S06.E13: Teeth, Nose, Teeth

[yeswedo]

Rachel receives a letter that creates an unexpected issue for Harvey and Louis. Mike's mentorship of Oliver and Marissa gets put to the test. And Donna gets a surprise from the IT department.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

So the cursing is back, I see.

If Mike was going to object, why not yell out the basis for his objection?

Since Mike still has that little college/law school problem, the upcoming plan is ridiculous.  They just keep digging holes for themselves.

[bros402]

The Donna was the stupidest thing I have seen on TV in a while.

[FormerMod-a1]

An hour of chip on his shoulder, self-righteous, holier than though Mike.  Yay.   Even so, I'd rather he stay at the clinic even if (when, I'm sure) he gets to be a real lawyer again.

[Carolina Girl]

11 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

So the cursing is back, I see.

If Mike was going to object, why not yell out the basis for his objection?

Since Mike still has that little college/law school problem, the upcoming plan is ridiculous.  They just keep digging holes for themselves.

I agree.  I know here in California you can "read" law for four years under supervision of an attorney or judge and take the bar exam, but New York requires at least one year of law school in addition to reading law.  As far as we know, Mike did not even graduate from college.   

Also, I'm getting tired of hearing about the "awesome" that is Donna.  The awesome to me is Gretchen.  

[msani19]

I choked at what makes me awesome is my intuition, my intelligence, and my heart. Ok Donna! I say that I'm tall all the time (I'm 5'3"), it does not make it so :-). 

I couldn't care less about whether Rachel gets into the bar or not. 

Mike should stay at the clinic but either way, how can he "be a lawyer" again? This is eye-rolling stupid. If so, then I'm a lawyer as well. I didn't go to law school, but I watched  A LOT of Law and Order. I feel like I have the gist of the legal process. I think that's the same place these writers got their legal knowledge. 

Honestly, I don't know why I watched.

[Carolina Girl]

If this season doesn't improve, I'm taking it off my DVR.  There isn't a single thing about these characters that interests me any more.  

I was hoping that bad litigation lawyer would step up his game and get the job done.  What the hell?  If this guy can't function in a courtroom what good is he at a legal clinic?  Not everything in these cases is a negotiated settlement - you.have.to.sometimes.go.to.court and if this guy can't cut it in front of a judge, and Head Lawyer dickhead isn't available, are the clinic's clients just shit outa luck?  And the Head Office Lawyer is an effing DICK as far as I'm concerned.  Whaaaa!  I wanna see a movie.  So catch a matinee after the hearing, asshole. 

[themadman]

I should stop watching this show. I wanted a big meteor to rain down and kill everyone in this episode. Can't stand a single one of the characters any more. 

OK, I like Gretchen, but she wasn't in this one. 

[Rascotes]

Like many, I am questioning why I watch this show anymore.  It's so far from the series I started watching.  I actually wonder if the people writing season 6 have even seen an episode from the first few seasons.

Another week or two and if there's no improvement I'm gonna call it.

[CaptainCranky]

Still better episode that the past several years but a far cry from the first couple of years.

Donna is starting to wear thin but at least Louis remained sane most of the night.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

If Mike was going to object, why not yell out the basis for his objection?

I think he only did that to give Oliver a hint of what he should do instead of stand there sucking his thumb. It would've been too obvious if he'd completely spelled it out. Unfortunately Oliver didn't pick up on what Mike was trying to tell him.

As soon as I heard Gina Torres was leaving Suits I wondered if the show could survive without her character's strong presence. Am feeling like my concern was justified. At this point I'm not even sure introducing a new partner would help unless it was a fairly big name actor.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Joimiaroxeu

[auntiemel]

Pretty sure Keurig is the definition of fresh-brewed coffee, you make each dang cup right before you drink it!

[Evangeline]

I'm still curious what the objection was, though. I feel for the guy in court -- there's only so much you can do. Mike's objection was that it was inadmissible -- but why??

There's a reason you're generally not allowed to surprise lawyers with new evidence you haven't previously provided them and given them time to review. (Of course, maybe that's the objection. But then what was Mike's brilliant plan going to be?)  They're portraying this guy as incompetent, but I'm not sure what most lawyers would do in that situation (other than just not give in quite so easily). 

[luckyroll3]

On 2/9/2017 at 10:25 AM, Carolina Girl said:

you can "read" law

What does this mean?  That he can read the law books on his own?

[HawaiiTVGuy]

On 2/9/2017 at 7:59 AM, Carolina Girl said:

If this season doesn't improve, I'm taking it off my DVR.  There isn't a single thing about these characters that interests me any more.  

I was hoping that bad litigation lawyer would step up his game and get the job done.  What the hell?  If this guy can't function in a courtroom what good is he at a legal clinic?  Not everything in these cases is a negotiated settlement - you.have.to.sometimes.go.to.court and if this guy can't cut it in front of a judge, and Head Lawyer dickhead isn't available, are the clinic's clients just shit outa luck?  And the Head Office Lawyer is an effing DICK as far as I'm concerned.  Whaaaa!  I wanna see a movie.  So catch a matinee after the hearing, asshole. 

Maybe it is because he was in NCIS: LA and someone I found fine there, but I sympathize with the guy.  He needed to put Mike in his place and make him realize that unfortunately, working in the clinic, you probably are going to lose more cases than you win and for Mike to question his dedication to the clients was out of line.  I was also hoping the lawyer was going to step it up, but seriously, are lawyers allowed to improperly admit evidence at hearings in NY?  And the first rule Mike should have taught the guy, NEVER SAY YES TO ANYTHING THAT SHE ASKS YOU.  Seriously, it was obvious he had never seen the letter, you go ahead and say I am sorry your honor, I have never seen that before as it was never included in the exhibits so I am in no way authenticating that document.  Make HER prove it is a certified letter that was sent to his client.    

On 2/13/2017 at 0:28 AM, Evangeline said:

I'm still curious what the objection was, though. I feel for the guy in court -- there's only so much you can do. Mike's objection was that it was inadmissible -- but why??

There's a reason you're generally not allowed to surprise lawyers with new evidence you haven't previously provided them and given them time to review. (Of course, maybe that's the objection. But then what was Mike's brilliant plan going to be?)  They're portraying this guy as incompetent, but I'm not sure what most lawyers would do in that situation (other than just not give in quite so easily). 

That was the objection I believe, it was obvious she brought it forth without including it in her motion to dismiss like she was required to, and that brings into question the authenticity of the document.  That was why she was so quick to try to get his affirmation (not sure how that was admissible but oh well) and get a ruling before he could realize that he should object to her offering it into evidence without inspection.