S05.E12: Live to Fight

[yeswedo]

Mike and Louis must identify an anonymous tipster in order to diffuse a damning piece of evidence. Gibbs isn't just after Mike, she's set her sights on Jessica and Harvey as well.

[Chicago Redshirt]

Running thoughts as I watch:

 

I guess the re-appearance of Jessica's ex in the previouslies means he's the prosecutor's source.

 

Little Donna looks nothing at all like grown-up daughter.

 

Daddy Donna also does not seem like he could be Donna's dad.

 

Man, it's convenient that just about everybody has a relative who can be used as a pressure point....

 

Yay! Gretchen! Putting Louis on blast!

 

Subpoenaing everything a firm the size of PSL would be an extraordinary overreach. It would be any easy thing to just subpoena all of Mike's e-mail, Mike's employment records, and all of Mike's cases and work up the chain from there.

 

It's probably not as simple as Henry Gerard. Sheila Szaz??

 

Darn it's not Jessica's ex. 

 

Trying to get your ex to represent you is probably not the best idea Jessica had. Jeff is wrong, I believe. Anything Jessica tells him in seeking for him to potentially be her attorney would be covered by attorney-client privilege. 

 

It is Sheila!

 

New rule: the show should stay the heck away from flashbacks. It just doesn't do well.

 

"It's a sleight of hand, nothing more:" not the way to get your daughter, or anyone, to invest in your business.

 

I would never do anything to hurt my daughter...except to try to get her to sign on to my shady real estate dealings.

 

I hate the kick-Louis-while-he's-down thing the show loves so much.

 

Again, if GIbbs had an ounce of smarts, she would have subpoenaed any Harvard records pertaining to Mike Ross, and it would become clear that there's not any beyond the ones that were hacked into existence, and that those only came into being after.

 

I'm not sure what form "taking back the e-mail" would entail, especially since it was sent anonymously.

 

God, they're going to have Gerard do the takesy-backsies, aren't they? 

 

Even if Mike got Gerard to sign the affidavit, it's not like they couldn't go to every other teacher on his fake transcript and confirm that Mike never was their student. Or the Order of the Coif to confirm that he wasn't ever a member. Or the extracurriculars....you get the point.

 

Remember when Mike liked to keep the high ground? Now he's threatening people with jail.

 

Yelling..shouting..yelling...not great

 

"Don't ask a question you don't know the answer to" only makes sense if you can't get the answer.

 

Gibbs doesn't have the power to drop charges against someone she's not prosecuting. Also, there's no reason she shouldn't call Harvey's bluff. I just can't deal with Gibbs stooping to all these evil, pressure tactics when easily accessible, conventional methods would easily show Mike to be the fraud he is.

 

Jeff, you coulda put your big boy pants on and resume your relationship with Jessica if you wanted. Don't blame Mike.

 

Oh geez. The time to hit on Jessica is not now.

 

Goddamnit...they are trying to blame Gretchen for all this too?

 

How can you believe you can get out of being a fraud, Mike, when that's exactly what you are and there's ample evidence to prove it?

[ElleryAnne]

Did I miss something, or did they really say that they arrested Mike based on an anonymous email?  I feel like there must have been more of a basis than that.

[FormerMod-a1]

I think Donna is now my least favorite character.  Can she ever not be either smug or sad eyes/hurt?

 

"Our guys" keep saying it's about Mike's fraud, but everything seems to be about getting him and others to turn on Harvey.  Are we so sure it's really about Mike?

[holly4755]

I'm with you, there is something personal going on here. 

I never understood why they just did not have Mike quietly take the bar before he did any real lawyerly work, does it matter if you are a researcher? So he didn't go to Harvard, no biggie as long as he took the bar. 

[Reishe]

As I recall, the original conceit was that Harvey's firm (whatever the name was back then) only hired Harvard grads, it was their "thing." Which, if you thought about it in real life, sounds like a weakness to me. Yes, it's prestigious, but if you draw all of your people from the same school, the same professors, the same connections... you get a lack of diversity in a way of thinking. If I were choosing a law firm, I'd want a little variety in perspectives to make sure I was getting the best evaluation of my situation.

 

In NY, according to Slate.com, you need at least one year of law school, which may be combined with law office study (a specific type of apprenticeship, with a mentor and structured studies) for a total of four years, to qualify to take the bar exam.

 

As has been discussed here before, it would have made the most sense in real life to take Mike on as a researcher or really any type of in-house consultant, just don't let him represent a client before a judge. But the show set it up that Harvey and Mike committed a crime the second they first represented Mike as a lawyer, and everyone who discovered/was told the truth became an accomplice the second they knew.

[mascan42]

Did the ending of that episode strike anybody else as really clunky? In the space of 5 minutes, we had three scenes of people telling someone else the same big news.

 

Scene 1: Prosecutor barges in & tells Harvey that Sheila came forward.

Scene 2: Donna barges in & tells Louis that Sheila came forward.

Scene 3: Harvey barges in & tells Mike that Sheila came forward.

 

And the last one is presented as if it's some sort of big shock ending.  WTF was that?

 

[Chicago Redshirt]

Part of taking the bar is a character fitness qualification in which candidates are supposed to answer truthfully about all sorts of questions about their background.

 

Even putting aside a number of other red flags (he dealt drugs, he used drugs, he got expelled from college and never finished his undergraduate degree, he scammed LSATs a number of times) that would come up if he answered honestly, stating that he graduated from Harvard when he really didn't, or even owning up to the truth that he pretended to have graduated from Harvard would leave Mike in hot water. Lying on his character fitness and getting caught would presumably result in his being found unfit.

 

I think the show finessed this by having Hacker Girl enter passing results for the bar.

 

IRL the folks who run the bar also do a background check on your debts and your residences, which would have shown that Mike always lived in New York and was not living in Boston during the time he claimed to be at Harvard.

 

"Our guys" keep saying it's about Mike's fraud, but everything seems to be about getting him and others to turn on Harvey.  Are we so sure it's really about Mike?

 

I think most of the characters have said it's about going after Jessica and Harvey. Big Daddy Zane told Mike that the prosecutor wasn't really interested in Mike because he was a little fish. Gibbs tried to get Donna to turn on Harvey, and tried to get Harvey to turn on Jessica.

 

As I recall, the original conceit was that Harvey's firm (whatever the name was back then) only hired Harvard grads, it was their "thing." Which, if you thought about it in real life, sounds like a weakness to me. Yes, it's prestigious, but if you draw all of your people from the same school, the same professors, the same connections... you get a lack of diversity in a way of thinking. If I were choosing a law firm, I'd want a little variety in perspectives to make sure I was getting the best evaluation of my situation.

I'd say that law school bills itself as trying to get people to conform to a certain way of thinking, whether it's Harvard or Barely-accredited University. If I had a dollar for every time the phrase "think like a lawyer" was used by a professor or faculty member, I'd probably have enough to pay off my student loans.

 

I also suspect that even conceding that different perspectives on the law were desirable and more obtainable by getting people from different schools, it would be more than made-up for by the prestige and reputation of Harvard. Of course there are brilliant, driven people who go to even third- and fourth-tier law schools.

 

But having the Harvard degree being shorthand for that makes things easier, even if there are also obviously some people who go to the Harvards of the world and are not particularly good at real-world law. (The show tried to establish Harold as one such character. I miss when the show had background recurring characters like him.)

[Crs97]

I am glad they are finally addressing the elephant in the room, but now that they are it's just emphasizing how weak the premise is and always has been.  I'm listening to people fight and argue and point fingers about who told and how to get them to take it back and how to save Mike and the firm, and all I can think about is that Mike is still a fraud.  No matter whether they win, the damage is done to all their reputations and what does "winning" mean at this point, anyway?  Mayve no one goes to jail, but Mike is still practicing law without a license.  And please tell us we are going to get more motivation from the prosecutor.  I need this to be some sort of "We got Capone on tax evasion" case because otherwise I don't know how she sees this as a career-making case.  

 

Edited to add that I also think it is strange that Sheila sent the email to a prosecutor.  I would have approached the state bar.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Crs97

[FineWashables]

 

Again, if GIbbs had an ounce of smarts, she would have subpoenaed any Harvard records pertaining to Mike Ross, and it would become clear that there's not any beyond the ones that were hacked into existence, and that those only came into being after.

Right??

 

They can't find a way out of this situation because the premise is, and always has been, ridiculous.  I really enjoy the show, don't get me wrong, it's a lot of fun, but I don't try to figure out how they're going to solve their legal issues because the whole idea is batshit in the first place, leading to improbable solutions. 

 

Mike's appeal was always that he's a "real" guy in a shark tank.  Now, not so much.  Been a while since we saw him ride his bike to work, no?  He's going douchebag.

[Tarasme]

So sad that most of the episode last night was "*You*!!! Did this!!!!"

 

I still find it incomprehensible that not one of them came up with an exit strategy beyond affidavits confirming knowledge or being complicit or whatever. Maybe that was the hubris of this charade to begin with?

 

Ah Gretchen. A bright spot in this lousy mess.

 

I'm trying to understand why the team is making the decisions that it is. I can only believe that panic and desperation would have driven Louis to confront Sheila in that manner. No way anything positive could have resulted from that encounter. Same with Rachel's confrontation of Donna in the bathroom- after everything, Rachel's got some brass 'nads to, however cryptically, suggest Donna inform on Harvey.  

 

Chicago Redshirt- wouldn't it be a conflict for Harvey to represent Daddy Paulsen?

[vibeology]

Right??

 

They can't find a way out of this situation because the premise is, and always has been, ridiculous.  I really enjoy the show, don't get me wrong, it's a lot of fun, but I don't try to figure out how they're going to solve their legal issues because the whole idea is batshit in the first place, leading to improbable solutions. 

 

Mike's appeal was always that he's a "real" guy in a shark tank.  Now, not so much.  Been a while since we saw him ride his bike to work, no?  He's going douchebag.

 

This is where the whole plot is a problem. I am not a prosecutor, but I can think of ten ways to prove Mike isn't an actual lawyer.

 

I get his name shows on the New York Bar list, but don't you have to write a paper test? Wasn't that what he was doing illegally for all his customers for years? Where's the one with his name on it?

 

If you actually go to Harvard, don't you need to live somewhere? Where are housing records showing he was in Boston at the right time? How about banking records showing he took cash out of Boston ATMs?

 

School isn't cheap and Mike isn't rich. How did he pay for Harvard? Show that money trail. That it doesn't exist is a huge red flag.

 

If you go to class, eventually you hand work in. If one prof on his fake transcript still has assignments/exams/etc and his work isn't there, why not? How many times can something not be there before its not just an issue of something getting lost?

 

Tracking down the Dean who expelled Mike all those years ago shouldn't be all that hard. How do you get into Harvard without an undergrad?

 

Why doesn't Sheila know who this guy is? She meets with and places every graduating lawyer and keeps meticulous records. Where are the ones about Mike?

 

What about his real employment records during those years he was a bike messenger? That was a legit company dealing with law firms and their documents. They'd keep records of who worked for them and issue tax slips. If Mike's tax history shows work in New York, how does that line up?

 

This is so ridiculous and I was willing to go with it last week when Mike was at least feeling guilty, but now that he's got his smarm back I'm less forgiving. I find it hard to imagine the Prosecutor can lose. If she does, she'll be the most useless lawyer ever on this show. If the judge was willing to take Sheila suspicion as enough proof to issue a subpoena for every PSL document ever (seems like a huge overreach to me, but I, like Mike, am not a lawyer), surely its enough to go though Mike's personal records.

 

The very best thing Mike could do is confess, admit he lied to everyone he knows; Harvey, Mike, Jessica etc and take the fall on his own. They can prove Mike is a fraud, but without something more it gets so much harder to prove anyone but him knew.

Edited February 4, 2016 by vibeology

[Chicago Redshirt]

And please tell us we are going to get more motivation from the prosecutor.  I need this to be some sort of "We got Capone on tax evasion" case because otherwise I don't know how she sees this as a career-making case.  

 

Edited to add that I also think it is strange that Sheila sent the email to a prosecutor.  I would have approached the state bar.

 

If you were able to take lawyers of the rep of Jessica and Harvey down, it is a career-making case. And while Gibbs doesn't even have a smoking gun against Mike yet, it defies reason that the sharkiest sharks to ever shark did not figure out that Mike was not a lawyer.

 

While one would think that the state bar would be the place to lodge a complaint, I guess one could fanwank that Sheila might have wanted Mike criminally prosecuted rather than investigated by the state bar (or for that matter, in addition to...maybe Sheila sent letters to both)

 

I'm trying to understand why the team is making the decisions that it is. I can only believe that panic and desperation would have driven Louis to confront Sheila in that manner. No way anything positive could have resulted from that encounter. Same with Rachel's confrontation of Donna in the bathroom- after everything, Rachel's got some brass 'nads to, however cryptically, suggest Donna inform on Harvey.  

 

Chicago Redshirt- wouldn't it be a conflict for Harvey to represent Daddy Paulsen?

 

IMO there would be multiple levels of actual conflict -- 1) Harvey has a personal relationship with Daddy Paulsen's daughter. 2) Harvey has personal knowledge of Daddy Paulsen's alleged fraud predating the attorney-client relationship to the point where he could have been forced to testify 3) Harvey has knowledge (or at least a strong belief) that Daddy Paulsen is being prosecuted because of something another client of his (and Harvey himself) are believed to have done.

 

A client could hypothetically waive any of these conflicts, but it seems to me like Daddy Paulsen would be way better off with some other attorney.

 

I get his name shows on the New York Bar list, but don't you have to write a paper test? Wasn't that what he was doing illegally for all his customers for years? Where's the one with his name on it?

...

I find it hard to imagine the Prosecutor can lose. If she does, she'll be the most useless lawyer ever on this show. If the judge was willing to take Sheila suspicion as enough proof to issue a subpoena for every PSL document ever (seems like a huge overreach to me, but I, like Mike, am not a lawyer), surely its enough to go though Mike's personal records.

 

The very best thing Mike could do is confess, admit he lied to everyone he knows; Harvey, Mike, Jessica etc and take the fall on his own. They can prove Mike is a fraud, but without something more it gets so much harder to prove anyone but him knew.

 

I obviously agree that proving Mike is a fraud should be simple.

 

I assume the bar works similarly in most jurisdictions these days -- you submit test answers electronically, so hypothetically the hacker could have created a computer record of the test. Or Mike could have taken the test part of the Bar himself. He's a smart guy and with his photographic memory, he should easily be able to get a passing grade. 

 

IIRC, Mike only took LSATs (the law school entrance exam) for people. But yeah, asking for his actual LSAT score from 7ish years ago would show it doesn't exist.

 

There's no question that every PSL document ever is an overreach. That literally has got to be millions of pages of documents, the overwhelming majority of which Mike has no involvement in. I don't even know why the prosecutor would want all those documents if a judge were crazy enough to let her take them rather than targeted document requests such as a) Mike's HR records b) Mike's correspondence with everyone at the firm c) any correspondence about Mike Ross by anybody at the firm d) all the records for cases where Mike was an attorney of record or even assisted. 

 

The trouble with Mike falling on his sword is that it is not enough. The prosecutor suspects, and reasonably so, that Mike didn't just bamboozle Harvey and Jessica into thinking that he was a lawyer for 4-5 years. As I've ranted elsewhere, the notion that someone could pretend to be a Harvard Law grad would be a stretch, but especially so at a firm like Jessica's where every single person in a class of 10+ new associates a year were Harvard Law grads. That means there would be 50 or so people who would have overlapped with Mike's supposed time at Harvard Law who didn't know him, who didn't know anyone he knew him, etc. etc. 

 

They had to know. And since Gibbs' real targets are Jessica and Harvey, she won't stop until she proves it.

Even if she somehow fails, I agree with the poster who said "What's a win look like here?" Even if they avoid any of the three of them going to jail or getting disbarred, it seems like their individual reps are tarnished beyond repair.

 

Even if they get great results, this is like the 5th or 6th time in recent years that one of the inner circle of this firm was facing criminal charges or major ethical violation charges, right? Hardman embezzled. Because of Harvey's misconduct, every partner at the firm had to cough up a million dollars. The firm was heavily investigated by the SEC a little bit ago. Stephen from the Darby side of things was convicted of murder or conspiracy or some such. And now this?

 

If I were a client, I think I could find a group of lawyers who weren't always under investigation or who didn't have quadrillionaires who wanted to f--- with my legal representation just because they were bored.

[mommalib]

This is where the whole plot is a problem. I am not a prosecutor, but I can think of ten ways to prove Mike isn't an actual lawyer.

 

I get his name shows on the New York Bar list, but don't you have to write a paper test? Wasn't that what he was doing illegally for all his customers for years? Where's the one with his name on it?

 

If you actually go to Harvard, don't you need to live somewhere? Where are housing records showing he was in Boston at the right time? How about banking records showing he took cash out of Boston ATMs?

 

School isn't cheap and Mike isn't rich. How did he pay for Harvard? Show that money trail. That it doesn't exist is a huge red flag.

 

If you go to class, eventually you hand work in. If one prof on his fake transcript still has assignments/exams/etc and his work isn't there, why not? How many times can something not be there before its not just an issue of something getting lost?

 

Tracking down the Dean who expelled Mike all those years ago shouldn't be all that hard. How do you get into Harvard without an undergrad?

 

Why doesn't Sheila know who this guy is? She meets with and places every graduating lawyer and keeps meticulous records. Where are the ones about Mike?

 

What about his real employment records during those years he was a bike messenger? That was a legit company dealing with law firms and their documents. They'd keep records of who worked for them and issue tax slips. If Mike's tax history shows work in New York, how does that line up?

 

This is so ridiculous and I was willing to go with it last week when Mike was at least feeling guilty, but now that he's got his smarm back I'm less forgiving. I find it hard to imagine the Prosecutor can lose. If she does, she'll be the most useless lawyer ever on this show. If the judge was willing to take Sheila suspicion as enough proof to issue a subpoena for every PSL document ever (seems like a huge overreach to me, but I, like Mike, am not a lawyer), surely its enough to go though Mike's personal records.

 

The very best thing Mike could do is confess, admit he lied to everyone he knows; Harvey, Mike, Jessica etc and take the fall on his own. They can prove Mike is a fraud, but without something more it gets so much harder to prove anyone but him knew.

What are you talking about? Mike spent the whole episode feeling guilty and willing to sacrifice himself.

[vibeology]

No this week Mike tried to get that Law Professor to lie for him. The fact that the professor didn't was not because Mike didn't try. And he played hardball with Jessica over the letters because he hasn't put Jessica and her firm at enough risk. Those aren't the actions of someone who gets that they've done wrong.

[chitowngirl]

While the premise of the show was always goofy, it lost something when the secret became known outside the Mike/Harvey/Donna circle and when Mike's grandmother died. She centered him.

[Cranston]

The entire premise of this show, the whole bloody Mike is/isn't really an attorney, who knew and who didn't know blah blah blah...is ridiculous.  Damned if I know why I watch it.  They added a few new side plots this week, trying to make us believe there was anything worth hanging on to.  There isn't.  I can't imagine how they will end this series.  Mike is blatantly, obviously guilty as hell.  Harvey and Jessica and everybody else who knew he was a fake are also blatantly, obviously guilty as hell.  How on earth can they end the show without most of them being found guilty and going to jail?  Well, Harvey is really attractive and Jessica has fabulous clothes...that must be why I still watch. 

[Happytobehere]

No this week Mike tried to get that Law Professor to lie for him. The fact that the professor didn't was not because Mike didn't try. And he played hardball with Jessica over the letters because he hasn't put Jessica and her firm at enough risk. Those aren't the actions of someone who gets that they've done wrong.

This is the root problem of the show -- !ike is arrogant and entitled and he acts as if he is owed something by the world. Add Donna and her never-ending smugness (did anyone care to know about Donna and her riches to rags, I guess this was done to show why she is the nightmare she is), and you get a show that has run its course.

I think I'm out, the thought of a Rachel-centered episode is beyond something I can deal with.

[33kaitykaity]

Mike is just not worth the drama, the various Byzantine plot devices, the lengths and ends and investments that everyone is going to and making to save him. They must end this, send Mike away to jail and Rachel away to "wait" for him and find something else for Harvey/Jessica/Louis to do, like bring back a Michelle Fairley type of character/story, someone intense and vital and complicated.  That stuff worked for me.  This?  Yawn.  

[Cthulhudrew]

As good as the prior episode was, this episode did a lot of backsliding into the reasons I have been so frustrated with Suits for a long time now. Making up reasons for the characters to just have bitch fest scenes with one another in lieu of real sincere interactions. At the same time, though, there were a lot of really good scenes- Mike and Jeff's scene, where it came out that Mike's secret was the reason Jessica called things off was one particular highlight for me. In fact, I think Patrick Adams has done a pretty good job of demonstrating just how the weight of what he's been a part of- and how it affects everyone around him- has been sinking in with Mike. I kind of hope this is the final season for the show, because I'm not sure- even if they get Mike out of this- how they can have his character go back to "business as usual" after this.

[needschocolate]

There was so much threatening, paranoia, and accusations going on this episode that I think we have finally had everyone threaten to turn against them and have had everyone accuse everyone else of wanting to turn on the group - unfortunately, the accusing was all one on one, so it took up most of the episode.  There seemed to be a pattern - put two characters in the same room, have character A tell character B "You are going to go to Gibbs, aren't you?" then B says, "No I wasn't, but I think you are considering it! How dare you!"  Then have two other characters play A and B, until everyone has accused everyone.  

 

Then they added in the threats - "I don't want to hurt the people I care about, which proves that I, despite committing fraud and putting all the people I care about into a situation that can hurt them, must be a wonderful person, and if you don't perjure yourself to help me, then I will accuse you of something and get you into trouble."

 

This whole episode was threats and accusations - we aren't any closer to a resolution than when we started - perhaps we are even farther away.  I want this story line gone and go back to having real cases, but I don't see how that could ever happen.  

[l star]

This episode left me repeatedly thinking 'really? You really thought that would go over well?' What the hell did Harvey expect Donna's reaction to be? I can't imagine anyone being happy that their boss/friend/whatever the hell they are went behind their back to threaten their father into not letting them help him. I don't carry how obviously skeezy Donna's father is, he's her father. You combine Donna's apparent blind spot to her father, her expectation that Harvey would just give the money because she asked him to, Harvey's inability to stay out of anything when it involves Donna, and his idiotic view that he could somehow get out of telling her, and they were just feeding Gibbs the extra drama.

 

Second example- Rachel honestly thought that even vaguely hinting about Mike turning on Harvey would go over well with Donna. I feel like Donna has already figured it out but Rachel seems to have no comprehension of the fact that they can easily into opposing sides. They are all in this together but if push comes to shove, it's Rachel/Mike and Donna/Harvey. Sometimes that sweetness can be sympathetic for a character whose world is in crisis but here it was just annoying and tone deaf.

 

No one seems to recognize that Mike feels guilty, both emotionally and legally. Plus he's scared and trapped. He still has enough fight and survival instinct in him to be a dick to get what he wants out of the professor but everyone seems oblivious to how much he's really wavering. Then again if he isn't willing to cover his own ass, how is he going to help them cover theirs. Or make it all better by tossing it all off in Harvey's lap. Rachel's an idiot if she thinks him turning on Harvey is anything more than a fantasy. He's too arrogant and devoted for that. She needs to lay down the law about his paranoia though. His behavior with her these last two eps is concerning.

 

I will give Gibbs credit for zeroing in so quickly and intently on Harvey's weak point. I know she's going to switch to hitting at Mike next week with Rachel but if she's smart, she'll come right back to Donna. There are limits to how much she can leverage Mike but Harvey's a much bigger fish.

 

I didn't have a clue who Sheila was so I don't have any comment there other than it's nice to see that Louis had a big love once. I hate that they had Gretchen recognize the racket going on and tell Louis she was on his team. I see no need for that to have been articulated. I think most people who had already survived Harvey would have kept their head down and tried to stay out of the line of fire. Jessica's boyfriend needs to disappear. He's pretty enough for her but that's the only thing. I wish Mike had told him that it really wasn't his fault that Jessica lied to him, ending their relationship. His loss in that equation is on him.

[Roseanna]

On ‎8‎.‎2‎.‎2016 at 8:25 AM, l star said:

I wish Mike had told him that it really wasn't his fault that Jessica lied to him, ending their relationship. His loss in that equation is on him.

Yes, it was ridicilous from Malone to claim that his relationship with Jessica ended because she kept a secret from him. In the normal circumstances, you have no right to know about professional matters of your spouse or significant other. Telling about Mike wouldn't only have endangered Mike (when more people know, there is more possilility to be revealed) but made Malone a member of fraud and cospiracy.