occurred to me that this might be Howard's real name (who changed it to be 'less ethnic' for the intermountain west) and Jimmy took it as one final 'fuck you'.  Now that Howard seems less of a villain than a proxy for Chuck's dickishness, I'm not so sure.

 

The producers have stated that Saul Goodman is derived from "It's all good,man!"  I guess it indicates more enterprising and humor from Jimmy when choosing a new name.  It's hilarious.

Edited April 2, 2015 by RedBaron

[editorgrrl]

The producers have stated that Saul Goodman is derived from "It's all good,man!" I guess it indicates more enterprising and humor from Jimmy when choosing a new name. It's hilarious.

It was explained on screen in the flashback with Slippin' Jimmy's friend who sang "butt, butthole" to the riff from "Smoke on the Water." Jimmy told the mark that Saul Goodman means "it's all good, man."

And it's poignant in hindsight after watching "Pimento"—Jimmy McGill's telling his big brother Chuck that he is indeed a good man.

[ShadowFacts]

The role of Chuck in the birth of Saul is pretty central, it's not incidental. We have been shown his basic decency toward elders and a mentally ill, difficult brother. In my view, it is reasonable to imagine that had he worked under Chuck and they functioned as they did on Sandpiper, he would have no motive at all to consort with meth dealers. As ghoulina just said, he didn't hesitate for a second to plow into the document dump. Not inclined to whine or moan or look for shortcuts.

For me, it comes down to probabilities based on what we have been shown. It seems improbable based on his character and track record of straightening up and respect for his brother that he would go rogue again.

[lucindabelle]

Chucks comments could be construed as prophetic I guess. But that doesn't mean they are accurate for the world in which we are right now on the show.

Saul goodman is a great name despite its origins in a joke,,, it does suggest a Jewish lawyer which would not be a bad thing for Chuck with the elders, I'm guessing (I'm Jewish, no disrespect meant).

As for citing anything to support my views, I cite what I have seen. I have a PhD in theater and know at it is not "proof" to cite what a creator thinks they did, so anybody citing Gould or even odenkirk to "prove" my opinion is invalid is using a faulty logic.

Yes, the advertising stunt is not really a scam. That is a good distinction and leads even more to the conclusion that Chuck has no basis in the world of BCS for his accusations against his brother.

There is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, Jimmy has shown to want to use the law to do the right thing, unlike he slick lawyer who opposed him at first with sandpiper. And yet to see that Chuck has any interest in the old people besides the fun of the case itself... Even when he said they'd die it seemed a little. Self interested, but of course mmv on thAt. But the show has portrayed jimmy doing what's right against what's easy many times. And I don't fault him for attempting a little rude to be introduced to the kettlmans and take their business. If he could have met them another way he would have,

Is it really respectable? No, but it's not as if he were hiring the twins to break into their home, he just wanted to ride in and look like a good lawyer to get their business. It's not that big a deal. And in the end, he brought them down. He saved Kim when she couldn't manage to save herself.

[haydensterling]

Toast, I'm not huge on the whole death of the author bit, but there is a point in most works at which the reader or viewer is going to find themselves in disagreement with what the creator of the work intended; I can think of any number of television shows or films where I find myself seeing what's been presented and having a markedly different reaction to it than was intended by showrunners or directors. Isn't that also what makes talking about this kind of thing so much fun?  We all bring a part of our own perspectives, and it colors the way we view things

 

The concept of the 'Word of God' is neat, and it can even be useful if some aspect's been particularly ambiguous or confusing, but I don't think it should count as the be-all end-all, bottom line for what the artist has made.  The beauty of a good work of art lies in the various ways one can interpret it, regardless of the creator's intent.

 

Anyhow, I hope we can all continue this discussion in the same vein.  Half the fun is in getting different reads or takes on what we're shown.

Erm, to get this on-topic, I'd read somewhere that the very short bits of film that play under the title card are meant to be in some way indicative of what's going to happen on the show; has anyone else seen this?  I wish I had the link.  Anyhow, having read that, it made this episode all the more depressing.  Jimmy McGill ends up in a urinal, water flushing around him after he's likely been pissed on.  

 

As blackly comic that is, damn does it sting.

 

ETA didn't realize I was rehashing something already posted, I was typing my thoughts as the other post went up.  Sorry.  :)

 

Edited April 2, 2015 by haydensterling

[ToastnBacon]

The role of Chuck in the birth of Saul is pretty central, it's not incidental. We have been shown his basic decency toward elders and a mentally ill, difficult brother. In my view, it is reasonable to imagine that had he worked under Chuck and they functioned as they did on Sandpiper, he would have no motive at all to consort with meth dealers. As ghoulina just said, he didn't hesitate for a second to plow into the document dump. Not inclined to whine or moan or look for shortcuts.

For me, it comes down to probabilities based on what we have been shown. It seems improbable based on his character and track record of straightening up and respect for his brother that he would go rogue again.

I'll go along with the hypothesis that Jimmy is capable of staying within the boundaries of the law for long periods, but at some point he will always slip outside the boundary.

Most everyone slips at somepoint in their lives; however, with Jimmy it is especially difficult to stay within the law because he has a Slippin Jimmy toolkit.

He knows the power of the toolkit and how dangerous using it can be; however, it is just too much for him to resist using when he encounters some barriers.

I guess I don't think that a leopard can change his spots.

[lucindabelle]

The notion that what the creator intended is how work should be interpreted is not one subscribed to by any reasonable critic. Shaw thought that henry higgins should not end up with Eliza, but she does in my fair lady. Kafka wanted all his works burned. It is interesting to know what the creator of a work had in mind but it does nto "explain" it. For one thing, the creative part of the brain and the critical part are different. Many many great artists hate talking about their work and want it to speak for themselves. It's no requirement that artists do this, at all.

So again, no amount of citing the intention of the writer/producer/director/actor alters what I see.

And if we all saw the same thing, critics would never disagree, and of course, they do. Because on top of intention there's execution, perhaps jimmy was originally intended to be a slick wannabe but the actors execution shows a guy with a lot of heart (not a great example because I don't think that was the intention in is case).

This is all getting into critical theory and advanced studies and it s prett unnecessary really if we can just agree that different people are seeing different things and stop citing Authorities to prove others Wrong.

[Pike Ludwell]

Sure Chuck should have just leveled with Jimmy from the beginning. But Jimmy had been a problem for Chuck for years, and he may have been afraid how Jimmy would have taken it. Maybe he was just dealing with the Jimmy problem as best he could. Should he have put his reputation on the line and taken in the always teetering-on-the-brink Jimmy as a lawyer in the prestigious firm? Maybe. But Chuck is no saint. Not all people are so heavily into constant charity and monitoring and guiding other's behavior, especially if they have a bad history. Jimmy had been a serious problem for years and Chuck's negative attitude was justified.

Edited April 2, 2015 by riverclown

[ShadowFacts]

 

I'll go along with the hypothesis that Jimmy is capable of staying within the boundaries of the law for long periods, but at some point he will always slip outside the boundary.

Most everyone slips at somepoint in their lives; however, with Jimmy it is especially difficult to stay within the law because he has a Slippin Jimmy toolkit.

He knows the power of the toolkit and how dangerous using it can be; however, it is just too much for him to resist using when he encounters some barriers.

I guess I don't think that a leopard can change his spots.

Agreed that everyone errs, all are human.  As to spot-changing, we disagree.  Jimmy does good and bad things, just like Chuck.  But people turn away from destructive and criminal and unhealthy lives all the time.  Not easy, you have to want to, there is backsliding, but I've been on board planet Earth long enough to have seen and experienced it.  And the reverse can happen, perfectly normal law-abiding people can go seriously off the reservation. 

[wrestlesflamingos]

Quick note: PMs are great for 2 person debates, lets keep in mind it's a story, not a quiz to be solved.

[Captain I0]

Yes, the advertising stunt is not really a scam. That is a good distinction and leads even more to the conclusion that Chuck has no basis in the world of BCS for his accusations against his brother.

There is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, Jimmy has shown to want to use the law to do the right thing, unlike he slick lawyer who opposed him at first with sandpiper. And yet to see that Chuck has any interest in the old people besides the fun of the case itself... Even when he said they'd die it seemed a little. Self interested, but of course mmv on thAt. But the show has portrayed jimmy doing what's right against what's easy many times. And I don't fault him for attempting a little rude to be tinroduced to the kettlmans and take their business. If he could have met them another way he would have,

Is it really respectable? No, but it's not as if he were hiring the twins to break into their home, he just wanted to ride in and look like a good lawyer to get their business. It's not that big a deal. And in the end, he brought them down. He saved Kim when she couldn't manage to save herself.

 

Geez, that is some serious mental gymnastics for trying to dismiss Jimmy's actions here...The Billboard incident is a pure scam - and likely illegal, depending on the state laws. He created and advertisement under false pretenses and (even though he "argued" against it) we know that he actually DID intentionally rip off the HHM Billboard as a part of this ploy...But whatever, I can understand that some people may find this mostly harmless.

 

However, your statements about the Kettlemans are just way off base. First off, he wasn't doing it to be introduced to the Kettlemans. He'd already met the Kettlemans and they had already refused his service.

 

Second, he was again breaking the law in numerous ways.

1. He was stalking them. He watched them for an undetermined amount of time to learn Ma Kettleman's daily routine and driving route.

2. He hired scam artists to throw themselves in front of her car and try to blackmail her.

 

Even if they didn't get it wrong and wind up in the desert with Tuco, he was putting one of those kids in serious danger. Sure they are practiced at taking a fall, but you get hit by a car and you can wind up seriously hurt or killed quite easily.

 

I like Jimmy and I'm not mad at him for this of course, but the idea that he's just "a good guy", or that he in any way is doing what he "needs to do" at this point is pure BS.

 

The other point is that Jimmy really isn't as "desperate" as some here are making him out to be. Sure, the show is playing it up a bit with the closet sized room in the nail salon and the junker car, but Jimmy could be making ends meet just fine as a Public Defender if he wanted to. There are plenty of people who do that for a living. He's not falling behind in his bills. He's not in danger of being thrown out on the street. He's just not the rich, fancy-pants, lawyer that he wants to be. That's not need. Certainly not the type of need that should result in somebody turning to illegal, deceptive and underhanded practices.

[lucindabelle]

How is it a scam if he didn't seek money for it?

It's a publicity stunt. He got more coverage because of it. I don't even think that is illegal.

 

I don't think he actually rose to the level of stalking the Kettlemans. At least, I don't think that that was shown.

 

He was NOT trying to blackmail the Kettlemans. Watch the early episodes again. He was attempting to get their business. He's very clear on that. The kids were already scammers, that's how he got the idea of using them for his own ends. It was stupid and illegal, yes, but I honestly don't find it unethical. The Kettlemans were crooks. I feel zero sympathy for them. If he'd been using that scam to get legit business from good people I might feel differently about it, but knowing they were complete embezzlers? Not so much.

 

As for making ends meet, Jimmy is so broke he can't afford to pay to get out of the parking lot. Maybe he has college debts. We don't know. What plenty of other people do is beside the point. We've been shown pretty clearly on that show that he is broke. Which makes his giving up the Kettleman case to save Kim absolutely, 100%, the action of a "good guy." Which also makes his not having his brother committed and thus controlling his assets, even heroic.

 

I really think people project backwards to Jimmy on what they know from BB. But as a non-BB watcher, I don't see it. I see a few ruses that didn't work out, but when push came to shove, he did The Right Thing. Every time. He even gave back the bribe (and he took it pretty reluctantly in the first place. Should he have taken it at all? No. But again... in the end... when push came to shove... he did the right thing).

[LoneHaranguer]

 

There is a pecking order for top schools when it comes to hiring, and there is a real difference in the quality of education you get.

Yes, a top school would have increased Jimmy's chances at passing the bar on the first try, but it's moot now that he has passed. And good credentials let an employer feel more confident in hiring, so Jimmy would have to work his way up, but he wasn't looking for more. There is also a pecking order when it comes to which state's bar exam you pass. From what I was able to google, what Jimmy passed is on par with what Harvard graduates take, so it's not too shabby, but Chuck, with his Georgetown degree has a right to feel superior if he took the same bar exam that most of his classmates took. And Chuck likes feeling superior to Jimmy. He just doesn't want Jimmy to be an embarrassment.

 

 

Luckily, it worked out but a "better school" likely wouldn't let Jimmy enroll for another J.D.  But perhaps if he decided to go further and get the law equivalent of a PhD.

The next step up would be an LL.M (Master of Laws).

[lucindabelle]

Those pecking order things seem to matter most when people are starting out. At a certain point, they matter very little except for a little bragging factor.

 

By developing and bringing in this HUGE case, Jimmy proved himself to be as good a researcher and lawyer as anyone on staff. he should, as Kim said, be at the table. And he WOULD be, if not for Chuck and his puerile jealousy.

[Captain I0]

How is it a scam if he didn't seek money for it?

It's a publicity stunt. He got more coverage because of it. I don't even think that is illegal.

 

He was NOT trying to blackmail the Kettlemans. Watch the early episodes again. He was attempting to get their business. He's very clear on that. The kids were already scammers, that's how he got the idea of using them for his own ends. It was stupid and illegal, yes, but I honestly don't find it unethical.

No. A publicity stunt is something like a donut shop going for the Guiness Record for the World's Largest Donut and getting the media to cover it as an event.

You could argue his attempt to get coverage for Hamlin taking the Billboard down was a (borderline) publicity stunt. However, what Jimmy did is fake a rescue (again, putting somebody's life in danger) during that publicity stunt. This is illegal.

 

Your second point...Blackmail can take a few forms. It's not "strongarm" blackmail (i.e - you do this or I'll expose you), but it is still a form blackmail.The implied threat is that the skater twins will sue them if not for Jimmy's help. Just because the Kettlemans don't know that Jimmy set up the accident in the first place, doesn't absolve him of this.

 

Your last point... ("It was stupid and illegal" but not unethical?)...lol. I don't even know how to address that. He hired criminals to act out a crime on this person.

Edited April 2, 2015 by wrestlesflamingos
removed last line for tone

[haydensterling]

Is the show playing it up a bit w/r/t Jimmy's having an office in a nail salon?  I thought it was funny, but seriously where Jimmy's at.

 

Also, this isn't BrBa.  Saul was never on the same level as Walt.  Gould may say that Chuck is partially right, but in this case partially right means a Johnson, not a Heisenberg.  There's a big difference between the two.

 

The problem may be that Bob Odenkirk is playing this role with so many layers that some of us just can't look at his character and see him as this innately 'bad' person.  But I don't think the writing really supports that take on Jimmy, either.  A bad person wouldn't do what Jimmy did for Chuck.  I think the worst epithet one could tar Jimmy with is that he's perhaps a bit hasty and always looking to play the angles.  But those are also qualities that can be seen as good ones, depending on the situation.  Discovering the dirty goings on at Sandpiper was, I think, precisely because Jimmy is skilled at playing the angles--if he sees one, he recognizes it.  That skillset makes him a good lawyer.

[Ronin Jackson]

Jimmy is definitely not a simple "good guy". Does such a thing exist in the BB/BCS universe? But he is trying... I think that's the crux of the what the first season is about. Jimmy trying to shake his past to become a respectable lawyer. The question is, why is he doing that? Is it because he wants to be respectable or because he wants Chuck to be proud of him. A lot of it is clearly the latter, which isn't really the most noble reason to be respectable. But it does make Chuck's betrayal so heart breaking on a human level. Odenkirk and the writers have done such a good job of making us empathize with Jimmy, the vitriolic reactions to Chuck aren't that surprising. Beyond the empathy, I think there's both good and bad to Chuck an Jimmy, but we've been set up to respond to Jimmy's situation. The series seems to be setting up a tug of war between Slippin' Jimmy and the good hearted guy who sacrificed his personal well being to help Kim, and was doing everything he could to help Chuck. I hope the emergence of Saul Goodman doesn't mean Slippin' Jimmy won.

[Captain I0]

Is the show playing it up a bit w/r/t Jimmy's having an office in a nail salon?  I thought it was funny, but seriously where Jimmy's at.

 

 

Well, I mean, I don't know what the rental market looks like In New Mexico, but he can't be paying more than a few hundred a month for that and that is is place of residence as well as his office. My point is that the show is playing it up because if Jimmy was really a public defender he should be able to afford better living conditions than we are shown. Yeah, he's not rolling in it, but he's not flippin' burgers either.

 

The overall median salary for entry level public defenders is $42,000 to $45,000. My point is that given what we are shown, I think it's somewhat accurate that Jimmy is trying to take shortcuts here. He's just taking PD cases to make ends meet while he tries to hustle his way to being a "big time" lawyer like Chuck. If he wanted to, he could live comfortably as a Public Defender...lots of people do. But a lot of people in this thread have stated that he was only doing these scams and schemes because he's "desperate". My point is that there's no reason for him to be desperate as a public defender. He's not (shouldn't be) in poverty. The show appears to be playing that up a bit by putting him in living conditions that look impoverished.

[editorgrrl]

To bring the discussion back to this episode, "Pimento," Mike made an important speech about "good guys" and "bad guys":

I've known good criminals and bad cops, bad priests, honorable thieves. You can be on one side of the law or the other, but if you make a deal with somebody, you keep your word. You can go home today with your money and never do this again. But you took something that wasn't yours, and you sold it for a profit. You're now a criminal. Good one, bad one? That's up to you.

 

I like to think that in Mike's estimation, Jimmy's a good guy. But there's really no way to know for certain one way or the other—it's entirely a matter of perception. One could argue that since Mike's working with Jimmy he must think Jimmy's a good guy. But Mike's working with the veterinarian. The point is, I could find plenty of reasons why my opinion is right, but anyone could find plenty of reasons why my opinion is wrong.

 

What interests me is what Mike thinks about Nacho—and how that might change once he gets to know him better. (And I can't wait 'til Mike meets Tuco!) In this episode, Mike told Pryce what he'd learned thus far about Nacho:

This 1,500, I'll just say you're getting a bargain—I put in a lot of legwork before coming here. Now that fella you just met with, name's Ignacio Varga. He runs with a connected crew of drug dealers. This deal he's doing with you, he's doing outside his crew. He doesn't want his bosses to know, so it was in his best interest that things go very smoothly.

 

So Mike knows Nacho is ambitious, and he knows he's intelligent. But he also knows that Nacho is going behind his bosses' backs. Is that at odds with Mike's moral code? ("If you make a deal with somebody, you keep your word.") And Nacho has a moral code of his own, as we learned in episode 2, "Mijo":

Nacho: I've been thinking about what you said out there in the desert. Those people that you were trying to scam—how much did they steal?

Jimmy: Um, north of a million and a half bucks, I think.

Nacho: So, they have a million and a half bucks somewhere. In what, cash?

Jimmy: I don't… Why are you asking me?

Nacho: I'm gonna rip them off. I like ripping off thieves 'cause they can't go to the cops. They have no recourse. You point me at where they have their cash, I'll pay you a—what do you call it, a finder's fee? Call it 10%, 100 large.
Jimmy: Well, uh, why why would you come to me for that? You already tried ripping them off.
Nacho: I'm gonna finish what you started.
Jimmy: I, I wasn't trying to rip them off. I, I just wanted their business.

 

So Nacho thinks it's okay to steal from thieves. (To me, that's more honorable than Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor.) And he thinks Jimmy deserves a finder's fee for bringing those Kettlemans to his attention—just as Howard Hamlin offered Jimmy $20,000 for the Sandpiper Crossing case. 

 

And Jimmy flat-out says he wasn't trying to rip off the Kettlemans. In Jimmy's mind, what he did was prospecting for business. Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

[lucindabelle]

To bring the discussion back to this episode, "Pimento," Mike made an important speech about "good guys" and "bad guys":

 

I like to think that in Mike's estimation, Jimmy's a good guy. But there's really no way to know for certain one way or the other—it's entirely a matter of perception. One could argue that since Mike's working with Jimmy he must think Jimmy's a good guy. But Mike's working with the veterinarian. The point is, I could find plenty of reasons why my opinion is right, but anyone could find plenty of reasons why my opinion is wrong.

 

What interests me is what Mike thinks about Nacho—and how that might change once he gets to know him better. (And I can't wait 'til Mike meets Tuco!) In this episode, Mike told Pryce what he'd learned thus far about Nacho:

 

So Mike knows Nacho is ambitious, and he knows he's intelligent. But he also knows that Nacho is going behind his bosses' backs. Is that at odds with Mike's moral code? ("If you make a deal with somebody, you keep your word.") And Nacho has a moral code of his own, as we learned in episode 2, "Mijo":

 

So Nacho thinks it's okay to steal from thieves. (To me, that's more honorable than Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor.) And he thinks Jimmy deserves a finder's fee for bringing those Kettlemans to his attention—just as Howard Hamlin offered Jimmy $20,000 for the Sandpiper Crossing case. 

 

And Jimmy flat-out says he wasn't trying to rip off the Kettlemans. In Jimmy's mind, what he did was prospecting for business. Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I agree entirely. That was what I meant by one can do something illegal and still be ethical. It's clear enough.

Edited April 2, 2015 by wrestlesflamingos
removed quoted post

[haydensterling]

I just want to point out that Chuck isn't exactly the most reliable narrator himself at this point.  If I'm supposed to believe that he knows without a doubt that Jimmy was, is, and always shall remain Chief Fuckup of Cicero, Illinois; now about to be loosed on a world which is quaking in its boots before the horrible, eeevil nature of James Chimp McGill, then maybe they should have picked a character who didn't need to go outside wearing a protective space blankie to deliver said message. 

 

Kim seems to think Jimmy's an okay guy for as long as she's known him, which means that aside from his obvious hate boner for Hamlin, he's probably been pretty good to the people around him.  I think that Kim's a more reliable judge of character at this point in time than Chuck, IMO.  Is Jimmy going to become Saul?  Unfortunately, yes.  But the character I have been presented with so far is not a bad person with a capital B, he's a low level scammer who got caught and spent a long time trying to do right so that his beloved brother could be proud of him.  

[editorgrrl]

Kim seems to think Jimmy's an okay guy for as long as she's known him, which means that aside from his obvious hate boner for Hamlin, he's probably been pretty good to the people around him.  I think that Kim's a more reliable judge of character at this point in time than Chuck, IMO.

 

Kim really put herself out there this episode: she told Howard Hamlin, "Jimmy's my friend." Up until now, we've seen her do nothing but hide her relationship with Jimmy from her boss. I was touched when Kim told Jimmy about her family whilst he was painting her toenails, but this was a really public display of affection. And she told Jimmy, "I want you to be happy."

 

I hope that when Jimmy reached for his phone after Kim left, he was going to call her and apologize for the crappy things he said:

Kim: Taking the deal really is the best thing for you. You'll find yourself a proper office—your office. You'll build your practice. You'll leave Hamlin and HHM behind, be your own man.

Jimmy: You want me to give up the case? My case?

Kim: I want you to be happy. And I know you want to stay with the case, but you'll get all the financial reward without the risk. How can that be bad?

Jimmy: You come here peddling that horseshit on me? God, you? You sure know where your bread is buttered, huh? Don't wanna go up against the boss, that it? You're like a—you're like a damn pod person. What did Hamlin promise you? Please tell me he didn't buy you off cheap. Did he promise you the office I asked for? Or did he just swear never to move you back downstairs? 

[Umbelina]

I want to know more about Chuck and Jimmy's childhood.

 

There is a pretty large difference in ages there.  So there are lots of possibilities.

 

Perhaps, for example, same daddy but different moms.  Chuck gets the "good" mom, and goes off to college while daddy still has the money to pay for prep courses and get him into a great school.  Or his mommy paid for that.  Jimmy gets the "sexy younger mom" and daddy's lost his fortune, maybe because that all belonged to Chuck's mommy, and Chuck's mommy divorced his daddy and took her money with her, because Chuck's daddy fell for a hot young thing (Jimmy's mommy.)

 

Stick with me for a minute, I swear I have a point.

 

So, Chuck's daddy is all hot and bothered for his hot new wife, and they both kind of ignore parenting Jimmy in favor of sexy time, vacations, whatever.  Jimmy doesn't have what Chuck had, including the "good" mommy helping him stay on track with homework.  Chuck DETESTS his "new" mommy, and his mother reinforces what trash Jimmy's mommy (and thus, Jimmy) are.  Maybe new mommy was even preggers when they married!

 

So, Jimmy grows up, idolizing his older brother, getting little or no parenting from his own parents, and never really suspecting how much Chuck hates him, and always, ALWAYS has.

 

So, my point.

Is it possible this isn't the first time Chuck undermined Jimmy trying to become good?  I think it is.  Very.

 

Yes, he bailed him out of jail, but I can easily fan wank that he did that so a conviction wouldn't reflect badly on HIM.  I doubt he ever gave one damn about Jimmy.

[ghoulina]

Kim really put herself out there this episode: she told Howard Hamlin, "Jimmy's my friend." Up until now, we've seen her do nothing but hide her relationship with Jimmy from her boss.

 

Yes, I loved this scene! Kim knew she could be risking a lot by upsetting the head of the firm, but she just wasn't leaving that room until she got answers. She really stood up for her friend, and it was really sad, in turn, to see her let Jimmy get mad at her ("You're a pod person!") because it wasn't her place to tell him about Chuck. 

[lucindabelle]

I just want to point out that Chuck isn't exactly the most reliable narrator himself at this point.  If I'm supposed to believe that he knows without a doubt that Jimmy was, is, and always shall remain Chief Fuckup of Cicero, Illinois; now about to be loosed on a world which is quaking in its boots before the horrible, eeevil nature of James Chimp McGill, then maybe they should have picked a character who didn't need to go outside wearing a protective space blankie to deliver said message. 

 

 

Wow. that is a very, very good point indeed. Chuck certainly knows the law, at least its regulations and numbers, but he's not that good on people or the world.

[shapeshifter]

...Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

This may very well be the theme of the entire series.

[Stratego]

Saul goodman is a great name despite its origins in a joke,,, it does suggest a Jewish lawyer which would not be a bad thing for Chuck with the elders, I'm guessing (I'm Jewish, no disrespect meant).

In BB Saul did explain his name and that he intentionally wanted it to "sound Jewish" because he thought it added creditability. I don't recall anything stated about Jimmy's past or a contraction of "...it's all good, man." Edited April 2, 2015 by Dougal
Trimmed quote to relevant part.

[Constantinople]

Nope, so as so many others have pointed out, Chuck should have been honest with him and sent him to some other agency.  Or helped Jimmy become a better lawyer.  Or given Jimmy the means to go to a real law school.  Or given Jimmy paralegal-type work to help him make his bones and see if had the aptitude and appetite for real legal work.  Any of these would have put Jimmy's fate in Jimmy's hands, and this is far from all the options in the bag.

I agree.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, the University of New Mexico Law School is the only school in New Mexico (or the only accredited one). I presume their admissions process gives preference to longer term New Mexico residents and/or people who expressed an interest in the law, and somewhat less preference to people who recently moved to New Mexico and who work in the mail room of their brother's law firm. But that's why it would have been nice if Chuck looked into getting Jimmy work as a paralegal.

Of course, for Chuck to do that, Jimmy would have to let Chuck know about Jimmy's plans.

But Chuck is still a two-face.

 

What matters isn't where he went to school; what matters is passing the bar. That's why the exam exists and not everyone who graduates from a "real" law school is able to do that...ever.

But there are a number of people who graduate from "real" law schools who do pass the bar, and I suspect HHM is much more likely to hire such a person than someone who attended a correspondence law school

 

 

What school you went to matters if you can even sit for the bar exam in most states.

The ABA doesn't recognize degrees that are 100% distance learning. Most states leave the certification of degrees to the ABA, not sure where New Mexico falls in this.

As it turns out:

 

Every person seeking admission to practice law in New Mexico...shall have the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the board that the applicant...is a graduate with a juris doctor or bachelor of laws and letters degree (at the time of the bar examination for which application is made) of a law school formally accredited by the American Bar Association or is a graduate of any law school who has been engaged in the practice of law in another state or states for at least four (4) of the six (6) years immediately preceding the person's application for admission to practice in New Mexico

PDF: Bar Admission Rules 15-103(B)(2): Board of Bar Examiners, State of New Mexico

[ToastnBacon]

Jimmy is definitely not a simple "good guy". Does such a thing exist in the BB/BCS universe? But he is trying... I think that's the crux of the what the first season is about. Jimmy trying to shake his past to become a respectable lawyer. The question is, why is he doing that? Is it because he wants to be respectable or because he wants Chuck to be proud of him. A lot of it is clearly the latter, which isn't really the most noble reason to be respectable. But it does make Chuck's betrayal so heart breaking on a human level. Odenkirk and the writers have done such a good job of making us empathize with Jimmy, the vitriolic reactions to Chuck aren't that surprising. Beyond the empathy, I think there's both good and bad to Chuck an Jimmy, but we've been set up to respond to Jimmy's situation. The series seems to be setting up a tug of war between Slippin' Jimmy and the good hearted guy who sacrificed his personal well being to help Kim, and was doing everything he could to help Chuck. I hope the emergence of Saul Goodman doesn't mean Slippin' Jimmy won.

Well said!

I like the tug-of-war analogy a lot and I don't view the Slippin Jimmy/Saul persona as one that is cold hearted.

Reckless and having no qualms about breaking the law, sure, but not cold hearted.

We also know that Slippin Jimmy can never make it as a lawyer in the long run due to his loose ethics.

Even if we view him from the "BCS only" universe, the first few minutes of episode one shows us a failed and broken Jimmy hiding out in Omaha.

It appears that Saul knew the day would come when he had to call the vacuum cleaner repairman to help him skip town. Saul keeps that number on speed dial.

Your take on the vitriolic reactions to Chuck is pretty good too. I'm having a much harder time understanding those who are completely dismissive of Chuck's legitimate concerns of Jimmy being a lawyer.

Chuck is right to keep Jimmy out of HHM, even if he went about it in the wrong way.

I can understand what leads to the Slippin Jimmy winning to tug-of-war, and the emergence of Saul.

However, I can't place all the blame on Chuck.

[ShadowFacts]

 

Your take on the vitriolic reactions to Chuck is pretty good too. I'm having a much harder time understanding those who are completely dismissive of Chuck's legitimate concerns of Jimmy being a lawyer.

 

I don't dismiss that Chuck had mixed motivations.  Jimmy is a lawyer, he's a sworn-in member of the bar.  Chuck doesn't like Jimmy's "easy" route (which was far from easy), and is jealous.  He finally said so. Jimmy is not a real lawyer (but he is).  If he only cared about protecting the public at large or the firm's reputation or his own, he would have been direct.  He hid behind his partner for years because of his own craven nature. He began to crumble 2 years ago probably because of guilt. 

 

It's getting a little circular so I'll let it go from here on in, but to me there's no difficulty in understanding how people can view characters and their actions through their own prisms and reasoning processes.  It's not a one-size-fits-all world.

 

On a different note, I wonder if Pryce will be his first drug-related client.  That guy is probably not going to take the hint from Mike and go home never to sin again.  Or will Nacho do something to Pryce that lands him in need of Jimmy's help? 

[Irlandesa]

So Nacho thinks it's okay to steal from thieves. (To me, that's more honorable than Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor.) And he thinks Jimmy deserves a finder's fee for bringing those Kettlemans to his attention—just as Howard Hamlin offered Jimmy $20,000 for the Sandpiper Crossing case.

I don't think Nacho's choice to steal from thieves is about "honor" but rather practicality.  It's smarter to steal from thieves because thieves can't call the cops.  It was exactly the reason Jimmy laughed at Betsy when she threatened to call the police after he told her the money was gone.

 

Nacho is definitely no Tuco. Even working with Pryce is a smart decision.  It is way outside of the people he usually runs with so he's less likely to be caught by Tuco.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Irlandesa

[ToastnBacon]

Well, I mean, I don't know what the rental market looks like In New Mexico, but he can't be paying more than a few hundred a month for that and that is is place of residence as well as his office. My point is that the show is playing it up because if Jimmy was really a public defender he should be able to afford better living conditions than we are shown. Yeah, he's not rolling in it, but he's not flippin' burgers either.

 

The overall median salary for entry level public defenders is $42,000 to $45,000. My point is that given what we are shown, I think it's somewhat accurate that Jimmy is trying to take shortcuts here. He's just taking PD cases to make ends meet while he tries to hustle his way to being a "big time" lawyer like Chuck. If he wanted to, he could live comfortably as a Public Defender...lots of people do. But a lot of people in this thread have stated that he was only doing these scams and schemes because he's "desperate". My point is that there's no reason for him to be desperate as a public defender. He's not (shouldn't be) in poverty. The show appears to be playing that up a bit by putting him in living conditions that look impoverished.

I don't see Jimmy's situation as desparate either. As a matter of fact, I took the reason he was driving a crap car and living in the back of a nail salon as him intentionally sacrificing better living conditions so he can save money to launch his practice.

Plus, I get the feeling from what we see in BCS and BB that he enjoys a friendship with the Vietnamese ladies in the nail shop.

His crap car and nail shop office/living quarters aren't a justification to start breaking the law and pulling his Slippin Jimmy stunts.

Not by a long shot.

If anything, it points to Jimmy becoming impatient with making a sacrifice during the early years of his practice and seeking a shortcut.

That was yet another thing that Chuck was right about, Slippin Jimmy always takes the shortcut.

[lucindabelle]

In BB Saul did explain his name and that he intentionally wanted it to "sound Jewish" because he thought it added creditability. I don't recall anything stated about Jimmy's past or a contraction of "...it's all good, man."

That's interesting-- it was shown on this series... but I honestly find the idea of it being chosen as a strategy a little more plausible. I guess it's a bit of both?

 

I don't think ends ever justify the means (well, possibly in a  VERY extreme situation, like assassinating a genocidal tyrant). So Chuck preemptively disallowing Jimmy from getting what he is due-- a seat at the table--- is inexcusable. Even if he's right about how Jimmy turns out, that doesn't excuse Chuck. 

 

Sometimes people behave horribly, break up someone else's relationship, or fire someone, and... it turns out for the best. But that does NOT let that person off the hook. Chuck may be right, though I don't see it if anything I see a self-fulfilling prophecy, and confirmation bias, based in fear. Does anyone think if the tables were turned Chuck would be humoring Jimy's phobia and bringing him ice and bacon?)-- but evenif Chuck is right, it doesn't mean his behavior is in any way shape or form right.

Edited April 3, 2015 by lucindabelle