S02.E09: Nailed

[Bannon]

Technically it was Chuck and HHM that was victimized. Chuck's error and HHM's failure to spot it means that they're on the hook for any expenses.

Mesa Verde is still prevented from operating their business in the manner they would have preferred. Even if HHM compensates them, Mesa Verde is a victim of fraud. HHM is a victim as well, of course.

[Umbelina]

Of course, if HHM hadn't mistreated Kim after she "rain made" that account, none of this would have ever happened to begin with.

[Bannon]

Of course, if HHM hadn't mistreated Kim after she "rain made" that account, none of this would have ever happened to begin with.

One of the things I love about Gilligan's Islands (hat tip) is that the characters usually are charged a price for their behaviors. 

[RCharter]

How? He's able to do the exact job from home (like Sandpiper). Plus, he went out without his space suit and was able to do a damn fine job of smooth talking Mesa Verde back to HHM. His illness has not been shown to have an adverse effect on his job performance, just on the physical conditions under which he performs his job (as well as on his personal life, which goes without saying). To suggest incompetence based on this is offensive and insulting to people with mental illnesses.

Again, why? He HAS been doing high level legal work. It is his refusal to admit he is wrong, NOT his affliction, that was an issue in the hearing.

Honestly, I'll be stunned if we do. But if he is on, I hope he has that same song on the radio, it was quite catchy :)

I agree.  We have never seen Chuck's mental issues affect his work performance, and certainly no more than anyone that has any other illness.  Someone with diabetes could have low or high blood sugar which can affect mood, mental clarity and performance.  No one would suggest that they disclose to a client that they have diabetes ahead of time, even though, pushed to its extreme low blood sugar or high blood sugar could severely affect performance.  A thyroid condition an affect mental clarity, mood and performance.  But you wouldn't require an associate to disclose that to a client. Almost every illness, physical and mental, severe or mild could affect performance.  It would only be once it did affect performance rendered to a client that it really should be an issue.   For the most part it seems like Chuck does research and strategy, he doesn't seem to do trial work.  These are tasks that aren't stressful for him, and he can do them at home, or in his "suit."  I would agree that if Chuck was going to routinely and regularly do work that exposed him to electricity, without his suit, his condition should be disclosed to clients, because that may affect his work.  At this point though, it really hasn't.  He performed well during his first client visit with MV, and even during the banking meeting, he was no more out of line than any other person who has a massive ego.

 

Even if one were to push and say that Chuck was working on behalf of MV when he was questioning Lance (and was he really, or was he just in a rush to catch Jimmy to prove everyone wrong?) there are people that just get that upset during confrontation and they have no mental or physical illness.  These are the same people who needed to carry smelling salts in the 1900's.   However, I think its a stretch to think that he was working on MV's behalf when he was questioning Lance.  Keeping documents safe and doing the filings correctly was a part of HHM's job, the job wasn't done correctly, the "why" isn't really going to change the result.  It might be different if the regulators agreed to push up the date of the next hearing because there was a forgery, but it seemed like the biggest issue was that research has to be done on the actual address, and the research had been done on the wrong one.   MV did not ask HHM to find out what went wrong, because they already think they know what went wrong.  So what was Chuck really doing on behalf of MV, if his actions weren't going to result in anything that mattered to them?  In a matter they didn't really ask him to research?  

Edited April 15, 2016 by RCharter

[ShadowFacts]

One of the things I love about Gilligan's Islands (hat tip) is that the characters usually are charged a price for their behaviors. 

 

True enough, and I think therefore that Jimmy is in for some consequences, too. 

 

It is interesting that Howard remains solicitous of Chuck.  He offered to go to the hearing himself, thinking it would be pro forma, because he said he was thinking of Chuck's comfort.  He even said after the big mess-up that all of them missed the error, including the paralegals and himself.  If Chuck survives this, I will not be surprised to see Howard's back story including some missing piece to the puzzle--it may be more than that partnership buyout situation. 

[Irlandesa]

True enough, and I think therefore that Jimmy is in for some consequences, too. 

And Kim for her decision to proceed with the client received through forgery/fraud.  Maybe not today....maybe not tomorrow.

[Bannon]

I agree.  We have never seen Chuck's mental issues affect his work performance, and certainly no more than anyone that has any other illness.  Someone with diabetes could have low or high blood sugar which can affect mood, mental clarity and performance.  No one would suggest that they disclose to a client that they have diabetes ahead of time, even though, pushed to its extreme low blood sugar or high blood sugar could severely affect performance.  A thyroid condition an affect mental clarity, mood and performance.  But you wouldn't require an associate to disclose that to a client. Almost every illness, physical and mental, severe or mild could affect performance.  It would only be once it did affect performance rendered to a client that it really should be an issue.   For the most part it seems like Chuck does research and strategy, he doesn't seem to do trial work.  These are tasks that aren't stressful for him, and he can do them at home, or in his "suit."  I would agree that if Chuck was going to routinely and regularly do work that exposed him to electricity, without his suit, his condition should be disclosed to clients, because that may affect his work.  At this point though, it really hasn't.  He performed well during his first client visit with MV, and even during the banking meeting, he was no more out of line than any other person who has a massive ego.

 

Even if one were to push and say that Chuck was working on behalf of MV when he was questioning Lance (and was he really, or was he just in a rush to catch Jimmy to prove everyone wrong?) there are people that just get that upset during confrontation and they have no mental or physical illness.  These are the same people who needed to carry smelling salts in the 1900's.   However, I think its a stretch to think that he was working on MV's behalf when he was questioning Lance.  Keeping documents safe and doing the filings correctly was a part of HHM's job, the job wasn't done correctly, the "why" isn't really going to change the result.  It might be different if the regulators agreed to push up the date of the next hearing because there was a forgery, but it seemed like the biggest issue was that research has to be done on the actual address, and the research had been done on the wrong one.   MV did not ask HHM to find out what went wrong, because they already think they know what went wrong.  So what was Chuck really doing on behalf of MV, if his actions weren't going to result in anything that mattered to them?  In a matter they didn't really ask him to research?  

I will simply note a couple things. Being rendered unconscious is an extremly small subset of "being upset". One can work quite effectively while being upset. One cannot do so while unconscious, no matter why one became unconscious. I already stated that if Chuck was kept away from those things which tended to render him unconscious, he could still work effectively. If you wish to state that when endeavoring to definitively establish that a forgery occurred,  a forgery which harmed a client, a lawyer isn't working on the behalf of the client, fine, go ahead and state that. Since Chuck may never regain consciousness again, it's likely we won't again have to consider how effectively he is working as an attorney while unconscious. Thank goodness.

[RCharter]

I will simply note a couple things. Being rendered unconscious is an extremly small subset of "being upset". One can work quite effectively while being upset. One cannot do so while unconscious, no matter why one became unconscious. I already stated that if Chuck was kept away from those things which tended to render him unconscious, he could still work effectively. If you wish to state that when endeavoring to definitively establish that a forgery occurred,  a forgery which harmed a client, a lawyer isn't working on the behalf of the client, fine, go ahead and state that. Since Chuck may never regain consciousness again, it's likely we won't again have to consider how effectively he is working as an attorney while unconscious. Thank goodness.

However small a subset, there are still people that get that upset, with no "illness" that anyone requires them to disclose to anyone else.  I would endeavor to state that if a client hasn't asked you to pursue an issue, and the pursuit of that issue will in no way change the result for the client, than no, you are not working on behalf of the client, but rather for some other purpose.  So, no, Chucks mental illness has not, in any way, affected his performance for a client, and therefore there would be no need to disclose it to them.

[Dev F]

I feel like Chuck is being judged a little unfairly for his performance in front of the banking board, as if he were actually guilty of doing what Jimmy had conspired to make it look like he was guilty of doing. It's easy to see Chuck bad-mouthing the client and claim that he should never have done that unless he was absolutely sure he was right -- but the truth is that he was absolutely sure, and what's more, he actually was right. He did not, in fact, mistranscribe or misremember the branch's address; he transcribed it correctly based on all the documents in his possession, and had a clear memory of having done so.

 

And given that he knew he hadn't made a mistake, it's only logical for him to assume that the mistake was the client's instead. I don't think you can blame him for not entertaining the possibility that his own brother had carefully gone through all the files and sabotaged them in the middle of the night. That's an action so devious and unexpected that it defies Occam's razor six ways to Sunday.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Dev F

[Bannon]

However small a subset, there are still people that get that upset, with no "illness" that anyone requires them to disclose to anyone else.  I would endeavor to state that if a client hasn't asked you to pursue an issue, and the pursuit of that issue will in no way change the result for the client, than no, you are not working on behalf of the client, but rather for some other purpose.  So, no, Chucks mental illness has not, in any way, affected his performance for a client, and therefore there would be no need to disclose it to them.

I've been asked not to debate this stuff with you, so I won't. I believe you to be very much in error on many of the assertions you have made. You can have the last word, if you desire it.

[RCharter]

I've been asked not to debate this stuff with you, so I won't. I believe you to be very much in error on many of the assertions you have made. You can have the last word, if you desire it.

I'm surprised that you chose to respond to a post I made in response to ByTor's post if you had been asked not to discuss "this stuff" with me.  

 

However -- I will say that generally it seems that the client that chooses the goal of representation ("I want to get my house back," "I want to defend against this lawsuit," "I don't want to be found guilty of x,y, and z") and it is the attorney that determines how to reach that goal in terms of strategy.  

 

The goal for MV was to get their plans through the regulatory committee within a specific time table.  Finding out if Jimmy forged documents doesn't get them to that goal, so its not really a part of any strategy, because whether or not Jimmy forged documents, MV is still going to have to wait six weeks, which puts them out of their time table.  And MV didn't indicate that they wanted to know who forged documents, because as far as they are concerned, no documents were ever forged.

Edited April 15, 2016 by RCharter

[Bannon]

Really, I'm surprised that you chose to respond to a post I made in response to ByTor's post if you had been asked not to discuss "this stuff" with me.  

Nobody's perfect!

[Umbelina]

  You two need to get a room.  ;) 

 

I sense a hidden passion...

[Cthulhudrew]

Even after all they've been through together so far, Nacho still underestimates Mike? That man is a badass!

[MilMuertes]

Great discussion. Chuck's inability to think that he is anything but perfect is what lead to his downfall. The irony is that he *was* right, but the guy simply cannot let it go. Here is a guy who is so logical and smart, only to have a psychosomatic illness clearly triggered by either his brother or his wife leaving him. Or both. 

By the way, not sure if you have seen this or whether it's the right place, but there is a video that basically uses Chuck's fall as the basis for a beat.

Here:

 

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Apologies if anyone brought this up and I missed it...OK.  So, Chuck personally typed the pleading and/or personally oversaw/proofed it.  Magna Carta, right?  Jimmy goes in and switched stuff out.  Here's the problem for me...Chick submits the pleading with the bad address.  The Commission staff relies on that address and does its due diligence.  Then, everyone meets for the hearing.  How long was that period of time?  I see no way it was not within a week, if not three or four days.  I believe that Lance was later asked if he saw Jimmy "about a week ago."  

 

What was the issue cited by the commission chair, who was clearly amenable to Chuck and to Mesa Verde, and business generally?  His people needed weeeeeeeks to investigate the lot in the same block!   If this guy was pre-disposed to screwing Chuck, HHM, or Mesa Verde, the entire tone of that hearing needed to be different.  There was/is no known opposition to this.  If the original lot, mistakenly oversighted by the staff, was within the zoning and other governmental interests/rules, the actual lot would be, too.  Again...if there was the slightest hint that this was otherwise a problematic application, the writers should have indicated this.  

 

The bottom line is that the screw-up would never have been as costly as TPTB made it out to be and needed it to be.  

 

Now...did anyone else nod knowingly when y'all saw the fierce red color Jimmy had chosen for "their" offices?  Not exactly the color a buttoned-up counselor would choose, right Kim?  But, there they were, each applying it, content as clams.  I loved this unspoken and powerful statement.   It loudly said so much.

[RCharter]

^^could potentially be a matter of coordinating moving parts.  They have to research the address, and then get everyone again together to meet.  They may only have these "hearings" once or twice a month, and perhaps Chuck (knowing as much as he does) got it in right before the deadline for the meeting that was a week away.  They may also have other matters that are on the calendar, which kept them from giving MV a better time.  It could also be that the head guy was sort of exasperated and annoyed with the whole thing, which is why he wouldn't really consider the provisional approval.  From his POV, if someone just messed up their forms, why should he make a special effort to get them another hearing with any haste?  Maybe once you mess up, you sort of get put to the bottom of the pile and have to wait.  Or it could be a little of everything...or nothing at all.  

 

When you speak of the color scheme, it makes me think of each of the law offices and the difference.  You have HHM, lots of light, airy, breezy, more modern.  You have D&M, and its all very dark, but very classy and old school.....fireplaces in the office.  And now you have Jimmy and Kim's place, and the bold, unconventional colors.  Very interesting.

Edited April 15, 2016 by RCharter

[ShadowFacts]

Even after all they've been through together so far, Nacho still underestimates Mike? That man is a badass!

 

Nacho is not as smart as he thinks, to paraphrase Mike.  After all, his initial plan was to put a hit on Tuco.  He's not looking like he will survive long-term.

 

 

Apologies if anyone brought this up and I missed it...OK.  So, Chuck personally typed the pleading and/or personally oversaw/proofed it.  Magna Carta, right?  Jimmy goes in and switched stuff out.  Here's the problem for me...Chick submits the pleading with the bad address.  The Commission staff relies on that address and does its due diligence.  Then, everyone meets for the hearing.  How long was that period of time?  I see no way it was not within a week, if not three or four days.  I believe that Lance was later asked if he saw Jimmy "about a week ago."

 

I believe that's right, it was a week, Chuck also mentioned it to Jimmy by saying something like "a week ago you were here in the middle of the night."  I also remember Chuck saying to Paige and Kevin (?) that these regulatory agencies can be very harsh with penalties, details are very important.  Looking back, sort of foreshadowing what would happen.  It does seem nonsensical that they would be having to wait another six weeks, but then again, the big bad government bureaucracy that everyone hates . . .

 

The red wall paint is so much better than the wallpaper Saul ends up with. 

[ByTor]

It certainly appears as if his electricity fears are aggravated by stress.  I am at a loss to understand how you have concluded that losing consciousness, when asking questions of a witness to a client being damaged by forgery, is not detrimental to job performance.  If you differ, however, we can agree to disagree.

Hey Bannon! Regarding the bolded part, what I am trying to say is that it wasn't the stress that made him lose consciousness, it was his fear of electricity. I assume that's what the show is trying to get across when we hear that "buzzing" sound, followed by Chuck having that distressed look on his face. I will NOT argue that it is not precipitated by stress, because clearly it was, but if Chuck is being written consistently I don't think he would have had that reaction if he were wearing his foil lined suit. Does that make Chuck a little "off?" Yeah, I think it does, but it doesn't make him bad at his job.

I hope you don't think I'm picking you apart, Bannon! As evidence by the diverse comments on this board, many many of us seem to have different opinions/interpretations of what we see on screen. There is this issue with Chuck, there's whether or not Stacy is manipulative, to name a couple. I mentioned this in another post, but Vince Gilligan has said that obviously he knows what they're trying to get across in a scene, but he likes it when the fans come out and say "No way, I didn't get X from that scene, I thought it was Y." I think a lot of people might view that as sub-par ambiguous writing, but IMO I think it's great that we are respected enough to not be spoon-fed information & expected to think a certain way.

Edited April 15, 2016 by ByTor

[ByTor]

I feel like Chuck is being judged a little unfairly for his performance in front of the banking board, as if he were actually guilty of doing what Jimmy had conspired to make it look like he was guilty of doing. It's easy to see Chuck bad-mouthing the client and claim that he should never have done that unless he was absolutely sure he was right -- but the truth is that he was absolutely sure, and what's more, he actually was right. He did not, in fact, mistranscribe or misremember the branch's address; he transcribed it correctly based on all the documents in his possession, and had a clear memory of having done so.

 

And given that he knew he hadn't made a mistake, it's only logical for him to assume that the mistake was the client's instead. I don't think you can blame him for not entertaining the possibility that his own brother had carefully gone through all the files and sabotaged them in the middle of the night. That's an action so devious and unexpected that it defies Occam's razor six ways to Sunday.

You perfectly summed up why I felt sorry for Chuck & had a hard time watching him at that hearing.

[ByTor]

They may also have other matters that are on the calendar, which kept them from giving MV a better time.

That's what I assumed.

[Captanne]

I am sorry but somewhere I missed what "MV" stands for?  The law firms are HHM and DM so it can't be that. Or BB or BCS.  Em, what is that?  It keeps reading as "Martha's Vineyard" in my mind.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Captanne

[Uncle Benzene]

Mesa Verde

[Captanne]

Gracias

[Bannon]

Hey Bannon! Regarding the bolded part, what I am trying to say is that it wasn't the stress that made him lose consciousness, it was his fear of electricity. I assume that's what the show is trying to get across when we hear that "buzzing" sound, followed by Chuck having that distressed look on his face. I will NOT argue that it is not precipitated by stress, because clearly it was, but if Chuck is being written consistently I don't think he would have had that reaction if he were wearing his foil lined suit. Does that make Chuck a little "off?" Yeah, I think it does, but it doesn't make him bad at his job.I hope you don't think I'm picking you apart, Bannon! As evidence by the diverse comments on this board, many many of us seem to have different opinions/interpretations of what we see on screen. There is this issue with Chuck, there's whether or not Stacy is manipulative, to name a couple. I mentioned this in another post, but Vince Gilligan has said that obviously he knows what they're trying to get across in a scene, but he likes it when the fans come out and say "No way, I didn't get X from that scene, I thought it was Y." I think a lot of people might view that as sub-par ambiguous writing, but IMO I think it's great that we are respected enough to not be spoon-fed information & expected to think a certain way.

Oh, we're cool, By Tor. Like I've said, the writers only have few hundred minutes, over 10 weeks a year, to tell the story. Everything can't be explained in detail, and I think Gilligan's view, that it is good if viewers have substantially different interpretations, is correct.

I also think the mods are correct, that we don't want to turn this space into a seminar on the professional responsibilities of an attorney.

[ByTor]

I also think the mods are correct, that we don't want to turn this space into a seminar on the professional responsibilities of an attorney.

Even though I know all there is to know from Law & Order University??? :)

[Clanstarling]

Now...did anyone else nod knowingly when y'all saw the fierce red color Jimmy had chosen for "their" offices?  Not exactly the color a buttoned-up counselor would choose, right Kim?  But, there they were, each applying it, content as clams.  I loved this unspoken and powerful statement.   It loudly said so much.

I liked the bright colors - although to me I simply thought they were going with a Southwestern palette. But of course, the choice of colors is always meaningful on this show, and you make a good point.

When you speak of the color scheme, it makes me think of each of the law offices and the difference.  You have HHM, lots of light, airy, breezy, more modern.  You have D&M, and its all very dark, but very classy and old school.....fireplaces in the office.  And now you have Jimmy and Kim's place, and the bold, unconventional colors.  Very interesting.

Very interesting. I think of Chuck as a dark, classy office kind of guy, and probably Hamlin's father as well. Though IIRC, his own office is always dimly lit - even in flashbacks prior to his condition.

[LoneHaranguer]

 

if Chuck is being written consistently I don't think he would have had that reaction if he were wearing his foil lined suit.

From what we've seen of his reactions, he should be wearing chain mail, not that flimsy foil. They put it in knife-resistant body armor, so he wouldn't have to look like he stepped out of a Renaissance fair or was going shark-diving.

[shapeshifter]

Now...did anyone else nod knowingly when y'all saw the fierce red color Jimmy had chosen for "their" offices?  Not exactly the color a buttoned-up counselor would choose, right Kim?  But, there they were, each applying it, content as clams.  I loved this unspoken and powerful statement.   It loudly said so much.

I thought it was just period setting. In 2001 a well-to-do relative was enacting that same scene on her walls. I thought it was an odd color choice, but it was the "in thing" in decorating at the time.

[DrSpaceman73]

I forgot to mention earlier. Did anyone else feel like the opening scene was like a Roadrunner cartoon? I was hoping Mike would sneak up behind the guy and go "Beep Beep". Well except he would actually the coyote and the other guy the road runner in this case. ANd the coyote won. Still would have been funny

[RCharter]

I forgot to mention earlier. Did anyone else feel like the opening scene was like a Roadrunner cartoon? I was hoping Mike would sneak up behind the guy and go "Beep Beep". Well except he would actually the coyote and the other guy the road runner in this case. ANd the coyote won. Still would have been funny

LMFAO!  I love, love, love roadrunner cartoons, and now that you said that I could totally see it.  If only that hose had been sold by Acme, and came with a black hole.

[rehoboth]

My first reaction to this episode was all about Chuck and how he won't take Howard's advice to take his lumps and let this matter go.  Chuck is locked in a death grip with Jimmy to his own detriment. 

 

I proclaimed to my husband that it's such a shame that Chuck got hurt because his expedition ultimately led to nothing as we know that Jimmy does not get disbarred because he's still a practicing attorney in BB.  My husband, on the other hand (who is an attorney) said he wouldn't be surprised if Jimmy is disbarred.  Standards of evidence are much different than for a court of law - Bill Clinton was disbarred but was never convicted of anything.  My husband pointed out that Jimmy might have had to change his name and use his forged ID making skills from high school to create Saul Goodman documents.  The law degree from University of American Samoa hanging on the wall in BB had the name Saul Goodman on it.

 

Also, my husband said that Kim pointedly asked Chuck for his evidence (rather than his feelings) on the document malfeasance because if Chuck showed her any hard evidence, she would have been bound to come forward with it to the courts.

[Milburn Stone]

Also, my husband said that Kim pointedly asked Chuck for his evidence (rather than his feelings) on the document malfeasance because if Chuck showed her any hard evidence, she would have been bound to come forward with it to the courts.

 

Good to have this perspective from an insider. My own lay perspective--which I suspect is also true--is that Kim was giving Chuck a preview of Jimmy's defense. She was saying, "Go ahead and bring this before the bar. Here's the solid defense of Jimmy that you can expect if you do. Think making your case will be easy? Make our day."

[Captanne]

Personally, I think Kim was figuring out her role in this mess.  There were a lot of cogs spinning in Kim's head in the moment she said, "Show me the proof."  For me, it's a combination of -- if there is evidence I don't know what I will do with Jimmy* but also, if there is evidence I will be forced to take this before the ABA and probably the NMSBA.  (www.nmbar.org)

 

*I can't be definitive about Kim's relationship with Jimmy because, personally, she bounces between living/sleeping/working/running serious con games with him and clearly being inseparable best friends and then getting so damned mad at him for his playing fast and loose.    

 

As far as her professional relationship, she's been very, very clear.  They are two different attorneys who behave very differently -- he's Slippin' Jimmy and she is the company man.   She is so serious about drawing this line in the sand that she even defines their law firm "partnership" this way.

[Milburn Stone]

Personally, I think Kim was figuring out her role in this mess.  There were a lot of cogs spinning in Kim's head in the moment...

 

That absolutely was going on there, too. Her fate is tied to Jimmy's. The more she can show Chuck that Jimmy has a cogent defense against his allegations, the better off she will be. It's a game of Legal Chicken, or Legal Poker--which I suspect most negotiations between legal adversaries are--and she played it well.

 

The way the show was able to communicate the wheels-within-wheels turning inside Kim's head in that moment is one more testimony to the brilliance that is Gilligan.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[ShadowFacts]

 

I proclaimed to my husband that it's such a shame that Chuck got hurt because his expedition ultimately led to nothing as we know that Jimmy does not get disbarred because he's still a practicing attorney in BB.  My husband, on the other hand (who is an attorney) said he wouldn't be surprised if Jimmy is disbarred.  Standards of evidence are much different than for a court of law - Bill Clinton was disbarred but was never convicted of anything.  My husband pointed out that Jimmy might have had to change his name and use his forged ID making skills from high school to create Saul Goodman documents.  The law degree from University of American Samoa hanging on the wall in BB had the name Saul Goodman on it.

 

I just don't see him pulling that off.  Too many people know him as James MacGill.  He's been too high profile.  Other lawyers at HHM and Davis and Main would put the kibosh on that. 

[Captanne]

It's Gilligan's brilliance, but it is also (and I think, mainly) the actress's brilliance.  (Conveying conflicting and layered emotions is a talent of hers, clearly.)  Gilligan and the writers set up the character's internal conflicts but the actor is the last line of communication through the camera to the viewer.

 

I think.

[Milburn Stone]

It's Gilligan's brilliance, but it is also (and I think, mainly) the actress's brilliance.  (Conveying conflicting and layered emotions is a talent of hers, clearly.)  Gilligan and the writers set up the character's internal conflicts but the actor is the last line of communication through the camera to the viewer.

 

I think.

 

No disagreement that Rhea Seehorn is awesome.

[scenario]

I believe that Chuck graduated from the Anthony Scalia School of Law, better known as A.S.S.O.L. 

[Ohwell]

Or ASSLAW.  There were so many jokes about it that George Mason University had to change it to Antonin Scalia Law School.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

So, if Chuck expires, won't his estate be entitled to the very same cash out Chuck would have been if still alive?  Sooooo much of what Howard has done, and what has happened at HHM, was about avoiding that at all costs.  I happen to believe Howard is an excellent Managing General Partner.  He was brilliant in getting Chuck to that "courtesy" farewell meeting with MV.  He's also managed to keep Chuck going on a day-to-day basis, resulting in some excellent legal work being done.  He was great with MV in the meetings we saw.  He may not be great at the practice of law (although I'd bet he would be darn good) but he is a genius oily lizard at ferreting out the needs of the firm and how to steer things that way.  Anyway...all of that is on the line, depending on Chuck's fate, right?  Will the mighty HHM fall?

 

Jimmy absolutely left damning evidence with Chuck, but lucked out that Chuck quickly decided, or was made to decide by Howard, that discretion was the better part of valor.  Had Chuck decided to retain possession of and test the documents, Jimmy was toast.   Jimmy's audacity paid off yet again.  Poor Jimmy.

 

(Total aside)  There will forever only be one "Lance" for me:  Friday Night Light's Landry, so wonderfully portrayed by the brilliantly funny and gifted Jesse Plemons (Fargo's Ed, Season 2).    

Edited April 17, 2016 by Lonesome Rhodes

[Lion18]

On a lighter note, I cracked up when Jimmy was trying to b.s. the teachers or administrators at the school, and said something about the kids like, "just give 'em a worksheet." I feel like the humor quotient could go up a tick. One of the best parts of BB was that Walt or Jesse or of course Saul would often interject a real zinger amongst all the gloom and doom.

As a retired teacher of 35 years that line cracked me up- as if- it was all that easy! My daughter looked at me likeWhy is that funny? Teacher humor

[Clanstarling]

(Total aside)  There will forever only be one "Lance" for me:  Friday Night Light's Landry, so wonderfully portrayed by the brilliantly funny and gifted Jesse Plemons (Fargo's Ed, Season 2).

Love Jesse Plemons. Haven't seen Fargo - but he was brilliant in Breaking Bad. The most chillingly pleasant bad guy ever.

[ByTor]

I just don't see him pulling that off.  Too many people know him as James MacGill.  He's been too high profile.  Other lawyers at HHM and Davis and Main would put the kibosh on that.

My first thought was that I bet "Jimmy" was disbarred, but "Saul" wasn't. But then it hit me that Saul had his face all over billboards, benches, buses (in other words, he wasn't exactly keeping a low profile, as ShadowFacts said), so there is no way even he would manage to get away with that.  It will be interesting to see how the name change comes about, especially since so many in the legal community knew him as Jimmy McGill.

Edited April 17, 2016 by ByTor

[Umbelina]

You'd think that HHM would have an insurance policy on a partner though, paid to them, not to Chuck. 

 

??  (I only know this from Mad Men, ha.)

[Dev F]

You'd think that HHM would have an insurance policy on a partner though, paid to them, not to Chuck. 

 

??  (I only know this from Mad Men, ha.)

 

Ha, I had the exact same thought, including the Mad Men reference. I figure it's either an insurance policy or a term in the original partnership agreement that negates or defers the buyout requirement in the event of death or incapacitation.

 

Presumably the reason why Chuck has had HHM over a barrel all along is because electromagnetic hypersensitivity is not a recognized medical condition, so whatever contractual or insurance protections the firm has to guard against a partner getting sick or dying can't kick in. But since bashing your head against a table is a recognized condition, you'd figure they'd kick in now.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Dev F

[PrincessSteel]

I have one wish for the finale: let Mike get with the waitress from the diner. I don't need a scene with him shoveling her driveway (ahem) but an early morning shot of her leaving his place will do.

Edited April 17, 2016 by PrincessSteel

[LoneHaranguer]

 

Jimmy absolutely left damning evidence with Chuck, but lucked out that Chuck quickly decided, or was made to decide by Howard, that discretion was the better part of valor.  Had Chuck decided to retain possession of and test the documents, Jimmy was toast.

My presumption is that Jimmy knew Chuck and the nature of the case well enough that he could reasonably count on all of the altered documents to be in the files so that he could swap back the originals. Worst case, Chuck would have some pages proving that it wasn't his fault he got the address wrong and he had had the bad luck to have based his work on a document containing an error. No reason for Chuck to go any further.

[hincandenza]

I have one wish for the finale: let Mike get with the waitress from the diner. I don't need a scene with him shoveling her driveway (ahem) but an early morning shot of her leaving his place will do.

 

Here's the twist, and there is a twist... they show it.  The're gonna show all of it.  Because what's the one major thing missing from Vince Gilligan shows these days?  Full penetration.  Guys, they're gonna show full penetration, and they're gonna show a lot of it.  We're talking graphic scenes of Jonathan Banks really going to town on this waitress from the dinner.  From behind, 69, anal, vaginal, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, all the hits, all the big ones, all the good ones.  Then Mike goes off to fight the Salamancas, then back to the waitress's house for some more "shoveling her driveway"... Salamancas, shoveling, Salamancas, shoveling, Salamancas, shoveling, and that goes on and on, back and forth for about 60 minutes or so until the episode just... ends.

[Spiraling]

Howard stupidly abused an associate who brought in an account, out the blue, which has net present value, to HHM, in the millions of dollars. That's really incompetent management.

 

Letting a mentally ill partner, who has been know to be in an unconscious state, at any time of day, with the door unlocked, bring home critical documents, is a disservice to clients, and the partner without the mental illness has a responsibility to end that practice, up to and including telling the mentall ill partner that he will be reported to the Bar Association if he persists.

 

Frankly, Howard may have failed Mesa Verde and any other clients, by allowing Chuck to work, without informing the Bar of Chuck's condition, especially when Chuck is not receiving mental health treatment.......

 

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/professional_responsibility/2014/05/30th-aba-national-forum-on-client-protection/topic_2_combined_session_documents.authcheckdam.pdf

 

In any case, we don't agree much on what we are seeing in this dramatic work, but different plausible interpretations is usually a sign of good writing. Thanks for the civil disagreement.

I think that perhaps if you've never worked at a firm like HHM (which I did, as a senior associate, for several years), it might be difficult to believe how incompetent lawyers can be as managers! We're not business trained, and lawyer training generally makes you WORSE at dealing with people, not better. I have seen baby rainmakers like Kim get abused and run out more than once. (As an aside, that's why it is sometimes very difficult for me to watch this show and it is always difficult for me to watch Kim. Because I used to be her. The depiction of HHM as a workplace is nauseatingly spot-on.)