S03.E05: Chicanery

[ghoulina]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

We see Chuck exposed on the witness stand, as a seriously mentally ill man, who is motivated largely by issues with his brother that go back to childhood, and both of these things are true.  

On the other hand, Chuck is made to look paranoid and as one who has lost his attention to detail. Now everyone will think he screwed up and came up with this wild tale about how Jimmy stole his files, doctored them at the copy shop, placed the doctored copies in his files to sabotage Chuck, sneaked back in to put back the original copies, and bribed the copy shop guy to lie to Chuck and destroy the surveillance tape.

But the fact is Chuck was 100% right about what happened.  He made no mistake, and he figured out Jimmy's plot down to the finest detail.  

This is all very true. But what's "funny" is none of this would have likely ever happened if HHM had just let Kim take Mesa Verde with her when she left. I think Chuck, especially, wanted to retain that client because he didn't want Jimmy/Kim to have anything nice. He wanted to make their new start as hard as possible. Sure, technically trying to keep Mesa Verde wasn't unethical or anything. But they're a huge firm. Kim DID bring the client in. They couldn't have just her have them? No. Arrogance and pride took over. It doesn't excuse Jimmy's chicanery (God, I love that word and was so pleased to see the episode name!), but none of this would have happened if they'd done otherwise. 

 

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Someone also pointed out that Jimmy asked Chuck:

"Uh, so, okay, if you'd had, um I don't know lung cancer, would you have told Rebecca then?"  

Come on, who would ever hide lung cancer from his wife? ;)

The attention to detail on this show is off the charts. 

More great finds! Squeeee!

[ShadowFacts]

46 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Regardless of Chuck's motives, if the ethics panel believes James McGill stole another attorney's files and doctored them, causing him professional embarrassment and damages to his client they should absolutely disbar him permanently.  However, after learning about the nature of Chuck's "illness" and about his obsession with his little brother, I think they will believe that Jimmy falsely "confessed" to calm down his mentally disturbed brother.  

That's not the matter before them, though.  They are dealing only with what Jimmy confessed to, which was not the altering of documents.  That tape wasn't authenticated or anything, it is not at issue.  Jimmy will be disciplined for the breaking and entering, the only question is how much/how long.  His antics with planting the battery won't be ignored.  It didn't like that it was a Perry Mason moment, and I don't think the panel will, either. 

 

11 minutes ago, scenario said:

I'm not so sure. If they went strictly by the rules, probably. But agencies don't always go strictly by the rules. People aren't always as logical and rational as they think they are. I don't know about the legalities of putting something in someone's pocket. If he planted evidence, like putting drugs in someones pocket, that's clearly illegal but a battery, I'm not so sure. 

In my state, breaking and entering is going to get you a censure, and probably a suspension.  Jimmy has admitted to that, and apologized for it in front of the DA.

[Eulipian 5k]

At first I thought Rebecca was brought in like the Pentangeli Brother in 2, (Godfather 2, Christopher) but then I saw her that she is the saddest part of this whole affair. Rebecca is a wonderful, successful, caring woman; she came there to support Chuck and possibly reconcile with him but the Jimmy destroys him in front of her. Chuck not only loses the case but also loses again the only person he would ever really love forever. Kimmy's right about the reckoning to come from Rebecca.

[Bannon]

45 minutes ago, Ottis said:

This depends on what your definition of a good lawyer is. All we know is that somehow Chuck became a lawyer and partner, and Jimmy later managed to become a lawyer on his own. Somewhere in there Chuck began to actively work against Jimmy's success as a lawyer, which this episode addressed in part. It could be that Jimmy *is* a better lawyer than Chuck, due in part to his willingness to connect with people. We don't know the answer to who ultimately is a better lawyer. We only know how Chuck views it. 

That's why I originally posted that I had hoped for something more and maybe surprising. Jimmy provoking Chuck to lose it was the most cliched way to go. In fact, I'm not sure I buy Chuck would do that. He had been preparing for his own remarks, and knew this was the coup de grace for his victory over Jimmy. Rebecca being present was a wild card, so there is that. But even so, if Chuck is as good a lawyer as he thinks he is, I don't believe he would have lost it that way over what we saw. That's another reason why I thought, if the situations were reversed, Jimmy would have handled it better. Of course, Chuck's mental illness around being in control of those around him may have been the trigger. Still pondering that.

This is a guy who goes into a pseudo-coma, because he honestly believes electricity is attacking him. He's capable of losing control at any time.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Bannon

[ghoulina]

29 minutes ago, Ottis said:

This depends on what your definition of a good lawyer is. All we know is that somehow Chuck became a lawyer and partner, and Jimmy later managed to become a lawyer on his own. Somewhere in there Chuck began to actively work against Jimmy's success as a lawyer, which this episode addressed in part. It could be that Jimmy *is* a better lawyer than Chuck, due in part to his willingness to connect with people. We don't know the answer to who ultimately is a better lawyer. We only know how Chuck views it. 

There are also different types of law. I could see Chuck being very good at very "dry" areas of law, that deal with tons of numbers and codes, etc. But Jimmy is much more personable and I don't have any doubt that he would surpass Chuck in areas that are more people heavy. 

 

20 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

That was a pure Jimmy/Saul move. Other people would have at least considered borrowing a friend's dog or cat but Jimmy takes it to the outer margins and doesn't show a hint of caring how ridiculous he appears to others.

Or someone like Mike, who doesn't believe in half measures, actually commits to GETTING a pet. Albeit for Kaylee, but still. I love how different and fleshed out all these characters are. 

 

8 minutes ago, benteen said:

I have no problem with Chuck not giving Jimmy a job right away.  Jimmy had earned a law license (unknown to anyone) but that didn't entitle him to a job at a prestigious law firm.  He could have sold it to Jimmy that way instead of how his lackey Howard lie to Jimmy about it.

Yea, I didn't so much have an issue with Jimmy not getting right in the door at HHM. It was the fact that Chuck made Howard the fall guy, so he could keep up the charade of supportive brother, that really bothered me. 

[Auntie Anxiety]

1 minute ago, ghoulina said:

There are also different types of law. I could see Chuck being very good at very "dry" areas of law, that deal with tons of numbers and codes, etc. But Jimmy is much more personable and I don't have any doubt that he would surpass Chuck in areas that are more people heavy. 

Yes, Chuck is a rules guy. He loves the rules, he loves the statutes, he prides himself on knowing it all. But he would not be able to undertake an elder law practice, like Jimmy has. He can't talk to people on an emotional level, he thinks he's above it all and potential clients can pick up on that. It's like a doctor who goes into radiology where s/he can sit in a back room, looking at scans and xrays and doesn't have to interact with patients.

[nodorothyparker]

28 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

Quote

So why did Jimmy bring Rebecca into this at all ?

Why was she needed to expose Chuck, couldn't it have been without here ? I don't really see the point , can anyone explain ?

I would like this clarified as well.  I don't think Jimmy just wanted to humiliate Chuck in front of her. Was it something to do with distracting Chuck? I'm sure Chuck figured Jimmy had some tricks up his sleeve, so seeing Rebecca might have caused Chuck to let his guard down. Yet, Chuck's belief in his superiority would probably prevent him from putting up a guard. Also, with the battery in his pocket for nearly 2 hours, there wasn't any need to distract him. So... I don't get it.

It was a con within a con.  Chuck was expecting Jimmy to pull something so Jimmy gave him something that he could easily see through to feed into his arrogance so he would miss the real hammer.

When Rebecca showed up, Chuck immediately pointed out that she wasn't on the witness list and didn't have to do anything.  He "knew" Jimmy brought her there to rattle him and gleefully dismissed the attempt.  It was the same thing with the phone.  Chuck was quick to rightfully assume Jimmy had something in his pocket to try to "trick" him.   He was so very smug about the phone's lack of battery and how he had been smart enough to see through Jimmy yet again that the reveal that the battery had been in his pocket the entire hour and forty some minutes practically against his skin blindsided him.  It threw him off balance enough that he completely lost control.

Full credit goes to Alan Sepinwall's write up at Uproxx for helping me sort this out.

[Bannon]

6 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

This is all very true. But what's "funny" is none of this would have likely ever happened if HHM had just let Kim take Mesa Verde with her when she left. I think Chuck, especially, wanted to retain that client because he didn't want Jimmy/Kim to have anything nice. He wanted to make their new start as hard as possible. Sure, technically trying to keep Mesa Verde wasn't unethical or anything. But they're a huge firm. Kim DID bring the client in. They couldn't have just her have them? No. Arrogance and pride took over. It doesn't excuse Jimmy's chicanery (God, I love that word and was so pleased to see the episode name!), but none of this would have happened if they'd done otherwise. 

 

More great finds! Squeeee!

Fundamentally, this also is due to Howard's abject idiocy, in performing his duties in managing associates, by continuting to treat Kim poorly, after she dropped a small mountain of cash on Howard's desk, in the form of the Mesa Verde account. Then Howard doubles down on dumb, by being so lacking in self awareness that he doesn't grasp the problematic nature of claiming that the desire to avoid the appearance of nepotism was what made HHM reluctant to have Jimmy be an associate. This may seem very unlikely to some people, but I've done enough business with 2nd generation business owners to recognize how frequently the moron heirs allow a sense of entitlement to blind them to what should be absolutely obvious.

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Fundamentally, this also is due to Howard's abject idiocy, in performing his duties in managing associates, by continuting to treat Kim poorly, after she dropped a small mountain of cash on Howard's desk, in the form of the Mesa Verde account. Then Howard doubles down on dumb, by being so lacking in self awareness that he doesn't grasp the problematic nature of claiming that the desire to avoid the appearance of nepotism was what made HHM reluctant to have Jimmy be an associate. This may seem very unlikely to some people, but I've done enough business with 2nd generation business owners to recognize how frequently the moron heirs allow a sense of entitlement to blind them to what should be absolutely obvious.

In fairness, to Howard, Kim screwed him pretty badly by talking him into recommending Jimmy to D&M and then by (as far as he knows, based upon what she told him) not informing him that Jimmy was running an unauthorized ad on behalf of D&M.  She deserved to be punished, though you can quibble about how much.

As for the nepotism thing.  He answered the question truthfully and later answered that the concern about nepotism was mostly Chuck's 

As for heirs, there is a big difference between a son, who the father has probably been grooming all his life, and who probably has a degree from a prestigious law school and a ne'er do well, little brother who got his degree from the University of American Samoa (Go, Land Crabs!).  I think Howard being brought into the firm would be much more typical and understandable to the other partners and associates.   He was probably, exactly the type of young associate they would recruit, even if his last name wasn't Hamlin.

[scenario]

22 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

That's not the matter before them, though.  They are dealing only with what Jimmy confessed to, which was not the altering of documents.  That tape wasn't authenticated or anything, it is not at issue.  Jimmy will be disciplined for the breaking and entering, the only question is how much/how long.  His antics with planting the battery won't be ignored.  It didn't like that it was a Perry Mason moment, and I don't think the panel will, either. 

 

In my state, breaking and entering is going to get you a censure, and probably a suspension.  Jimmy has admitted to that, and apologized for it in front of the DA.

He should get a censure and a suspension but disbarred, less likely. 

The Perry Mason moment was his only path. The correct path would be to call in the doctors but this was not Chucks trial, so the judges wouldn't have allowed it. But Chuck is so mentally unstable, the problem most of the time is to keep him calm enough so he doesn't fly off the handle. Getting him to start ranting about Jimmy was easy and Jimmy's only realistic way out. 

The panel won't like it but different lawyers have different styles. Unless there is a specific law against it, they'll have Jimmy on their naughty list but only take the actions that seem prudent. 

[Primetimer]

Okay, it's just a Bar Association hearing, but he's still bested -- brutally -- by the very man this is all meant to destroy.

View the full article

[Auntie Anxiety]

1 minute ago, scenario said:

The panel won't like it but different lawyers have different styles. Unless there is a specific law against it, they'll have Jimmy on their naughty list but only take the actions that seem prudent. 

I think Jimmy and Kim decided that the best they could hope for was to muddy the waters and give the bar overseers an excuse to throw out the case against Jimmy. 

[Bryce Lynch]

33 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

Not so sure of this. Just the idea of Jimmy becoming a lawyer disturbed Chuck. He couldn't countenance the idea that Jimmy would be in a position to uphold the law and be on "equal footing" with him (Chuck). Chuck wants to believe that attorneys should be above the common riffraff. We all know that that is not always true.

The idea of Jimmy becoming a lawyer certainly disturbed Chuck, but he seemed capable of dealing with it, as long as Jimmy wasn't associated with his firm, and of course he preferred Jimmy not use McGill in the name of his practice.  He never tried to block Jimmy, except from working at HHM, and he didn't start plotting to get him disbarred until after Jimmy's Mesa Verde Cut and Paste caper, and that honestly gave him good cause.  

If he had been upfront with Jimmy about his concerns, when he first told him he had passed the bar, Jimmy wouldn't have later had the shock of finding out that Chuck, not Howard was the "pig effer" who kept him out of HHM all those years.  

[AuntiePam]

7 hours ago, Pannekoeker said:

So why did Jimmy bring Rebecca into this at all ?

Why was she needed to expose Chuck, couldn't it have been without here ? I don't really see the point , can anyone explain ?

I've been wondering about this too.  Maybe the fact that Chuck didn't tell her about his "illness" somehow showed that Chuck himself knew it was a mental disorder, that it wasn't a real illness.  Because like Jimmy said, if it was lung cancer, he would have told her. 

So she's there, in case Jimmy needs to prove that Chuck lied to at least one person about having EMF or EHF or whatever the hell he calls it.

[Bryce Lynch]

56 minutes ago, scenario said:

I'm not so sure. If they went strictly by the rules, probably. But agencies don't always go strictly by the rules. People aren't always as logical and rational as they think they are. I don't know about the legalities of putting something in someone's pocket. If he planted evidence, like putting drugs in someones pocket, that's clearly illegal but a battery, I'm not so sure. 

Someone on Reddit suggested the Huell might face a "battery" charge. :)

[ApathyMonger]

13 hours ago, TVFan17 said:

Is it my imagination, or is Huell a more svelte man in BCS than he was in BB?  He was heavier in BB, wasn't he?  He looked different to me tonight, for some reason.

The actor has lost over 100 pounds since BB ended. Which means that BCS Huell has a massive weight gain ahead of him.

[teddysmom]

Quote

However, after learning about the nature of Chuck's "illness" and about his obsession with his little brother, I think they will believe that Jimmy falsely "confessed" to calm down his mentally disturbed brother.  

I'm wondering if the story about the light bill being unpaid because of the address mix up is brought up again, as it relates to the address on the Mesa Verde papers.

Gilligan & Company never bring up anything pertinent without it having a real role in the plot. He is a strict follower of the Chekhov rule. 

If Jimmy isn't calling Rebecca as a witness, will she bring that up to Chuck later, to make Chuck really think he's lost his mind? 

So great seeing Huell.  I love how we're getting all the BB characters back. 

[Bryce Lynch]

4 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

I'm wondering if the story about the light bill being unpaid because of the address mix up is brought up again, as it relates to the address on the Mesa Verde papers.

Gilligan & Company never bring up anything pertinent without it having a real role in the plot. He is a strict follower of the Chekhov rule. 

If Jimmy isn't calling Rebecca as a witness, will she bring that up to Chuck later, to make Chuck really think he's lost his mind? 

So great seeing Huell.  I love how we're getting all the BB characters back. 

I think Chuck's claim that the electric company transposed the numbers in the address of the house to disconnect was just put in as an ironic call back to Jimmy transposing the numbers in the MV documents.  I can't see it having any relevance to the ethics case or Mesa Verde.

[Ohwell]

I've been looking forward to Jimmy stripping the bark off of Chuck, and this episode didn't disappoint.

And because it can't be said enough:  HUELL!!

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

In fairness, to Howard, Kim screwed him pretty badly by talking him into recommending Jimmy to D&M and then by (as far as he knows, based upon what she told him) not informing him that Jimmy was running an unauthorized ad on behalf of D&M.  She deserved to be punished, though you can quibble about how much.

As for the nepotism thing.  He answered the question truthfully and later answered that the concern about nepotism was mostly Chuck's 

As for heirs, there is a big difference between a son, who the father has probably been grooming all his life, and who probably has a degree from a prestigious law school and a ne'er do well, little brother who got his degree from the University of American Samoa (Go, Land Crabs!).  I think Howard being brought into the firm would be much more typical and understandable to the other partners and associates.   He was probably, exactly the type of young associate they would recruit, even if his last name wasn't Hamlin.

Jimmy was a great recommendation for D&M, if D&M had an ounce of management skill. Yes, Jimmy has great imperfections and faults. This is quite common among rainmakers, in law, investment banking, bond trading, aircraft sales, etc., etc.. The key is to exhibit some management skill, so as to get the best out of the rainmaker, while limiting the exposure to the rainmakers imperfections. D&M didn't even have a principled objection to t.v. ads, as they originally claimed; they were just too inept to run effective t.v. ads.  Yeah, Jimmy screwed up, big time, by not getting the ad cleared. Big screwups by big rainmakers is as common as the rain itself, and competent managers don't stifle that which made the rainmaker a good hire to begin with, in response to the screw up. They try to manage around it, if possible. In this case, the solution is just blindingy obvious, if D&M doesn't think  their image as a firm can withstand running emotionally effective television ads. You just set up Jimmy as an independent law firm, with one client, D&M, with one purpose, to round up Sandpiper customers for the class action. Something along these lines is done frequently.   

Howard just had an associate, Kim, show great skill at performing among the most vital tasks for a big law firm, namely, attracting lucrative long term clients. To continue to punish her after that accomplishment is, to me, simply too stupid for words, and not in the "this would never happen stupid", but rather in the "it's maddening that this stupidity so frequently happens" sense.  Your mileage may vary, but that's my take, from substantial observation in serving a variety of businesses.

To be fair, I've also seen it just as frequently, if not more so, go the other way, where the response to the talented rainmaker with big flaws is to abandon the management of the rainmaker altogether, and let them get away with murder, almost literally, until gigantic lawsuits/regulatory actions ensue. To your point, I guess, this management stuff is hard, hard, hard. Which should be the price of admission for wanting a job that has large renumeration

[Bryce Lynch]

4 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Jimmy was a great recommendation for D&M, if D&M had an ounce of management skill. Yes, Jimmy has great imperfections and faults. This is quite common among rainmakers, in law, investment banking, bond trading, aircraft sales, etc., etc.. The key is to exhibit some management skill, so as to get the best out of the rainmaker, while limiting the exposure to the rainmakers imperfections. D&M didn't even have a principled objection to t.v. ads, as they originally claimed; they were just too inept to run effective t.v. ads.  Yeah, Jimmy screwed up, big time, by not getting the ad cleared. Big screwups by big rainmakers is as common as the rain itself, and competent managers don't stifle that which made the rainmaker a good hire to begin with, in response to the screw up. They try to manage around it, if possible. In this case, the solution is just blindingy obvious, if D&M doesn't think  their image as a firm can withstand running emotionally effective television ads. You just set up Jimmy as an independent law firm, with one client, D&M, with one purpose, to round up Sandpiper customers for the class action. Something along these lines is done frequently.   

Howard just had an associate, Kim, show great skill at performing among the most vital tasks for a big law firm, namely, attracting lucrative long term clients. To continue to punish her after that accomplishment is, to me, simply too stupid for words, and not in the "this would never happen stupid", but rather in the "it's maddening that this stupidity so frequently happens" sense.  Your mileage may vary, but that's my take, from substantial observation in serving a variety of businesses.

To be fair, I've also seen it just as frequently, if not more so, go the other way, where the response to the talented rainmaker with big flaws is to abandon the management of the rainmaker altogether, and let them get away with murder, almost literally, until gigantic lawsuits/regulatory actions ensue. To your point, I guess, this management stuff is hard, hard, hard. Which should be the price of admission for wanting a job that has large renumeration

Yes, all the managing partners of these large,  highly successful law firms are incompetent morons who can't recognize that  Slippin' Jimmy McGill is a dream hire for such a firm. :)

I love Jimmy, but he is a square peg in a firm like HHM or D&M.  He was born to be in private practice with Constitution wall paper, a Statue of Liberty inflatable on the roof, and a pickpocket who can't fit into tight spaces as his security chief.  

[revbfc]

1 hour ago, benteen said:

I have no problem with Chuck not giving Jimmy a job right away.  Jimmy had earned a law license (unknown to anyone) but that didn't entitle him to a job at a prestigious law firm.  He could have sold it to Jimmy that way instead of how his lackey Howard lie to Jimmy about it.

No argument from me there.  Chuck had every reason to deny Jimmy a job.  

1 hour ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

Not so sure of this. Just the idea of Jimmy becoming a lawyer disturbed Chuck. He couldn't countenance the idea that Jimmy would be in a position to uphold the law and be on "equal footing" with him (Chuck). Chuck wants to believe that attorneys should be above the common riffraff. We all know that that is not always true.

Yeah, he couldn't handle it, but if he had at least aired those feelings out when Jimmy asked for a job, it would have probably avoided everything they're going through now.

Of course if they had aired their grievances like adults, we wouldn't have a show.

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, revbfc said:

No argument from me there.  Chuck had every reason to deny Jimmy a job.  

Yeah, he couldn't handle it, but if he had at least aired those feelings out when Jimmy asked for a job, it would have probably avoided everything they're going through now.

Of course if they had aired their grievances like adults, we wouldn't have a show.

Too bad they didn't celebrate Festivus.  The Airing of Grievances could have saved their family. :)

[Booger666]

I really struggled with this episode. I don't think Chuck was shown to be mentally ill in the courtroom. I imagine to the board Chuck has been an upstanding citizen and lawyer for decades and for a brief moment he lost his shit. Maybe it's bc in my work history there have been people who lost it and then everyone tip toes around them for a bit and pretty soon things are back to normal; so sadly this wasn't a shocking 'you can't handle the truth' type moment. I thought there would be more to show Chuck was mentally unstable enough for Jimmy to tell whopping lies to pacify him. 

[knaankos]

17 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Yes, all the managing partners of these large,  highly successful law firms are incompetent morons who can't recognize that  Slippin' Jimmy McGill is a dream hire for such a firm. :)

I love Jimmy, but he is a square peg in a firm like HHM or D&M.  He was born to be in private practice with Constitution wall paper, a Statue of Liberty inflatable on the roof, and a pickpocket who can't fit into tight spaces as his security chief.  

And that is made clear in episode 1 of this show, when "Gene" is nostalgic about the Better Call Saul days. Like those were his good ole days. Not working in the firm in Santa Fe or not even working with Kim and elder law 

[Bryce Lynch]

I saw it mentioned on another site that Chuck may have violated attorney-client privilege when he shouted, "He defecated through a sunroof!".  I sort of doubt this angle was intended to be part of the plot, but it is interesting nonetheless.  

[knaankos]

I am glad that they went ahead and did the hearing in this episode. I was worried they would draw it out for the whole season. But now it appears bigger things are coming this season. Speaking of which, how far away are we from the BB timeline now?

[scenario]

14 minutes ago, Booger666 said:

I really struggled with this episode. I don't think Chuck was shown to be mentally ill in the courtroom. I imagine to the board Chuck has been an upstanding citizen and lawyer for decades and for a brief moment he lost his shit. Maybe it's bc in my work history there have been people who lost it and then everyone tip toes around them for a bit and pretty soon things are back to normal; so sadly this wasn't a shocking 'you can't handle the truth' type moment. I thought there would be more to show Chuck was mentally unstable enough for Jimmy to tell whopping lies to pacify him. 

It's not so much he's mentally ill, its that it is obvious he's got it out for Jimmy. He tries to mention everything that Jimmy's done wrong in his entire life in one rant. Jimmy's defense is that Chuck is mentally ill and paranoid. They didn't prove the mentally ill part but Chuck sure looks paranoid. 

[Bannon]

26 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Yes, all the managing partners of these large,  highly successful law firms are incompetent morons who can't recognize that  Slippin' Jimmy McGill is a dream hire for such a firm. :)

I love Jimmy, but he is a square peg in a firm like HHM or D&M.  He was born to be in private practice with Constitution wall paper, a Statue of Liberty inflatable on the roof, and a pickpocket who can't fit into tight spaces as his security chief.  

Two firms isn't much of a universe for the term "all". Yes, he is a square peg, hence the need to exhibit some management skill, when the employee performs, yes, the dream task of serving up a potential gold mine like the Sandpiper suit, or substantial steady flow of income, in the case of Kim, like Mesa Verde. It's really, really, really hard to make a lot of money. Really. Which is why people who show great facility at executing a task critical to making a lot of money need to be managed well. The graveyards are filled with corpses of once very prosperous business enterprises which lost sight of this reality.

I'm not saying you are wrong, per se, but I think our perspctives differ. I fully admit to being a nerd when it comes to business operation; I'm so bad that I just watched "The Founder " the other day, and thought is the was the best movie I've seen in a long time!

[DrSpaceman73]

2 hours ago, ghoulina said:

This is all very true. But what's "funny" is none of this would have likely ever happened if HHM had just let Kim take Mesa Verde with her when she left. I think Chuck, especially, wanted to retain that client because he didn't want Jimmy/Kim to have anything nice. He wanted to make their new start as hard as possible. Sure, technically trying to keep Mesa Verde wasn't unethical or anything. But they're a huge firm. Kim DID bring the client in. They couldn't have just her have them? No. Arrogance and pride took over. It doesn't excuse Jimmy's chicanery (God, I love that word and was so pleased to see the episode name!), but none of this would have happened if they'd done otherwise. 

 

I was going to say the same thing about the cause of all this.  HHM really didn't NEED the mesa verde account.  In fact they would have had no idea about it without Kim in the first place, she just kind of handed it to them when she worked at the firm.  They could have lost it easily and the firm would have been fine. 

[Dev F]

33 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Yes, all the managing partners of these large,  highly successful law firms are incompetent morons who can't recognize that  Slippin' Jimmy McGill is a dream hire for such a firm. :)

I love Jimmy, but he is a square peg in a firm like HHM or D&M.  He was born to be in private practice with Constitution wall paper, a Statue of Liberty inflatable on the roof, and a pickpocket who can't fit into tight spaces as his security chief.  

Yep, yep. I think that's an important fact people overlook when they complain that HHM and D&M should afford Jimmy or Kim greater respect for their rainmaking abilities: established, conservative firms like those don't really have an urgent need for rain. They've already got it made, so most of what they do is the diligent, boring work of keeping clients happy and maintaining their brand. Sure, they're happy to have new work, but not at the cost of jeopardizing their current relationships or reputation.

[Bannon]

24 minutes ago, Booger666 said:

I really struggled with this episode. I don't think Chuck was shown to be mentally ill in the courtroom. I imagine to the board Chuck has been an upstanding citizen and lawyer for decades and for a brief moment he lost his shit. Maybe it's bc in my work history there have been people who lost it and then everyone tip toes around them for a bit and pretty soon things are back to normal; so sadly this wasn't a shocking 'you can't handle the truth' type moment. I thought there would be more to show Chuck was mentally unstable enough for Jimmy to tell whopping lies to pacify him. 

C'mon, you don't strongly suspect mental illness, when somebody claims that electricty attacks him, to the point that nobody can have a cell phone in the room?

[PeterPirate]

14 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I saw it mentioned on another site that Chuck may have violated attorney-client privilege when he shouted, "He defecated through a sunroof!".  I sort of doubt this angle was intended to be part of the plot, but it is interesting nonetheless.  

Hmm. I can imagine that part of the deal that Chuck arranged for Jimmy required Jimmy to allocute to the particulars of the crime, which would make it a matter of public record. 

[Bryce Lynch]

9 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Two firms isn't much of a universe for the term "all". Yes, he is a square peg, hence the need to exhibit some management skill, when the employee performs, yes, the dream task of serving up a potential gold mine like the Sandpiper suit, or substantial steady flow of income, in the case of Kim, like Mesa Verde. It's really, really, really hard to make a lot of money. Really. Which is why people who show great facility at executing a task critical to making a lot of money need to be managed well. The graveyards are filled with corpses of once very prosperous business enterprises which lost sight of this reality.

I'm not saying you are wrong, per se, but I think our perspctives differ. I fully admit to being a nerd when it comes to business operation; I'm so bad that I just watched "The Founder " the other day, and thought is the was the best movie I've seen in a long time!

Sometimes a person is such a bad fit, that no matter how talented they are, they are not worth trying to work in.  D&M seemed to be doing fine before Jimmy and Sandpiper came along and they made it clear that Sandpiper was important, but not close to being more important than all their other clients.

The graveyards are also full of businesses that were led by  "risk takers" who thought they could make fatally flawed plans work.  With the benefit of hindsight, provided by Vince Gilligan's time machine, we know for certain that Jimmy would have been disastrous for HHM or D&M.  

D&M still has Sandpiper without Jimmy.  Just because he happened to stumble across that case, with Chuck's help, doesn't mean he would keep bringing in once in a lifetime cases every week.  

Edited May 9, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, Dev F said:

Yep, yep. I think that's an important fact people overlook when they complain that HHM and D&M should afford Jimmy or Kim greater respect for their rainmaking abilities: established, conservative firms like those don't really have an urgent need for rain. They've already got it made, so most of what they do is the diligent, boring work of keeping clients happy and maintaining their brand. Sure, they're happy to have new work, but not at the cost of jeopardizing their current relationships or reputation.

I really, really disagree with the notion that. at any time in the past 20 years, that any law firm could afford to think "they have it made".  Jimmmy would cause any firm to swallow hard, and then it would have to be extra, extra, cautious. Kim's offense was extremely minor. If everybody was punished for a job recommendation that didn't work out, half the business world would be getting punished.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, PeterPirate said:

Hmm. I can imagine that part of the deal that Chuck arranged for Jimmy required Jimmy to allocute to the particulars of the crime, which would make it a matter of public record. 

Do you recall what sort of deal was made on the Chicago Sunroof case?  Did Chuck cut a deal or did he pull strings to get him off, I don't remember. 

Would Jimmy telling the whole bingo hall full of geezers about the Chicago Sunroof also waive attorney-client privilege?

[Lurky McLurkerson]

2 hours ago, Ottis said:

This depends on what your definition of a good lawyer is. All we know is that somehow Chuck became a lawyer and partner, and Jimmy later managed to become a lawyer on his own. Somewhere in there Chuck began to actively work against Jimmy's success as a lawyer, which this episode addressed in part. It could be that Jimmy *is* a better lawyer than Chuck, due in part to his willingness to connect with people. We don't know the answer to who ultimately is a better lawyer. We only know how Chuck views it. 

That's why I originally posted that I had hoped for something more and maybe surprising. Jimmy provoking Chuck to lose it was the most cliched way to go. In fact, I'm not sure I buy Chuck would do that. He had been preparing for his own remarks, and knew this was the coup de grace for his victory over Jimmy. Rebecca being present was a wild card, so there is that. But even so, if Chuck is as good a lawyer as he thinks he is, I don't believe he would have lost it that way over what we saw. That's another reason why I thought, if the situations were reversed, Jimmy would have handled it better. Of course, Chuck's mental illness around being in control of those around him may have been the trigger. Still pondering that.

I actually work in legal, and I'd say the going standard for measuring lawyers is education, prestige, and money.  In lawyer-land, no one's looking at Chuck and Jimmy on their faces and picking Jimmy out as the winner.  Jimmy is an excellent con man, but he's not a great lawyer.  He's drawn to seek thrill, and it's why he couldn't sustain at Davis & Main and why he can't keep himself in the box.  He connects with old people, but we saw him fail to connect with juries as a public defender, and he's certainly shown himself tone deaf in traditional business-client situations.  Before imploding, Chuck had mastered the legal skills and the rainmaking skills to be a name partner at a decent-sized firm.  Is he a nice guy?  Nope.  He's kind of  a self-important jerk, and, after nearly two decades working with lawyers, that's not off the mark, particularly for partners well known in their fields/areas. (There has been at least one study that showed that attorneys - and litigators, in particular - have a fairly adversarial personality type that makes them more prone to divorce and interpersonal issues than others.)

This game is Chuck's to lose -- Jimmy's not in his ballpark as a lawyer.

2 hours ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

I can understand how Chuck feels. I've known people in my life who manage to duck the bullet time and again, receiving treatment that a law-abiding person would never get. Playing by the rules doesn't always mean you'll win. 

This sibling rivalry thing caught my eye very early on in Season One. Initially Chuck does a decent job making it look like he's a loving brother but Michael McKean played it well, always with an undertone of jealousy and frustration. Jimmy just has a certain charisma that Chuck will never have (maybe losing that self-righteous, moral superiority, condescending attitude would have helped).

I feel Chuck, too!  I am a rule follower, and the forgiveness-over-permission people drive me crazy.  The difference between me and Chuck is that I'm not willing to let my righteous indignation tank me.  I keep my eye on the assholes, but I'm not sending myself down the rabbit hole in pursuit of justice.  Chuck's not wrong about Jimmy, but he has become so obsessed with making sure Jimmy gets his just desserts that he's come completely unhinged (which, in turn, makes people take his criticism of Jimmy less seriously and then vicious cycle, here we come).

[iMonrey]

Quote

The judge was John Getz from 'The Fly', 'Blood Simple', and my favorite 'Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead'.

Also known as "Hey It's That Guy." I recognized him from Timeless.

Quote

The actor has lost over 100 pounds since BB ended. Which means that BCS Huell has a massive weight gain ahead of him.

I did not even recognize him. It didn't even occur to me it was the same guy until I started reading posts here.

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Sometimes a person is such a bad fit, that no matter how talented they are, they are not worth trying to work in.  D&M seemed to be doing fine before Jimmy and Sandpiper came along and they made it clear that Sandpiper was important, but not close to being more important than all their other clients.

The graveyards are also full of businesses that were lead by  "risk takers" who thought they could make fatally flawed plans work.  With the benefit of hindsight, provided by Vince Gilligan's time machine, we know for certain that Jimmy would have been disastrous for HHM or D&M.  

D&M still has Sandpiper without Jimmy.  Just because he happened to stumble across that case, with Chuck's help, doesn't mean he would keep bringing in once in a lifetime cases every week.  

We aren't going to agree. I just fundamentally disagree with the premise that people with talent and energy can be so cavalierly managed, as in the case of Kim. Jimmy's a much harder pill to swallow. 

[Bryce Lynch]

Just now, Bannon said:

We aren't going to agree. I just fundamentally disagree with the premise that people with talent and energy can be so cavalierly managed, as in the case of Kim. Jimmy's a much harder pill to swallow. 

Kim is more debatable.  I think she eventually would have gotten back into Howard's good graces and been successful at HHM, but she chose to move on.

Jimmy hated being a D&M.  He was miserable there even when things were going well.  You don't change the culture and practices of an entire company to help one employee fit in.  

[nodorothyparker]

17 minutes ago, scenario said:

It's not so much he's mentally ill, its that it is obvious he's got it out for Jimmy. He tries to mention everything that Jimmy's done wrong in his entire life in one rant. Jimmy's defense is that Chuck is mentally ill and paranoid. They didn't prove the mentally ill part but Chuck sure looks paranoid. 

This.  Chuck was done when his rant turned from listing grievances going all the way back to when Jimmy was 9 to "I had to stop him.  You (meaning the disciplinary panel) have to stop him."  Obvious mental illness aside, Jimmy made a pretty good case that Chuck is paranoid and fixated on him and that despite Chuck's lofty claims otherwise it had nothing to do with the law except as a convenient tool to attack him with.

[Ottis]

3 minutes ago, Lurky McLurkerson said:

This game is Chuck's to lose -- Jimmy's not in his ballpark as a lawyer.

I don't think Jimmy *wants* to be in the same lawyer ballpark as Chuck. That doesn't mean Jimmy is a lesser lawyer between the two, nor does it mean that, despite all his success as a "traditional" lawyer, Chuck doesn't see that Jimmy has talent and doesn't like it (hence stiffling Jimmy, not only because Jimmy plays fast and loose, but also because newly minted lawyer Jimmy has some upside and grit). I suppose we won't agree.

 

56 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I love Jimmy, but he is a square peg in a firm like HHM or D&M.  He was born to be in private practice with Constitution wall paper, a Statue of Liberty inflatable on the roof, and a pickpocket who can't fit into tight spaces as his security chief.  

I agree, and I think he would be (and was) a very, very good lawyer of that type. AND people liked him, unlike Chuck. I thought the show subtly but effective showed that even when Chuck was being kind, he actually was being patronizing. He said something to Rebecca in this episode that was on its face a compliment, but the actress reacted almost as if Chuck had insulted her or spoke for her, and she didn't appreciate it. Probably an echo of what broke up their marriage.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, nodorothyparker said:

This.  Chuck was done when his rant turned from listing grievances going all the way back to when Jimmy was 9 to "I had to stop him.  You (meaning the disciplinary panel) have to stop him."  Obvious mental illness aside, Jimmy made a pretty good case that Chuck is paranoid and fixated on him and that despite Chuck's lofty claims otherwise it had nothing to do with the law except as a convenient tool to attack him with.

The irony is that Chuck is 100% right about Jimmy.  He has an irrational, emotional jealousy towards him, but Jimmy DID steal from their father, Jimmy DID fake the billboard rescue and he DID tamper with the Mesa Verde files.  Chuck isn't imagining these things, they really happened.  Of course, Chuck would probably be jealous of Jimmy even if he hadn't done these things, and might have falsely accused him, if he hadn't done them, but he is still right.

[PeterPirate]

19 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Do you recall what sort of deal was made on the Chicago Sunroof case?  Did Chuck cut a deal or did he pull strings to get him off, I don't remember. 

I don't recall details about Jimmy's case, except that he stayed out of prison. So all I have is a theory that happens to fit the facts.

ETA: The second sentence is a riff on something Spock says in Star Trek VI.

Edited May 9, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Bannon]

8 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Kim is more debatable.  I think she eventually would have gotten back into Howard's good graces and been successful at HHM, but she chose to move on.

Jimmy hated being a D&M.  He was miserable there even when things were going well.  You don't change the culture and practices of an entire company to help one employee fit in.  

Oh, absolutely. That's why you get him out of D&M. As for Kim, you don't want your employees who just experienced a major success to choose to move on, which is why you stop punishing them. I really think that was a purely egocentric decision by Howard, and extremely unwise.

I'm really dreading Kim's fate, if it is as bad as I suspect. She's really going to kicked in the teeth for her decision to be loyal to Jimmy (out of a genuine love), and Howard treated her like crap. Chuck's simply as mad as a hatter, of course. Hopefully, she moves to another city, to be around people who provide a better environment.

[teddysmom]

Quote

I think Chuck's claim that the electric company transposed the numbers in the address of the house to disconnect was just put in as an ironic call back to Jimmy transposing the numbers in the MV documents.  I can't see it having any relevance to the ethics case or Mesa Verde.

Except it shows a pattern that twice Chuck used transposed numbers to blame someone else for his shortcomings.  And why even have that cold open with that little bit of information?  We all know Chuck is nuts, we know he & Rebecca divorced. None of that information was brought up in the case so it wasn't relevant information to the viewer, except for the transposed addresses. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by teddysmom

[Soobs]

Chuck is petty, mean spirited and is so self important but when he yelled at the Bar Association to stop Jimmy, I flashed forward to all the death and destruction that Jimmy facilitates by using the law, I thought, yeah they should have stopped him.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Soobs

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Except it shows a pattern that twice Chuck used transposed numbers to blame someone else for his shortcomings.  And why even have that cold open with that little bit of information?  We all know Chuck is nuts, we know he & Rebecca divorced. None of that information was brought up in the case so it wasn't relevant information to the viewer, except for the transposed addresses. 

There is no proof of Chuck's lie to Rebecca about the electric company transposing numbers.  Even if there was, it would be him telling a (relatively harmless) lie to his ex-wife, who he still had feelings for.  The Mesa Verde issue was not about whether Chuck lied, but whether he fouled up and transposed the numbers or Jimmy doctored them.

The writers love to do little Easter eggs and call backs to past episodes of BCS and BB.  Jimmy asking Chuck if he would tell his wife he had lung cancer was an example of this, but it is not important to the plot.  

[Booger666]

46 minutes ago, scenario said:

It's not so much he's mentally ill, its that it is obvious he's got it out for Jimmy. He tries to mention everything that Jimmy's done wrong in his entire life in one rant. Jimmy's defense is that Chuck is mentally ill and paranoid. They didn't prove the mentally ill part but Chuck sure looks paranoid. 

But I thought Jimmy's defense was that he said Altered the docs to placate 'crazy' Chuck. Agree that Chuck looks paranoid, how does that help Jimmy's defense?  

[PeterPirate]

Bringing this over from the thread for episode 303:

 

On 5/1/2017 at 6:26 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

What if Hitler had a jealous, condescending, snobbish older brother, lets call him Chuck Hitler, who warned people that he knew his younger brother and he had shown tendencies toward being a genocidal, megalomaniac, since childhood.  Suppose, Chuck Hitler did everything he could undermine young Adolph's political ambitions and tried to push him to make his living painting postcards and houses.  In hindsight, would we see Chuck Hitler as a horrible person for not supporting his baby brother's in his dreams and ambitions?  We would fixate on Chuck Hitler's annoying, unlikable, personality traits or on his brother's much more harmful traits and deeds?

I like this because Chuck sees himself as someone trying to stop a genuinely destructive person.  And also because all the people who conspired to stop The Little Corporal failed, and most of them were themselves destroyed. 

It's a YMMV thing as to whether Jimmy can reasonably thought of as Jimmy H. Personally, I think that--unlike Mike--there's nothing Jimmy won't do if it furthers his interest.