S05.E16: 25th Hour

[yeswedo]

As Mike’s day of reckoning draws near, it threatens to shatter the lives of those closest to him. Faced with the uncertain outcome of his knockdown, drag-out court battle, Mike makes the one play he has left. Meanwhile, he and Rachel must make a huge decision about their future together. Louis battles an old friend to protect the firm from an outside threat, while Jessica fights to keep the firm intact from within. And Harvey and Donna come up with one last long shot move that could save Mike but at great cost to Pearson Specter Litt.

[Jediknight]

They had to know that everybody would jump ship.  It's a firm that's in massive legal trouble, they had to know that nobody was sticking around and would bolt to another firm.  Those people who jumped better not be portrayed as evil backstabbers next season.

 

Who else thought that Rachel would reveal that she's pregnant?

 

I loved Robert tearing into Jessica for not telling him.

[jette]

Annnnd, the crackerjack lawyer who's "never lost a case" and his fraud sidekick make yet another mistake - but tune in next summer to see how they once again wriggle out of it!

 

Why couldn't they just get a mistrial based on Gibbs' breaking the restraining order which forbid her from contacting Louis?

 

Gee, everyone sure packed up and moved out quickly...even the IT guy?

[Chicago Redshirt]

At the end of the day, I'm a little softy. All they have to do to make me happy is throw some of the chemistry between the actors that drew me in originally, and I'll just look the other way about a lot of the B.S.

 

The Shawshank Redemption quote. The scenes with Katrina. Rachel in lingerie. Harvey and Mike at the prison. The fab clothes on polint...all that went a long way to make me feel like old-school "Suits."  (Although, did Harvey and Donna do their ritual?)

 

Heck, even a scene where it seemed like no one was at cross-purposes or keeping secrets. It's probably the first episode this season that I wanted to see twice.

 

That doesn't mean that I'm not going to nitpick, of course, cause there's of course plenty to do in that regard. They glossed over that with a quickness.

 

Seems like if you accept that Mike isn't a lawyer, then there's a huge problem with negotiating a plea deal without a real attorney of his present.

 

I'm glad that Mike and Rachel didn't get married. They have never been on the same page or really trusted each other. Him not even talking his plea through with her is just the latest example of that.

 

The "non-compete is null and void if a name partner commits a crime" thing doesn't make much sense -- I'm not sure what the one thing has to do with the other. Also why didn't this come up with Hardman's embezzlement?

 

I love Big Daddy Zane and I hope he continues to be a recurring character.Big Mommy Zane isn't half-bad herself.

 

I do kinda wish that the Katrina actress can do cameos despite starring in 12 Monkeys.

 

I do wish that Mike showed more remorse about all of this. The notion that he would have done it all over again is pretty repulsive.

 

It's pretty crazy that this trial took two weeks. 

 

Harvey needs to learn and appreciate the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." The foreman told him that everyone knew that Mike didn't go to law school, but the prosecutor didn't prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt. Which of course, I don't understand. Because if everyone knew he didn't go to law school seems like she did prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt. But maybe if she had spent less time on random schemes, Gibbs would have won straight up.

 

I hope we get to revisit Jimmy, who Mike exposed as a perjurer by pleading guilty.

 

I do like the retcon that basically Mike fooled NO ONE into thinking he actually was a Harvard grad...not Harold. Not Jimmy. Not Gretchen. Not mom of wrongly convicted guy. Pretty much no one. Speaking of mom of wrongly convicted guy, i wanted to throw up in my mouth a little when she was talking about how Mike was innocent in his heart. Um...not so much.

 

I do wish after all they'd been through, the characters would not lie to each other for artificial drama. 

 

Bye Sokoloff! Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you!

 

Even if Mike was going to be found guilty, there was no guarantee that the judge would sentence Mike to 7 years or even 2. A person with no prior criminal record with his capacity to make amends and be a contributing member of society? It's possible the judge would have sentenced him to mere probation.

 

I don't see how letting Donna be prosecuted would have led to PSL having the ability to let Liberty Rail be tried for "murder."

 

Rachel's real issue with character and fitness wouldn't be marrying a fraud. It would be that she knew about his fraud and helped him carry it out. Which is the thing -- even though Gibbs decided to not prosecute anyone else, that doesn't stop the bar from doing its investigation as to what Jessica, Harvey and Louis knew and when they knew it.

 

The season would have been much better if Gibbs had been more like this episode throughout rather than a mwa-ha-ha villain for the season.

 

I could have done without the fight between Harvey and Mike. It would be nice if Mike had some core character, some inherent sense of right and wrong. But nope.

 

I do have to wonder: is Forstman wondering why Harvey didn't quit?

 

Yeah, even with the PSL ship sinking, I can't buy that within 3 days the entire office would stop going to work. It would take time, at least, to arrange lifeboats, to rack up clients, nail down job offers, etc. 

 

Seems like even with an impromptu wedding, there would have to be more people than just the main characters and the Zanes who would want to attend. 

 

I do look forward to the notion of the reinvented Suits -- Mike spending his time behind bars getting an actual law degree, the new PSL focused on not being a soulless corporate firm with, let's go with hundreds of attorneys, fighting to make the rich even richer, but actually sticking it to the man. At least that's my hope.

[PepperMonkey]

Chi Redshirt, I am definitely on the same page with you regarding Harvey screeing out over and over about Mike being found "innocent" vs the fact that they jury was going to find him not guilty. Harvey acts like such a fifteen year old sometimes.

 

I guess Mike CAN get a law degree while he's in prison, but he'll never practice law. He pled guilty and he practiced law without a license so I can't see him EVER being able to pass the bar. Also, I don't think felons can practice law. He can stay in prison though, by choice, because you know, I'd like that, and he can practice jailhouse law the rest of his life. I could watch the rest of the cast and might even be able to tolerate Rachel without Mike as her appendage.

 

Jessica looked fabulous, as always. I always like seeing Harvey and Louis getting along, rather than trying to kill each other. I guess I'll be back next season, just to see what happens. I wonder if they'll do a two year time jump? Most likely, we'll see something amazing happen where Mike can leave prison after 3 hours, go back to PSL and start practicing law again like none of this ever happened.

[Jediknight]

Yeah, even with the PSL ship sinking, I can't buy that within 3 days the entire office would stop going to work. It would take time, at least, to arrange lifeboats, to rack up clients, nail down job offers, etc.

I can buy that, when the news broke about the charges against Mike, everyone probably started looking for a way out.  So when another firm came calling, they were ready to jump, they had made the preparations, they just needed the place.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Jediknight

[Dowel Jones]

Harvey needs to learn and appreciate the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent."

 

Not to mention "Goddam not guilty", whatever that means.

 

I liked the exchange between Gibbs and Harvey where they both accused each other, and admitted to, bending the rules to achieve their goals.  They're two sides of the same coin, called winning.

 

Nice photobomb by the cat outside the church after the failed wedding.

[Chicago Redshirt]

I guess Mike CAN get a law degree while he's in prison, but he'll never practice law. He pled guilty and he practiced law without a license so I can't see him EVER being able to pass the bar. Also, I don't think felons can practice law. 

I think in the real world there actually might be leeway if the felon attorney showed sufficient remorse.

 

Here's a story, for example, about a Seattle man who was able to become a lawyer despite three felony-theft convictions:

 

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

 

Of course, disbarment is a different story, and particularly disbarment for something directly connected to the practice of law (as opposed to disbarment for having a substance abuse problem or something). This article illustrates how uphill it is to come back.

 

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/disbarred_lawyers_who_seek_reinstatement_have_a_rough_road_to_redemption

 

But to paraphrase "so you're saying there's a chance?"

 

In the Suitsverse,I can't see them preventing Mike from being a lawyer. Even though the reinvented version of the show could go forward just as easily with Mike as Harvey and Co.'s investigator/paralegal/secret weapon/etc.

 

I can buy that, when the news broke about the charges against Mike, everyone probably started looking for a way out.  So when another firm came calling, they were ready to jump, they had made the preparations, they just needed the place.

 

So the charging of Mike would probably have gotten people circulating resumes and the like.

 

My doubt comes from a few places 

 

1. PSL is a big firm. I don't think the show has established exactly how many people were employed by them, but given the partners' meetings we saw had like 30-40 people at them, I would estimate that it must have somewhere on the order of 200-300 attorneys, plus another 100-200 in support staff. (I'm not in BigLaw, so if someone who is has a better estimate, I'd love to hear it.) Not all those people are going to be on top of their game that they could execute jumping ship that quickly. At least some people might actually want to stay at PSL for various reasons, up to and including they have a financial stake in PSL.

 

2. The legal job market, even in New York, is not likely to be able to absorb that many people all at once in such a short period of time. 

 

3. The noncompete that they spent a lot of the episode talking about presumably would make some potential new employers squeamish about picking these folks up and make some PSL employees unable to figure out a way to get around it.

 

4. Not one single person gave notice?

 

5. I'd think some PSL employees would try to use their new jobs to get raises from PSL. Or to get raises from PSL to get even better offers from their new firms.

 

6. I'd think at least some of the new firms considered these PSL people to be tainted goods in general.

5. 

[TeapotWakeen]

You guys covered it well.  God, I love the actors and even most of the characters on this show. I just wish the writing weren't such crap.

Rachel's wedding dress? Ugly as hell. I hope she found it at a thrift store or it was her mom's or something, because no way that's the one she had picked out for the wedding-to-be-in-a-few-months.

Next season? More Gretchen, please.

[Carolina Girl]

 

even though Gibbs decided to not prosecute anyone else, that doesn't stop the bar from doing its investigation as to what Jessica, Harvey and Louis knew and when they knew it.

 

Exactly.  And the State Bar of New York has the sole power to DISBAR them and keep ALL of them from ever practicing law again.  

[grannygeek]

God, I love the actors and even most of the characters on this show. I just wish the writing weren't such crap.

ditto

Just sat there in the dark after last scene muttering "stupid stupid stupid stupid" Watched most of it with finger poised over FF button.

[mwell345]

I'm on the fence about this episode, I guess.  And I used to love this show. And when I love a show I am more than happy to overlook things that don't fit.

 

I was glad Mike ended up in jail, as he should have.  I kept thinking up to the end there was going to be some magical loophole that he would jump through.  What I don't get is every one trying to jump through their own hoops to save this guy that is costing them their law firm.

 

Donna - seriously will allow herself to be prosecuted so that Mike can be free?  And Harvey will go to prison instead?  Does Mike walk on water?   And PSL would be ok with having a name partner go to jail instead of....Mike?  How would that solve anything? They would be the exact same position, probably worse, because now a name partner would be in jail.

 

And, the poetic justice is that if they had just let it play out instead of trying to manipulate everything and everyone, he would have been found "innocent" which would have been a much easier mess to clean up.

 

It will be interesting to see where they go from here.   At first I thought a 2 year time jump, but I'm not sure now after seeing that all the staff left, and from the previews it looks like they are going to focus on rebuilding.  So now I think Mike will be a jail house lawyer, get a law degree in record time because he has that thing where he remembers every thing.  After a few months, he'll be released because he does something great as a jailhouse lawyer and his sentence is reduced to time served.

 

So then he goes back and the main story line since the show's beginning is essentially over.  Maybe this will end up being some type of LA Law show, which would be ok with me.

 

But I do wish they would stop with "GD".  It's overkill.

[FormerMod-a1]

I could tell this episode was pulling out all the stops to make me feel the"feels", but I just didn't.  It just seemed like one big long... something.  I don't know what, but nothing really happened.

 

With Mike taking the plea, they could spin it as him showing remorse or taking responsibility or some such to show he's reformed and get past the moralities piece of passing the bar.  Then he can be a real lawyer and help rebuild PSL.

[Shermie]

I will be stunned if Rachel isn't pregnant next season. When does it come back? I almost missed this season because of the lack of promo.

[FineWashables]

 

Why couldn't they just get a mistrial based on Gibbs' breaking the restraining order which forbid her from contacting Louis?

Right???????  I love the characters in this show but I just don't understand how they can spin whole plotlines about points of legality and then mix in stuff that's clearly complete nonsense.

 

That headhunter was promised that she could raid anybody on staff --- and nobody approached Donna?  Ridiculous. 

 

I guess I'm the only one who thought we'd already seen Rachel tell Mike she's pregnant. Obviously I was wrong. But I bet that love scene we just saw hits the mark. She's got to be delivering the baby while Mike is in prison because drama.

[tvwatcher104]

is there a way Mike can get out early?, or are we gonna do a 2-year fast-forward when the next season starts? i think a fast-forward 2 years would be awesome and it'd be super easy to show us a completely rebuilt firm, a Rachel who has moved on from Mike, Harvey and Anita shacking up, characters who have come back or left for good, etc. instead of slogging through more nonsense about getting Mike out/off early, we could just move right along... which i'd prefer as a viewer. this whole storyline was... enough already, and Mike with his jailhouse degree could be back at work doing... something.. if we skip ahead 2 years, which i hope we do.

[Dowel Jones]

I would think that people rarely serve full terms for nonviolent first offenses.  Rachel kept bringing up the two year term, but it could easily be only 8 months (1/3 sentence) and the rest on parole.  Not comfortable, but workable.  And just in time to complete the dreaded pregnancy storyline.

 

6. I'd think at least some of the new firms considered these PSL people to be tainted goods in general.

 

"I see that you worked at PSL for four years.  You never had doubts about Mike Ross in all that time? Thank you for your resume'.  We'll be in touch.  Or not."

[mwell345]

 

I will be stunned if Rachel isn't pregnant next season. When does it come back? I almost missed this season because of the lack of promo.

This summer but they did not announce the date.

Edited March 3, 2016 by mwell345

[Cranston]

Rachel's whining and wailing about the 2 years really irritated me.  Three generations of my family and many other families....manage being apart months, sometimes years because of wars.  In my first two years of marriage my husband was gone 20 months.  At least she can visit him., for God's sake.

[Chicago Redshirt]

is there a way Mike can get out early?, or are we gonna do a 2-year fast-forward when the next season starts? i think a fast-forward 2 years would be awesome and it'd be super easy to show us a completely rebuilt firm, a Rachel who has moved on from Mike, Harvey and Anita shacking up, characters who have come back or left for good, etc. instead of slogging through more nonsense about getting Mike out/off early, we could just move right along... which i'd prefer as a viewer. this whole storyline was... enough already, and Mike with his jailhouse degree could be back at work doing... something.. if we skip ahead 2 years, which i hope we do.

 

I would think that people rarely serve full terms for nonviolent first offenses.  Rachel kept bringing up the two year term, but it could easily be only 8 months (1/3 sentence) and the rest on parole.  Not comfortable, but workable.  And just in time to complete the dreaded pregnancy storyline.

 

Mike got convicted in federal court, so he's going to be doing fed time. There shouldn't be much likelihood of him cutting that 2 years down by much:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_sentencing

 

In the United States, federal laws currently requires that those convicted of federal crimes serve a "substantial portion" of their original sentence. This is achieved by eliminating or restricting parole and/or remissions. The first law requiring TIS was passed in 1984, and a number of states now have them. In 1994, a federal TIS law decided that to qualify for TIS federal funding, offenders must serve at least 85% of the sentence for qualifying crimes before becoming eligible for parole. As of 2008, the District of Columbia and 35 of the 50 states qualify for this additional funding.

 

Of course, it's Suits, so he could follow in the footsteps of Andy Dufrene (sp?) and dig a hole to freedom behind a pinup of Lady Gaga for all I know.

[NJ RadioGuy]

is there a way Mike can get out early?, or are we gonna do a 2-year fast-forward when the next season starts?

 

There is no parole in federal prison so if he pleads to two years he does two years, but there is a provision for up to 54 days per year for good behaviour. So he'd still have to serve 622 days out of 730.

 

I'm torn between how I want this to play out. I was hoping they'd find some last-minute tactic that would have invalidated the whole mess Mike got himself into, but that would have been lazy (but satisfying) writing. On the other hand, they now have to either go with "Two years later" to open next season or pull some insane rabbit out of their--er--hats. Neither works for me.

 

If they go with two years later, then the audience will be subject to far too many flashbacks (a pox on that storytelling device, I say) and we'll be cheated out of some potentially great storylines. If they go with a hail mary that springs Mike and makes everything bad go away it'll be a cop out of biblical proportions. Plus, you know, the NY Bar would never ever allow Mike to practice law again afterwards--unless Harvey, Louis and Jessica can get pictures of certain members of the bar in compromising positions. Involving poultry.

 

They wrote themselves into a corner by not going to verdict, quite frankly. A not guilty verdict would still have screwed over PSL; civil litigation alone would have sunk the firm. Regardless of how they proceed, I think the show has jumped the shark now. I miss the case of the week format they had in the first two seasons, with Mike and Harvey kicking ass and taking names in high style. That was fun. This is a chore.

 

This ending should have been a series finale with a 5 minute epilogue showing what happened 5 or 10 years down the line.

Edited March 4, 2016 by NJ RadioGuy

[jette]

A day later and I'm still annoyed. I suppose Harvey has never lost a case because he always settles before reaching trial or verdict...which leads me to picture all the NYC residents who show up for his jury pools thinking, "Great, this is going to be a colossal waste of my time." Sort of like when all the residents of Cabot Cove (and everywhere else in the world) think "Run!" when they realize that Jessica Fletcher is in the room.

 

And I also realize that I loathe Harvey and Louis' shirt collars.  

[bros402]

tv.com had a discussion with Aaron Korsh, where he said that the current idea is to have the first episode take place over Mike's first night in prison.

[tvwatcher104]

There is no parole in federal prison so if he pleads to two years he does two years, but there is a provision for up to 54 days per year for good behaviour. So he'd still have to serve 622 days out of 730.

 

I'm torn between how I want this to play out. I was hoping they'd find some last-minute tactic that would have invalidated the whole mess Mike got himself into, but that would have been lazy (but satisfying) writing. On the other hand, they now have to either go with "Two years later" to open next season or pull some insane rabbit out of their--er--hats. Neither works for me.

 

If they go with two years later, then the audience will be subject to far too many flashbacks (a pox on that storytelling device, I say) and we'll be cheated out of some potentially great storylines. If they go with a hail mary that springs Mike and makes everything bad go away it'll be a cop out of biblical proportions. Plus, you know, the NY Bar would never ever allow Mike to practice law again afterwards--unless Harvey, Louis and Jessica can get pictures of certain members of the bar in compromising positions. Involving poultry.

 

They wrote themselves into a corner by not going to verdict, quite frankly. A not guilty verdict would still have screwed over PSL; civil litigation alone would have sunk the firm. Regardless of how they proceed, I think the show has jumped the shark now. I miss the case of the week format they had in the first two seasons, with Mike and Harvey kicking ass and taking names in high style. That was fun. This is a chore.

 

This ending should have been a series finale with a 5 minute epilogue showing what happened 5 or 10 years down the line.

i agree... i wish they would go back to the old format of just cases, but from the start you know this had to blow up at some point.. the farce couldn't continue forever. but i'd be perfectly ok with Mike coming out/back as something else (a non-lawyer).. there are lots of things his character could still do at the firm to be helpful and being a lawyer on the show isn't a necessary part of his character, for me. i can still enjoy him, and the show, if he's a consultant or mentalist or something :-) just so long as this arc is done.

[romantic idiot]

I think this is maybe the writers listening to the naysayers a little too much. i liked the old fun format - I'm not really looking for 'deep' and 'realistic' from Suits of all series. So I don't know why they tried to be 'realistic' in a caper show and made it so depressing now. There was nothing wrong with the first season, as unlikely as the premise was, and I think they should have just kept it there. Actually I think Louis finding out and the situation etc. leading to that, from the stupid Harvard room is what ruined the show for me. I will probably be back next season, but i've been seething about this storyline. I'd have been perfectly happy with them getting a not guilty and going on from there. Too much listening to critics and naysayers on this one. 

[grannygeek]

 

But I do wish they would stop with "GD".  It's overkill.

And "shit" too. Ought to be some kind of drinking game for every time it or goddamn is said.

[vibeology]

I'm so glad it's over. That was a tedious, unbelievable half season. There is no coming back for Mike. Who would hire a law firm with a convicted felon working as a paralegal or investigator or (please don't let them go this route) a lawyer? Now that the show is playing by the rules of real life, they can't go back to silly and absurd. They broke that universe by starting down this path and if everything can be fixed all of this would be for nothing.

 

Instead of running a huge firm, all that's left are Harvey, Jessica, Louis, Donna and maybe if they're lucky, Gretchen, though no one could blame her for leaving. And, potentially Harvey, Jessica and Louis could all still face some sort of consequence from the Bar Association. Just because they're not going to jail doesn't mean the Bar won't investigate if any of the named partners at Mike's firm did anything unethical considering he admitted to lying for years. And even if they someone get out of this unpunished, they cannot keep whatever clients are left without any support staff to service them. They are done, as they always would be once the secret came out.

 

That being said, I loved the scenes with Mike and Harvey. That's the relationship that brought me into the show in the first place. I also loved the scene with Jessica, Harvey and Louis when they agreed to try to save Mike. They were partners in that moment, not Queen Jessica with the people beneath her. So I did really enjoy this episode for what it was but I think the decision to reveal the secret was a huge mistake. I would have enjoyed more a plot about trying other people's cases.

 

Finally, that sex scene was so long and not sexy. I am not a prude, but the moment it started, I couldn't wait for it to be over. I don't think Mike and Rachel actually have much chemistry.

[Chicago Redshirt]

I'm so glad it's over. That was a tedious, unbelievable half season. There is no coming back for Mike. Who would hire a law firm with a convicted felon working as a paralegal or investigator or (please don't let them go this route) a lawyer? Now that the show is playing by the rules of real life, they can't go back to silly and absurd. They broke that universe by starting down this path and if everything can be fixed all of this would be for nothing.

 

Instead of running a huge firm, all that's left are Harvey, Jessica, Louis, Donna and maybe if they're lucky, Gretchen, though no one could blame her for leaving. And, potentially Harvey, Jessica and Louis could all still face some sort of consequence from the Bar Association. Just because they're not going to jail doesn't mean the Bar won't investigate if any of the named partners at Mike's firm did anything unethical considering he admitted to lying for years. And even if they someone get out of this unpunished, they cannot keep whatever clients are left without any support staff to service them. They are done, as they always would be once the secret came out.

 

In terms of who would hire the new PSL (now with 99.5 percent fewer employees and clients), one would think that they are done with high-profile corporate clients.

 

However, there are tons and tons of other clients out there. We saw some of them shown over the years -- Tenants who get screwed over. Criminal defendants who are getting railroaded. Victims of corporate greed and murder. Basically, people who don't have much in the way of other recourse, who represent uphill battles and who aren't likely to be profitable for lawyers to sign on to their cases.

 

Which suits me fine, if you excuse the unintentional pun. Mike is at his best when he is standing up for the little guy. And most of the time, big company X vs big company Y plots were snoozers. I would be far more interested in a firm focused on winning meaningful victories more than dick-measuring ones.

[NJ RadioGuy]

Except that there are a million stories on TV of little guys getting screwed and the Lawyer With A Heart stepping up to save the family farm. I like those, but they're too common and frankly boring. I loved the glamour of Suits. Very high-priced lawyers playing for millions and even billions, living a lifestyle I could only dream about. If PSL is relegated to bond court or chasing ambulances it won't be the Suits I loved from day 1. Sure I like Mike "the Conscience" Ross as a foil to Harvey "The Closer" Specter but what fun will it be to see Harvey representing DWIs and landlord-tennant cases? And without Mike as a bona fide attorney, the dynamic duo is dead anyways. Good luck to him getting bonded or even a PI's license. And in the aftermath of that, why on earth would anybody at PSL (other than Harvey) want anything to do with the guy who cost them everything in the end by his own stupidity.

 

Like I said earlier, they've painted themselves into a huge corner. Since my earlier post, I read that

they plan to pick up the same night they left off. No time jumps and no flashbacks. So we'll have at least half a season of Mike in prison (he'd make a nice chewtoy in the Big House, no doubt).

I'm now far more interested in the firm's rebuild than in Mike's troubles-of-his-own-making.

[Chicago Redshirt]

People's mileage will vary, but I don't think there are really all that many shows out there now or historically that focus on the disenfranchised. Sure there have been occasional cases with such people, even on Suits. But most TV law shows focus on the criminal justice system, and from the prosecutors' viewpoint. Of those that look at civil cases, it seems most try to go for either a mix of cases or almost exclusively the big money type cases. 

 

I think a big part of the Suits I loved from season 1 was the interplay between Harvey and Mike (among others) and that can happen again whether they are still trying to be corporate attorneys or if they are going to be more pro bono types. I like the pro bono direction better because it would jettison a lot of the drama I don't care about (fighting to get one's name put on the door, fighting to pay bills, and that sort of thing).

 

I don't think Mike needs to be an actual attorney to play off of Harvey, either. 

 

TPTB can fairly easily handwave any licensing requirements, either for Mike becoming an attorney, a PI or whatever. 

 

The reason why the PSL folks are fighting so hard for Mike, or at least the reason we are told, is they consider him "family." Which I could see as reasonably true for Harvey, Donna and Rachel. Not so much for Jessica and Louis. 

[CaptainCranky]

This has degenerated from one of what I thought was one of the best shows on TV to a convoluted mess. I realize it's TV but these writers now have no sense of anything that remotely resembles the real world or the human psyche.

 

I'm not sure I can go through another season of this crap. If they could get back to some legal drama instead of the Mike/Rachel saga and any of the other mind numbing stories it will be worth watching. If not I'm done.

[Lightning]

Is it just me, or do Jessica and Donna have the weirdest walks?  Donna seems to swing her arms in front of her from side to side.  Another nitpick -- it's winter in New York.  Do they keep the office at 90 degrees in one part and 50 degrees in another part?  Donna always in sleeveless dresses, low-cut dresses, and Jessica always covered up?   IRL -- every case Mike worked on would be suspect, but I'm wondering -- did Mike ever actually sign any papers, or was he just present in court and at negotiations?   I seem to recall one episode a few seasons back where Mike was studiously avoiding signing papers.  

[Chicago Redshirt]

There was one case where Mike was faced with his ex-girlfriend who had previously known that he lied about being a law student. IIRC, he tried to get his name off of the documentation of a settlement in that case, to avoid arousing his ex's suspicions. 

 

But every time he filed a motion or whatever, he said he was doing so as an attorney.

 

In the end, it seems like to me even if Mike billed a single penny on a case, PSL would be in trouble. because he (and they) were claiming he was an attorney and thus worth the $300-400/hour or whatever they'd bill him out at. 

[Cthulhudrew]

WTH was the office apocalypse at the end? Everyone was just waiting for Jessica and Louis to step out for the wedding, and then lammed it out the door? I think they oversold that scene juuuuuust a tad.

 

John Pyper-Ferguson was sadly wasted as Sokoloff on this show. His character had potential, and I think the man is a great talent, but the writers couldn't seem to decide whether he was a moustache-twirling villain, a flawed but redeemable ally, or what. Shame.

 

I'd agree with the poster above who said Anita Gibbs wouldn't have been as irritating this season if she'd been written like she was here. I won't be sorry to see her  gone though, especially her uncanny precognitive ability to be waiting for characters to show up in random places in furtherance of the plot.

 

Count me in, too, with finding Harvey's inability to distinguish between "innocent" and "not guilty" as being particularly irritating. Maybe it's because he always cuts deals and rarely goes to trial that he can't get it right?

[tvwatcher104]

was this posted already? it might help us to figure out how it'll go down next season. 

looks like Jessica will be gone pretty soon into the season

 

 

link

http://deadline.com/2016/03/gina-torres-star-the-death-of-eva-sofia-valdez-abc-pilot-1201714669/

 

Is it just me, or do Jessica and Donna have the weirdest walks?  Donna seems to swing her arms in front of her from side to side.  Another nitpick -- it's winter in New York.  Do they keep the office at 90 degrees in one part and 50 degrees in another part?  Donna always in sleeveless dresses, low-cut dresses, and Jessica always covered up?   IRL -- every case Mike worked on would be suspect, but I'm wondering -- did Mike ever actually sign any papers, or was he just present in court and at negotiations?   I seem to recall one episode a few seasons back where Mike was studiously avoiding signing papers.

personally, i think they both walk very sexy and i adore how they both dress. Edited March 5, 2016 by yeswedo
added spoiler tags

[bioprof]

Why wasn't the deal invalidated by the judge when prosecuter lady claimed the deal was negotiated by "a competent attorney" ( Mike). Isn't she admitting he's an attorney ....if so...what the heck! This show is in a death spiral....no logic....no sense....corporate murderers don't interest her but Mike's lying is more important? And I can't believe how unflattering that wedding dress was ( pardon the shallow pool stuff).

[scrambled eggs]

I can't help wondering how Rachel has no other friends, so Donna was her only bridesmaid. She's presumably lived in New York her whole life--does she not know anyone? No friends from school? Cousins?

[Lightning]

TVWatcher:  Yes, I love how they dress, too, but usually in an office setting, people tend to dress for the weather.  Of course, I've never worked in New York, so I don't know if women wear summer clothing to work in the winter or not.  I just thought that either Donna always feels the office is too hot and Jessica always feels the office is too cold due to the disparity in the way they dress.

As for Donna being the bridesmaid, unless they become part of the plot, people in office-oriented t.v. shows tend to not have any friends outside the office.  Just one less actor to pay.

[Crs97]

But I do wish they would stop with "GD".  It's overkill.

 

And "shit" too. Ought to be some kind of drinking game for every time it or goddamn is said.

 

 

My husband and I don't drink, but we each pick a word and play the hypothetical drinking game.  One week I had GD and would have been a victim of alcohol poisoning; my husband would have been okay.  The next week it flipped.  I assume the writers have some sort of system to decide which one is their word of the week.

[Chicago Redshirt]

I can't help wondering how Rachel has no other friends, so Donna was her only bridesmaid. She's presumably lived in New York her whole life--does she not know anyone? No friends from school? Cousins?

Presumably Rachel has a bunch of friends, at a minimum from working at PSL and its predecessors and from 1-2 years of school at Columbia, plus wherever she went to undergrad.

 

However, I'm going with the wedding they were going to do was kept small on purpose. Rather than the grandiose wedding they'd planned at the Plaza, this was done at the last minute and with shadows over it. It wasn't a sure thing that her parents were even going to attend. And presumably some of the friends would have the opinion that Rachel was making a tragic mistake by marrying Michael. 

 

So I read it that they deliberately wanted to keep it small.

[needschocolate]

I don't know if it has always been this way, but I noticed it a few weeks ago and now I can't not notice it - Whenever Rachel has to show any emotion (sadness, anger, any sexual feelings, etc) she whispers.  She whispers loudly enough that she can be understood, but it is still a whisper.  It's like some of the male actors (ex. the redheaded guy on CSI Miami) whose voices get raspy anytime they need to sound serious.  

 

When Mike told Rachel's mother (paraphrasing) "Sure, I committed fraud, but Rachel trusts me because I could have gotten off it I sent my friends to prison and I wouldn't do that" it reminded me a something that happened to a co-worker a few years ago -- The co-worker, who was in his early 30's at the time got a knock on his door one Saturday.  It was one of his neighbors - a college aged guy.  They had this conversation --

 

College guy:  "We were playing catch in the parking lot and I accidentally broke your car window."  

Co-coworker: "Okay.  I will get it fixed and you can pay me back.  Do you have a repair shop you'd like me to use?"

College guy: "Pay for it? I am not going to pay for it. You are lucky I told you about it.  I didn't have to tell, but I wanted to do the responsible thing."

 

Mike not taking a deal that would let him go free and send others to prison doesn't make Mike honorable.  He still committed fraud. Not sending his friends to prison just means he wasn't as dishonorable as he could possibly be.  It is like murdering someone and claiming that you are still a nice guy because you killed them instantly and the victim wasn't in pain.

 

<snip>

 

The "non-compete is null and void if a name partner commits a crime" thing doesn't make much sense -- I'm not sure what the one thing has to do with the other. Also why didn't this come up with Hardman's embezzlement?

 

<snip>

 

Yeah, even with the PSL ship sinking, I can't buy that within 3 days the entire office would stop going to work. It would take time, at least, to arrange lifeboats, to rack up clients, nail down job offers, etc. 

 

<snip>

 

Good post, but too long to quote the whole thing.

 

Perhaps the "void if a crime was committed" was added in after and because of the Hartman embezzlement.  

 

As for everyone jumping ship, I am guessing that we are supposed to believe that Zane's firm has just gotten much, much larger.

 

Speaking of Zane...was there ever any suggestion that Zane and Jessica were so close  that she should feel obligated to tell him his daughter was dating/marrying a fraud and/or so close that she could be sure that he wouldn't use that info against her and her firm?

 

That headhunter was promised that she could raid anybody on staff --- and nobody approached Donna?  Ridiculous. 

 

At first I thought that they probably did approach her and she turned them down, but Donna would have told Harvey about it.  Now I am going with the theory that everyone who  knows how good Donna is would also know that she would never leave Harvey.

 

Rachel's whining and wailing about the 2 years really irritated me.  Three generations of my family and many other families....manage being apart months, sometimes years because of wars.  In my first two years of marriage my husband was gone 20 months.  At least she can visit him., for God's sake.

 

Rachel's whining always irritates me - she is the classic, stereotypical, over-reacting, immature female.  I, unfortunately, actually know a few women like this and being around them is very draining.  "Mike stole two years of my life!" - yeah, well, now she can actually concentrate on law school without having to work herself into a tizzy that that hours she is spending studying are hurting their relationship or feeling bad that Mike isn't emotionally supporting her law school duties.

 

What got me even more was that she had to "take a day" because Mike took the plea when he told he he wouldn't.  The jury was in, he needed to make a decision right then he didn't have time to find her and hold her hand while she whispered about how she has faith in him.   He didn't even have time to call and discuss it.  Would it have been any better if he would have called her and said "I have decided to take the plea anyway. Gotta go. Talk to you later."? Now, if there was a chance that she would break up with him over this, I could see her telling him to leave her alone to sort this out, but she seemed confident that she was staying with him, she was just hurt that he changed his mind (and ruined her life! whine). She has two years alone to work out her feelings, don't waste 1/3 of the time you have left.  

 

I get how it could be difficult to "let it go" and try to enjoy your last three days together when you feel betrayed, but Rachel's immaturity annoys me, so I am not cutting her any slack.  

 

I think this is maybe the writers listening to the naysayers a little too much. i liked the old fun format - I'm not really looking for 'deep' and 'realistic' from Suits of all series. So I don't know why they tried to be 'realistic' in a caper show and made it so depressing now. There was nothing wrong with the first season, as unlikely as the premise was, and I think they should have just kept it there. Actually I think Louis finding out and the situation etc. leading to that, from the stupid Harvard room is what ruined the show for me. I will probably be back next season, but i've been seething about this storyline. I'd have been perfectly happy with them getting a not guilty and going on from there. Too much listening to critics and naysayers on this one. 

 

In hindsight, I would be happy if the secret would have gone to wherever Richie Cunningham's older brother or the youngest daughter on Family Matters went. They would just stop mentioning it and the show would go on as though Mike was never a fraud. Every once in a while someone would post "I was watching one of the earliest episodes and I forgot that Mike wasn't actually a lawyer" and some posters would make comments on how it is sloppy writing, while others would say they are glad the secret was dropped because eventually the show would have to focus on it and it would ruin the show we love.

 

TVWatcher:  Yes, I love how they dress, too, but usually in an office setting, people tend to dress for the weather.  Of course, I've never worked in New York, so I don't know if women wear summer clothing to work in the winter or not.  I just thought that either Donna always feels the office is too hot and Jessica always feels the office is too cold due to the disparity in the way they dress.

 

All the men in the office are in long sleeved shirts buttoned all the way up, jackets, long pants and closed toe shoes.  Jessica should feel a little chilly and Donna should be freezing.   

Edited March 8, 2016 by needschocolate

[FineWashables]

For my part, I have trouble believing that Rachel can sit for the day in those sausage-tight skirts she wears.  

 

I worked in NY for many years and no, nobody wears out-of-season fashion.  Ever.  If it's a 50-degree day in July, they're still in summer dresses, and even if it goes up to 60 midwinter, they're still wearing wool and cashmere.  Because New Yorkers care about fashion, especially if they earn enough money to dress the way they'd like to.

[Cranston]

I so hope, when this show finally, mercifully ends, Harvey and Donna will be together. 

[Eyes High]

Rachel's whining and wailing about the 2 years really irritated me.  Three generations of my family and many other families....manage being apart months, sometimes years because of wars.  In my first two years of marriage my husband was gone 20 months.  At least she can visit him., for God's sake.

 

I'm inclined to cut Rachel some slack. Having restrictions on your ability to see your SO sucks, and knowing that other people have it worse doesn't make your situation any more palatable, any more than children are any more inclined to finish their unappetizing food when they're informed that there are children starving in Africa. It's undoubtedly true that other people have it worse--someone always has it worse--but usually, that doesn't make someone's subjective pain any easier to bear. If I sprain my ankle, knowing that other people have broken their legs doesn't make it any less painful.

 

I have a long-distance relationship (no prison involved, heh), and I have an even cushier arrangement than Rachel's--it's only one year of long-distance, we Skype every night for as long as we want, we see each other in person every five weeks for so--and it still sucks. I'm very grateful for the technological and the travel opportunities that allow us to see each other virtually whenever we want and in person, neither of which are available to many people in long-distance relationships, but...it still sucks. God knows I've "wailed and whined" about the horrible unfairness of it many a time. I once swore I would never be involved in a long-distance relationship, because I had heard how awful they were, but God has a mean sense of humour, what can I say?

 

3. The noncompete that they spent a lot of the episode talking about presumably would make some potential new employers squeamish about picking these folks up and make some PSL employees unable to figure out a way to get around it.

Are noncompetes a thing at big firms? Because the one legal firm industry in a medium-sized city I'm indirectly familiar with, which consists of a lot of sole practitioners or small boutique law firms (there's not enough money in this field for the big firms to be involved), routinely has lawyers switching firms and taking their clients with them. It happens so often that the joke is that most lawyers in this one industry have worked with each other at one point or another.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Eyes High

[Chicago Redshirt]

Perhaps the "void if a crime was committed" was added in after and because of the Hartman embezzlement.  

 

...

 

Speaking of Zane...was there ever any suggestion that Zane and Jessica were so close  that she should feel obligated to tell him his daughter was dating/marrying a fraud and/or so close that she could be sure that he wouldn't use that info against her and her firm?

 

On the noncompete, I just can't imagine either side trying to initiate it. PSL has no incentive to give its employees an out, and the employees have no particular reason to think that another senior partner would be involved in a crime (or do they?).

 

As to Zane, I would say that the show had portrayed the relationship between him and Jessica as pretty cordial, even flirty. Indeed, before Big Mommy Zane was shown on screen as still happily married to BDZ, I was shipping BDZ and Jessica pretty hard. Also, one would think as two African-Americans heading high-powered firms -- a rarity --  they would have more of a connection and perceived obligation to each other.

 

 

Are noncompetes a thing at big firms? Because the one legal firm industry in a medium-sized city I'm indirectly familiar with, which consists of a lot of sole practitioners or small boutique law firms (there's not enough money in this field for the big firms to be involved), routinely has lawyers switching firms and taking their clients with them. It happens so often that the joke is that most lawyers in this one industry have worked with each other at one point or another.

 

IRL, I think noncompetes are frowned upon generally, and I would imagine that law firms specifically would have a tough time with them, since lawyers probably would be aware that there are questions about enforcability.

[backgroundnoise]

If the prosecutor had the resources to send someone to South America, why did she put on such a piss-poor trial?  Why didn't she depose all the professors for the courses listed on Mike's transcript and just ask them?  She didn't even follow up with Jimmy's professor or ANY other students in the class that Jimmy claimed to have been in with Mike.

 

I was actually cheering Jimmy when he initially refused to lie and told Mike he was not a friend if he would ask someone to do that.  Then he turns around and lies!  I hope he gets disbarred.  He won't, though, because Mike's a saint (eyeroll).

[Chicago Redshirt]

I kind of wish that they actually gave the trial its proper due. Which is to say, Gibbs presenting an actual case; witness testimony portrayed more substantially; so much of the trial not glossed over.

 

Trials are inherently dramatic structures, and I think it would have been far more interesting to have (for instance) Trevor questioned both by Gibbs and Harvey as actual lawyers would have. 

 

But within the world of Suits, if we are to take the jury foreman at face value, the rest of the jury wanted to convict Mike and he pulled a "12 Angry Men" and got each of them to vote to acquit. And even his rationale for acquittal doesn't make much sense as if he was convinced that Mike didn't go to law school, that means that the prosecutor did make her case -- Mike pretended that  he did go to law school, he obtained work as an attorney based on that misrepresentation, and thus is a fraud. I'm not sure what part of her case she supposedly didn't make -- maybe that there was some sort of detrimental reliance? But anyway, Mike caught lucky.

[bros402]

I kind of wish that they actually gave the trial its proper due. Which is to say, Gibbs presenting an actual case; witness testimony portrayed more substantially; so much of the trial not glossed over.

 

Trials are inherently dramatic structures, and I think it would have been far more interesting to have (for instance) Trevor questioned both by Gibbs and Harvey as actual lawyers would have. 

 

But within the world of Suits, if we are to take the jury foreman at face value, the rest of the jury wanted to convict Mike and he pulled a "12 Angry Men" and got each of them to vote to acquit. And even his rationale for acquittal doesn't make much sense as if he was convinced that Mike didn't go to law school, that means that the prosecutor did make her case -- Mike pretended that  he did go to law school, he obtained work as an attorney based on that misrepresentation, and thus is a fraud. I'm not sure what part of her case she supposedly didn't make -- maybe that there was some sort of detrimental reliance? But anyway, Mike caught lucky.

 

I'm guessing some stuff was presented by Harve or Mike that planted seeds of doubt

[Chicago Redshirt]

If we are to take the jury foreman's conversation at face value, the jury foreman and everyone else knew that Mike never went to law school. The jury was initially 11-1 to convict. It is pretty inescapable that Mike has held himself out to have gone to Harvard Law and has been making money based on that untrue representation. I don't see how one gets reasonable doubt once you are convinced Mike never went to law school.

 

Now, if this was straight up jury nullification (i.e. it shouldn't matter that Mike never went to law school because he did right by his clients, or the law requiring lawyers to actually go to law school and pass the bar is somehow unjust), then that'd be fine. But that's not what the foreman said. He claimed that Gibbs didn't meet her burden and put on a shitty case. But I don't see how. 

[needschocolate]

The way I see it - the jury members had a feeling that Mike wasn't really a lawyer - they heard a lot of stuff that pointed in that direction, but they didn't get any concrete evidence, Meabwhile, there were a few things on Mike's side, like one witness putting him there, and some explanations (commuting to Harvard from New York, only attending class for the tests) that were very improbable, but technically possible.  

 

Mike didn't have to prove he was a lawyer, Gibbs had to prove that he wasn't and she didn't provide enough proof.  The real question is why she couldn't prove it (and the answer to that is that if makes a better story if Mike takes the plea when he would have been able to walk, than if he took the plea and thereby shaved 5 years off his jail time).