S03.E05: Chicanery

[Booger666]

40 minutes ago, Bannon said:

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?

If Chuck had a seizure or gone catatonic like he had in the past I would agree. But all he said was that he had physical pain. Lots of people have "phantom pain" but it doesn't mean that they are mentally ill. 

[scenario]

6 minutes ago, Booger666 said:

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?  

Jimmy's case is that Chuck is mentally ill, demanding and paranoid. He is so paranoid about Jimmy that he'd rather make up a convoluted story than admit he made a mistake. If Jimmy had tried to placate Chuck, he would have blown up, like he did in court, and maybe passed out and ended up back in the hospital. Saying, your right Chuck calmed a dangerously paranoid person down. 

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

 

On Better Call Saul, Chuck Fucks Up His Day In Court

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

[Bannon]

7 minutes ago, Booger666 said:

If Chuck had a seizure or gone catatonic like he had in the past I would agree. But all he said was that he had physical pain. Lots of people have "phantom pain" but it doesn't mean that they are mentally ill. 

To the point that people 25 feet away aren't allowed to have a cell phone in their pocket?

10 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Bringing this over from the thread for episode 303:

 

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.  

I think this is a misreading of Jimmy. If you go back to season one, we see a guy who has only two goals in life: to be respected by Chuck, and to be with Kim. If having a job as a lawyer at HHM would have provided those two things, I think his worst qualities might have been supressed. Remember what triggered him putting on the pinky ring, besides the death of his con man pal from Chicago.

I really like to avoid a deterministic view of how real people, or dramatic characters, behave throughout their lives. Yes, our genes and our childhoods have huge influence. The stimuli we receive in our current environment have a big effect as well. This isn't to deprive Jimmy of his agency. He's responsible for his behavior, but we all can behave better, if we are afforded a environment more conducive to doing so. 

[scenario]

I think some of it with Chuck is that poor people are crazy. Rich people are eccentric. 

If Chuck were some poor, struggling sole practice lawyer, there's no way that they would have allowed him to get away with avoiding treatment and still continue to practice. 

[Irlandesa]

5 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

For some reason it just struck me in this episode of Howard and Kim parallel each other and how much she is like Howard, personally and legally. 

I am waiting for the day when they recognize, to one another, that they're both being brought down by the McGill Brothers.  And how they deal with that.

2 hours ago, Bannon said:

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.

I don't think he's not aware.  Nepotism was the company line....Chuck's company line and he was being so careful not to throw Chuck under the bus that he inadvertently trapped himself.

1 hour 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.  

How So?  If it was told to Chuck in confidence but probably not if was arrested/convicted or plead to the act.

[Eulipian 5k]

Can any clarify if the hearing is about the Mesa Verde Cut & Paste or merely the un-lawyerly B & E confessed to in the PPD, and of course the ~$2.98 cassette tape?.

Mesa Verde is only mentioned in the tape but Jimmy is insinuating that everything on the tape is merely to assuage Chuck. No one has stipulated that he altered the documents except maybe Howard.

[nodorothyparker]

45 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

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.

Yes, we know these things to be more or less true, but the panel doesn't.  They don't have any context about any of that ranting and so all they're likely to see is someone who's gone completely off the deep end attacking his brother for a lifetime of things that there's no evidence actually happened.   It's one of the things I've loved about how this story has been written.  

 

38 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. 

It showed us the absolute lengths Chuck was willing to go to not appear mentally ill to a woman who had already divorced him, and that Jimmy was fully aware of those lengths.  The man had appliances installed he never intended to use just to fake his way through a dinner.  We also saw Jimmy see him zero in so completely on Rebecca's cell phone as the source of all of his discomfort that he'd rather appear an ass than admit it.

Chuck setting Jimmy up to break into his house proved how well he knew Jimmy.  This was Jimmy demonstrating just how well he knew Chuck when he wasn't blinded by a sense of brotherly obligation or gratitude.

[Ohwell]

I loved how Jimmy excused himself from the table so that Chuck and Rebecca could have a conversation.  At first, I was wondering if Jimmy was hoping that Chuck would somehow fuck up and she'd find out about his mental illness.  But then later on, looking at Jimmy's face, it appeared as if he was really hoping that those two would reconnect. 

I also liked the final shot with the exit sign hanging above Chuck's head. 

[ghoulina]

58 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. 

Oh, I think plenty was relevant other than the transposed numbers (which I didn't even catch the connection until it was pointed out here). Yes, we knew he and Rebecca were no longer together. But did we know they actually divorced? I seem to remember some of us wondering if she died. And we didn't know when his illness began, in relation to the end of that marriage. I think that scene also reinforced just how stubborn and arrogant Chuck was. He would rather have Rebecca believe he was a rude ass than tell her what was really going on. Also, the fact that he didn't have any issues with her phone being nearby until it rang and made him aware of its presence, just goes to show how imagined his disease really is. 

 

53 minutes ago, Booger666 said:

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?

I think Chuck looked both crazy AND vindictive. I think its all kind of wrapped up together. Chuck has clearly had issues with Jimmy for years. Problems with Jimmy seem to exacerbate Chuck's "illness". Jimmy is basically saying that he had to take the blame so Chuck would calm down. 

[Bryce Lynch]

8 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Yes, we know these things to be more or less true, but the panel doesn't.  They don't have any context about any of that ranting and so all they're likely to see is someone who's gone completely off the deep end attacking his brother for a lifetime of things that there's no evidence actually happened.   It's one of the things I've loved about how this story has been written.  

 

It showed us the absolute lengths Chuck was willing to go to not appear mentally ill to a woman who had already divorced him, and that Jimmy was fully aware of those lengths.  The man had appliances installed he never intended to use just to fake his way through a dinner.  We also saw Jimmy see him zero in so completely on Rebecca's cell phone as the source of all of his discomfort that he'd rather appear an ass than admit it.

Chuck setting Jimmy up to break into his house proved how well he knew Jimmy.  This was Jimmy demonstrating just how well he knew Chuck when he wasn't blinded by a sense of brotherly obligation or gratitude.

What makes that part even better is that Chuck essentially planned on the ethics board only hearing his side of the story, with the board being unaware of the extenuating circumstances that led to Jimmy doctoring the MV files and later breaking down the door and damaging...I mean destroying an item of personal property.    While there was really no excuse for Jimmy tampering with the files, we as viewers knew the backstory of how hard Kim worked to get MV, that Kim kind of got screwed out of MV, and for Chuck, luring back MV was mainly a personal vendetta, though on the surface it appeared to be an ordinary effort to retain a client.  

Now the tables have been turned on Chuck.  The board has now witnessed Chuck's lunacy and his deep jealousy and bitterness towards Jimmy but will not understand that Jimmy really is a dodgy character and that Chuck's knowledge of this is also a part of what fuels his obsession with stopping him.

The hearing was supposed to show Jimmy in an unfairly harsh light but now that has happened to Chuck instead.  

[ShadowFacts]

47 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Can any clarify if the hearing is about the Mesa Verde Cut & Paste or merely the un-lawyerly B & E confessed to in the PPD, and of course the ~$2.98 cassette tape?.

Mesa Verde is only mentioned in the tape but Jimmy is insinuating that everything on the tape is merely to assuage Chuck. No one has stipulated that he altered the documents except maybe Howard.

That's right, his prosecution deferral is only about the breaking and entering and tape destruction incident at Chuck's house.  His confession to those things was brought to the state bar.  The actual document scheme isn't the subject of either a criminal prosecution or a lawyer misconduct proceeding. 

[Lurky McLurkerson]

1 minute ago, Ottis said:

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.

I guess my position is that it's not that Jimmy doesn't have the talent to be a good lawyer, it's that he doesn't have the moral fiber to resist the thrill of Slippin' Jimmy to become a good lawyer.  He learns just enough to work some law into his con.  I think Chuck's reason for submarining Jimmy is his own selfish insecurity rather than concern for his malpractice premiums, but even Kim, who sees Jimmy's potential and loves him, is wary of what a liability Jimmy is and knows better than to get into business with him.  I guess if you want to argue that con artistry matters more than ethics for a non-traditional attorney, I could see considering Jimmy a good lawyer, but all I see is a scam artist that knows just enough to get himself out of jams -- and, ultimately, Saul Goodman the Criminal Lawyer, whose cashflow is directly tied to his willingness to overlook law and ethics, is Jimmy's longed-for heyday when he's flees to slather icing in Omaha.  This a guy who chafes at being expected to color inside the lines, and legal has a few fairly bright lines. YMMV, though.

I'm sure I've said it before, Jimmy is fun to watch, but I bet he's not much fun to know or love.

[Booger666]

42 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

1 hour ago, Booger666 said:

 

I think Chuck looked both crazy AND vindictive. I think its all kind of wrapped up together. Chuck has clearly had issues with Jimmy for years. Problems with Jimmy seem to exacerbate Chuck's "illness". Jimmy is basically saying that he had to take the blame so Chuck would calm down. 

I get what you are saying. I think for me it wasn't enough to believe that peers who knew Chuck a long time and put him on a pedestal would take him down because he blew a gasket, based on my personal work experience. Heck, half the time the ones who acted out of control were promoted for 'being passionate and making things happen'. I retired early and it's all good. 

[Bryce Lynch]

12 minutes ago, Lurky McLurkerson said:

I guess my position is that it's not that Jimmy doesn't have the talent to be a good lawyer, it's that he doesn't have the moral fiber to resist the thrill of Slippin' Jimmy to become a good lawyer.  He learns just enough to work some law into his con.  I think Chuck's reason for submarining Jimmy is his own selfish insecurity rather than concern for his malpractice premiums, but even Kim, who sees Jimmy's potential and loves him, is wary of what a liability Jimmy is and knows better than to get into business with him.  I guess if you want to argue that con artistry matters more than ethics for a non-traditional attorney, I could see considering Jimmy a good lawyer, but all I see is a scam artist that knows just enough to get himself out of jams -- and, ultimately, Saul Goodman the Criminal Lawyer, whose cashflow is directly tied to his willingness to overlook law and ethics, is Jimmy's longed-for heyday when he's flees to slather icing in Omaha.  This a guy who chafes at being expected to color inside the lines, and legal has a few fairly bright lines. YMMV, though.

I'm sure I've said it before, Jimmy is fun to watch, but I bet he's not much fun to know or love.

This is such a great point.  If Kim, the woman who loves him, won't go into a partnership with Jimmy, due to his lack of ethics, how could we possibly blame his straight laced brother (who has seen Jimmy's con artist side for a lot longer) for not wanting to hire him as a lawyer in his firm?

The main difference with Kim was that she was upfront with Jimmy about it, and insisted on having separate firms under the same roof.  The fact that Jimmy took that OK suggests that he might have understood Chuck's rejection and gotten over it, if Chuck had been honest with him from the start.  

[Eulipian 5k]

1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

That's right, his prosecution deferral is only about the breaking and entering and tape destruction incident at Chuck's house.  His confession to those things was brought to the state bar.  The actual document scheme isn't the subject of either a criminal prosecution or a lawyer misconduct proceeding. 

Thx for the clarification. So all that's before the Bar is a physically intimidating argument between 2 brothers that no one was prosecuted for, that all restitution was paid, that involves no unethical conduct. Chuck's hatred for Jimmy made him bring this to the Bar to deprive his brother of his livelihood. Why is the Bar going to do anything with this? What would be the basis of any sanction? The unfathomable pinheadery of a tin foil wrapped hypochondriac?

[Blakeston]

5 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Thx for the clarification. So all that's before the Bar is a physically intimidating argument between 2 brothers that no one was prosecuted for, that all restitution was paid, that involves no unethical conduct. Chuck's hatred for Jimmy made him bring this to the Bar to deprive his brother of his livelihood. Why is the Bar going to do anything with this? What would be the basis of any sanction? The unfathomable pinheadery of a tin foil wrapped hypochondriac?

Confessing to the bar association that you committed a felony, in and of itself, is a big deal. If they conclude that you committed the felony to destroy evidence that you broke into another lawyer's home with the goal of sabotaging their work and tanking their case? You're boned.

If I were on the ethics panel, Chuck's breakdown wouldn't have convinced me that Jimmy lied to make him feel better. For one thing, his stunt made him seem like the kind of person who would resort to dirty tactics to sabotage Chuck's case. And it's not as if Jimmy said, "Okay Chuck, I switched the files, whatever you say, just calm down." He went on an angry rant about how Kim deserved it more than HHM did. That certainly didn't sound like a man trying to talk someone down from the ledge.

[Eulipian 5k]

The State prosecutes, the Bar can't decide to convict Jimmy of a Felony if the state brought no case and no conviction. It was a Pre-Prosecution Disposition. Jimmy , like all of us, is innocent until proven guilty of any crime. The tape is not proof of any crime or criminal activity since that was not adjudicated; the tape was the evidence of property destroyed, for which restitution was paid.

[LoneHaranguer]

13 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

And it's true that a disconnected battery will not emit an E-M field. Too bad Chuck didn't know that.

Technically, they do. A disconnected cellphone battery will noticeably lose some of its charge over the course of a few weeks, and that electron flow generates an E-M field. What Chuck doesn't realize is how tiny that E-M field is.

[PeterPirate]

35 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Technically, they do. A disconnected cellphone battery will noticeably lose some of its charge over the course of a few weeks, and that electron flow generates an E-M field. What Chuck doesn't realize is how tiny that E-M field is.

True, although that field will likely be undetectable above the white noise generated by things like Exit signs. 

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, Eulipian 5k said:

The State prosecutes, the Bar can't decide to convict Jimmy of a Felony if the state brought no case and no conviction. It was a Pre-Prosecution Disposition. Jimmy , like all of us, is innocent until proven guilty of any crime. The tape is not proof of any crime or criminal activity since that was not adjudicated; the tape was the evidence of property destroyed, for which restitution was paid.

The examining panel can't conclude that Jimmy committed the crime that was discussed on the tape.  Plus they know that the state prosecutor did not bring any charges related to the document alterations.  They can decide Jimmy's fitness to practice based on his signed confession.  After a year, those charges will be gone, he will not have a criminal record.  The Bar therefore is only deciding if his unbecoming conduct in the matter of breaking in and destroying the tape merits him losing his license permanently, or something lesser.  I think they can conclude from the hearing we saw that Jimmy is headstrong and tricksy (I think having Huell plant the battery on Chuck did not help his case), and Chuck is not allergic to electricity but maybe mentally ill, and has a long history of disliking Jimmy.  They can't judge the truth of the taped confession.  The tape and the meltdown Chuck had will give some context to Jimmy's actions, mitigating some of the seriousness of the offenses he pleaded to.   

[JudyObscure]

I'm looking forward to the lovely, refined Rebecca lighting into Jimmy next week, just for the drama.  When she realizes that Jimmy had her come 4000 miles, not to support Chuck in his time of need, but to insure he would have a break down when he had to expose all his weaknesses in front of her, she will be furious.  I don't think any of the chicanery would have worked if she hadn't been there.  The real breaking moment was when Chuck's lawyer said, "Even if he had schizophrenia..." and Chuck gave Rebecca a cornered look and shouted, "I'm not crazy!"  I don't think he would have minded anyone else thinking he was crazy half as much.

I think Rebecca is fabulous, but I have to say, when Chuck knocked the phone out of her hand, I cheered.  She was being rude.  If you simply must take a call in the middle (or end) of a nice dinner someone has prepared for you, then have enough  manners to walk away from the others and lower your voice.  Rebecca was stomping around, voice at full volume, making Jimmy and Chuck listen to her half of a conversation that didn't include them.  Then to  get all huffy and injured and want to leave immediately after she was called on it.  Sure Chuck's actions were over the top, but that doesn't make her right.  Even after all that, she couldn't wait until she got in the cab to call her conductor back and start up again.   Poor cellphone etiquette pushes my buttons worse that the actual phone to a person with electrical allergies.

[Armchair Critic]

8 hours ago, Gigilove said:

Is it my imagination, or is Huell a more svelte man in BCS than he was in BB?

He lost weight while he was stuck in that house waiting for Hank to come back. ;)

[LoneHaranguer]

36 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

True, although that field will likely be undetectable above the white noise generated by things like Exit signs.

But, Chuck had a point about the inverse square law. The field generated by the sign would have to be millions of times greater to equal the battery in his pocket, and if he was really disturbed by a nearby cellphone, the E-M field from the battery in his pocket should have been agony. Jimmy's trick had scientific merit.

[attica]

Terrific camera work in the ep. The psychicly distorted super close up in the flashback with the weird lighting was cool, but it was the courtroom work that most impressed. Perfect shot composition. And the excruciatingly slow zoom in on Chuck on the stand. Awesome.

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

I'm looking forward to the lovely, refined Rebecca lighting into Jimmy next week, just for the drama.  When she realizes that Jimmy had her come 4000 miles, not to support Chuck in his time of need, but to insure he would have a break down when he had to expose all his weaknesses in front of her, she will be furious.  I don't think any of the chicanery would have worked if she hadn't been there.  The real breaking moment was when Chuck's lawyer said, "Even if he had schizophrenia..." and Chuck gave Rebecca a cornered look and shouted, "I'm not crazy!"  I don't think he would have minded anyone else thinking he was crazy half as much.

I think Rebecca is fabulous, but I have to say, when Chuck knocked the phone out of her hand, I cheered.  She was being rude.  If you simply must take a call in the middle (or end) of a nice dinner someone has prepared for you, then have enough  manners to walk away from the others and lower your voice.  Rebecca was stomping around, voice at full volume, making Jimmy and Chuck listen to her half of a conversation that didn't include them.  Then to  get all huffy and injured and want to leave immediately after she was called on it.  Sure Chuck's actions were over the top, but that doesn't make her right.  Even after all that, she couldn't wait until she got in the cab to call her conductor back and start up again.   Poor cellphone etiquette pushes my buttons worse that the actual phone to a person with electrical allergies.

I think it was a really lowdown thing Jimmy did in bringing Rebecca in under false pretenses, and also unnecessary because I thought the phone battery trick was what really got Chuck to decompensate. 

At dinner, shouldn't Chuck and/or Jimmy have anticipated Rebecca might have a phone?  Granted, it would have been a little hard to get her not to bring one in the house.   Chuck's meticulous planning failed him.  He was undone by a phone, twice.  I agree she should have properly excused herself.

[Ohwell]

I didn't think Rebecca was being rude.  She had already told Chuck about her concerts and her travels, and I thought she (mistakenly) thought that Chuck was excited for her (although had she been more observant she would have noticed that he wasn't).  So when she got the phone call, I think that she thought that after she finished the conversation she would tell Chuck and Jimmy about it and they would be excited for her.  She had no idea that Chuck would be so upset.

[Macbeth]

11 hours ago, Blakeston said:

I can't even imagine the wrath a state bar association's ethics panel would have for someone who gave them such a blatant "fuck you." When you've already admitted to committing a felony, breaking their rules so openly is idiotic.

Plus, planting something on someone is also illegal, and planting electronics on someone who believes he's severely allergic to them is horrific, even if it turns out the allergy is psychosomatic.

I get that it made for good TV for there to be a "it turns out there was a battery on you this whole time!" moment. But there would realistically be enormous consequences for it.

I agree with you.  But a real state bar association would never have overseen the ethical issues of what is basically a family fight.

[Dobian]

A different kind of episode in that it stuck with just the one story the entire hour.  That focus really paid off.  I thought McKean and Odenkirk really brought it, and the hearing was intriguing.  What I liked the most was that when Jimmy broke Chuck and he came unglued, as much as I can't stand Chuck, there was no satisfaction in it.  And there was no satisfaction in it for Jimmy.  It was just a sad set of events.  Jimmy didn't want to destroy Chuck, he just wanted to keep his license.  And to see Howard stone-faced in the back watching all this, I actually felt for Chuck.  That's why I love this show, it rises above the petty emotional victories to deliver something better.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Dobian

[Macbeth]

There was, as always, great shots.

There was one from the back of the courtroom that looked very claustrophobic as if the ceiling was was slowly collapsing upon the proceeding.

[nachomama]

I'm sure they've clarified this before but how does chuck get in the car to go to court? I'm sure it's a different kind of energy. 

[scenario]

51 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

I agree with you.  But a real state bar association would never have overseen the ethical issues of what is basically a family fight.

That's a good point. I think, maybe, it went down something like this.

Chuck called his friends in the bar association to bring a complaint against Jimmy. They've been hearing about Chuck's no good brother for years and want no part of it. But Chuck pulls some strings. Then they get the message that they have to eliminate all electricity. It's strange but Chuck's always been a little strange and they've been friends for 30 years, so okay. 

Then the trial comes. Howard says that Chuck told him not to hire Jimmy. That raises a small red flag. Why didn't Chuck do that himself? After all it is his brother. Then Chuck gets on the stand. He tells the court that he deliberately tricked Jimmy by exaggerating his symptoms. Then Jimmy tricks Chuck with the telephone battery trick. Then Chuck goes on a rant about everything Jimmy has done wrong since he was 8 years old.

The judges look at each other and say, why did we take this case in the first place? You've got two brothers who still act like their 12 years old. Each one trying to trap the other and still acting like children. Chuck should know better than bring a personal vendetta to the state bar association, and his brother is no better.  Lets just censure both of them for wasting our time. 

[LittleIggy]

For any attorney, much less one in a family firm, to state "nepotism" as a reason for not hiring an attorney is so ridiculous. Nepotism is the life's blood of law firms. I know from my prior life as an attorney.

[PrincessSteel]

I heard an interview on NPR (can't recall which show) with the amazing George Saunders. He was talking about humor versus wit in his writing. Wit, he believes, lies in honoring the conventions of the world that you have created for the reader. In this respect, BCS is brilliant. Since I was pretty steeped in BrBa, I can't tell whether BCS works as a stand-alone series, but I do love that it is written in a way that both respects the audience and is true to the world it has created for that audience.  Last week's episode and this one have really closed the loop of Kim's 'Bingo!' in a way that may have been predictable (and seems to have BEEN predicted by posters here) but was nonetheless satisfying. At least for me. Side note: read George Saunders, m'kay? 

[RealReality]

On 5/8/2017 at 8:25 PM, Ottis said:

It was well done, but pedestrian. Turned out to be another "you can't handle the truth" moment, subsidized by a simple set up with the battery. I was hoping for something more clever and surprising, that would have shown Jimmy was actually Chuck's equal... or better... at law. Oh well. 

 

I think getting the court to allow him any questioning on Chucks mental state was a pretty deft legal move.  And getting the state of the house admitted was too.  I think Jimmy was starting to turn the tide before the meltdown. 

[RealReality]

23 hours ago, Bannon said:

Also, the portrayal of Howard as a son who obtained his position via nepotism, and not acumen, was really well done. It'll be interesting to see how he tries to extricate HHM from this mess. Maybe he'll have a moment of competence, and will try to get Chuck to abandon the anti-Jimmy jihad if Jimmy will agree to abandon his name.

 

Its wild, but I wonder how much longer Chuck will be around.....they focused on the "EXIT" sign at the end, and maybe it was just a highlight of the whole electricity/battery scene, but there are so many hidden clues in the show that I'm not sure if Chuck will be "exiting" soon, and bringing forth Saul.

At this point, Chuck has to be feeling at his lowest.  

His precious image has been shattered, and he can't really blame it on a client this time, or Kim, or even Jimmy (he will anyways), but Chuck had a breakdown.

His "illness" has been exposed as more of a mental illness than anything else.  Yes, I'm sure most people secretly think he is a little nuts, but he doesn't know that, in his mind what he has is just as much a physical illness as the flu, or heart disease.  

He probably never thought Rebecca was coming back, but when she did, he saw a glimmer of hope.  She wanted to spend time with him!  He was going to get to expose Jimmy as a fraud and would win her back!  Instead, Rebecca had a front row seat to Chucks undoing.

He is very likely going to be pushed out of the firm.  Howard had warned him that it wouldn't look good to clients that he had their files unsecured in his house, and that should furnish the cause that allows the firm to bar him from actual practice.

That would mean that Chuck now has no family, no wife, no job, and an illness that he probably thinks makes him "crazy."  AND, Jimmy won.  I don't know, maybe he decides to take the self-exit route.

[RealReality]

2 hours ago, scenario said:

That's a good point. I think, maybe, it went down something like this.

Chuck called his friends in the bar association to bring a complaint against Jimmy. They've been hearing about Chuck's no good brother for years and want no part of it. But Chuck pulls some strings. Then they get the message that they have to eliminate all electricity. It's strange but Chuck's always been a little strange and they've been friends for 30 years, so okay. 

Then the trial comes. Howard says that Chuck told him not to hire Jimmy. That raises a small red flag. Why didn't Chuck do that himself? After all it is his brother. Then Chuck gets on the stand. He tells the court that he deliberately tricked Jimmy by exaggerating his symptoms. Then Jimmy tricks Chuck with the telephone battery trick. Then Chuck goes on a rant about everything Jimmy has done wrong since he was 8 years old.

The judges look at each other and say, why did we take this case in the first place? You've got two brothers who still act like their 12 years old. Each one trying to trap the other and still acting like children. Chuck should know better than bring a personal vendetta to the state bar association, and his brother is no better.  Lets just censure both of them for wasting our time. 

 

 

What Jimmy did was a criminal act, not just a scuffle between two brothers.  There was assault, there was breaking and entering, destruction of property.  

There are about a million ethics rules for attorneys, one of them is that you can't break the law, another is that you can't do anything that brings disrepute to the profession.  And there is the big issue of destroying evidence of a forgery that you did.  Those are pretty serious, and the bar association would be involved.

Like think about it, if you didn't know Chuck or Jimmy.  Guy B thinks Guy A did something illegal (a felony!) and gets Guy A to admit to it on tape.  To further conceal his wrongdoing, Guy A breaks into Guy B's house and threatens him, gets a potentially deadly instrument (people have killed people with fire pokers), waves it around and pries open a drawer so he can destroy the evidence of his wrongdoing.  

Would you really want Guy A to be practicing law?  Would you want to trust a guy that keeps breaking the law to uphold it?

Edited May 10, 2017 by RealReality

[RealReality]

17 hours ago, Blakeston said:

I don't buy for a second that the ethics committee would go easy on Jimmy after he admitted that he blatantly violated their instructions about not bringing electronics/batteries into the room, and hired someone to plant something on a well-respected attorney before he testified. That's obviously conduct unbecoming a lawyer.

 

It is, but that is probably a sanction, whereas a felony (felonies/criminal) are probably grounds for disbarment.  The evidentiary standard is pretty lenient at bar hearings as is the standard of proof required, so I think the committee could consider the stuff Jimmy admitted on tape, as well as the fact that he was trying to cover up his wrongdoing, as well as the assault/breaking & entering in determining whether to disbar him.

But, if it looks less like "I broke in there, threatened my brother and destroyed a tape that was the only proof of my forgery so I could get away with it" and more like "I just told my brother whatever he wanted to hear and I finally broke when I learned he taped it,"  I think the intent goes away.

[shapeshifter]

On May 9, 2017 at 3:29 AM, 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 ?

In addition to Rebecca's presence serving to force Chuck to recognize that his "Medical Condition" is now going public, she now also represents a third party who has knowledge of Chuck's previous Number Switching ruse. This could cause Chuck to wonder if he really did make up the whole thing, but it could also just be another example of how Slippin' Jimmy with a law degree is like a chimp with a machine gun, who, in this case, has learned from the best (Chuck).

[acid burn]

I have a feeling that Jimmy will get disciplined but not disbarred, and the long-term career damage is going to be felt by Chuck. See: Howard's face during Chuck's meltdown; the pitying looks on the faces of the Bar members; and the foreshadow-y flickering exit sign in the foreground with a staring Chuck in the background at the episode's end.

I wonder if Jimmy doesn't take on the mantle of Saul Goodman to distance himself from Chuck rather than to distance himself from anything he's done (whether it be from hurt or from Chuck's tarnishing the McGill name). I'm not saying that's definitely going to happen but it's interesting to think about and not where I thought they would go with this.

That said, no matter when he starts calling himself "Saul Goodman," I don't think he'll become the Saul we know overnight. We have (hopefully) several more seasons of this fantastic show before that happens and then boom, Breaking Bad. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by acid burn

[Bryce Lynch]

13 hours ago, Blakeston said:

Confessing to the bar association that you committed a felony, in and of itself, is a big deal. If they conclude that you committed the felony to destroy evidence that you broke into another lawyer's home with the goal of sabotaging their work and tanking their case? You're boned.

If I were on the ethics panel, Chuck's breakdown wouldn't have convinced me that Jimmy lied to make him feel better. For one thing, his stunt made him seem like the kind of person who would resort to dirty tactics to sabotage Chuck's case. And it's not as if Jimmy said, "Okay Chuck, I switched the files, whatever you say, just calm down." He went on an angry rant about how Kim deserved it more than HHM did. That certainly didn't sound like a man trying to talk someone down from the ledge.

If I were on the panel, and hadn't seen a brilliant montage of Jimmy doctoring the MV documents, everything would hinge on whether I believed Jimmy was genuinely confessing or saying anything to talk his mentally ill brother off the ledge.

If I was firmly convinced it was a real confession, I would vote to permanently disbar him, as it would show him to be a man of very low moral and ethical standards.

If I believed Jimmy was just agreeing with Chuck to make him feel better and coax him out of a psychotic episode, I would vote for a relatively short suspension, as his confrontation with Chuck, while illegal, would be somewhat understandable and not grounds for ending a man's career. 

The standard of proof is "clear and convincing evidence", so if I had any significant doubts, I would go easy on Jimmy.

Chuck's behavior in court, his "illness" and the fact that the scheme he accused Jimmy of was so outlandish  (or "baroque" as Paige put it), would raise some real doubts.

The most incriminating part of the tape, IMO, is when Jimmy goes on about how he did it for Kim and Kim deserved MV.  That does not sound like he was just lying to Chuck to calm him down.

I think Jimmy's counter argument would be that, just as Chuck was play acting and exaggerating his condition with the space blankets, Jimmy was adding details like a motive to get Chuck to believe him.  

I think I would end up having enough doubt that I would go easy on Jimmy.

[ShadowFacts]

5 hours ago, RealReality said:

Its wild, but I wonder how much longer Chuck will be around.....they focused on the "EXIT" sign at the end, and maybe it was just a highlight of the whole electricity/battery scene, but there are so many hidden clues in the show that I'm not sure if Chuck will be "exiting" soon, and bringing forth Saul.

At this point, Chuck has to be feeling at his lowest.  

His precious image has been shattered, and he can't really blame it on a client this time, or Kim, or even Jimmy (he will anyways), but Chuck had a breakdown.

His "illness" has been exposed as more of a mental illness than anything else.  Yes, I'm sure most people secretly think he is a little nuts, but he doesn't know that, in his mind what he has is just as much a physical illness as the flu, or heart disease.  

He probably never thought Rebecca was coming back, but when she did, he saw a glimmer of hope.  She wanted to spend time with him!  He was going to get to expose Jimmy as a fraud and would win her back!  Instead, Rebecca had a front row seat to Chucks undoing.

He is very likely going to be pushed out of the firm.  Howard had warned him that it wouldn't look good to clients that he had their files unsecured in his house, and that should furnish the cause that allows the firm to bar him from actual practice.

That would mean that Chuck now has no family, no wife, no job, and an illness that he probably thinks makes him "crazy."  AND, Jimmy won.  I don't know, maybe he decides to take the self-exit route.

He might take the self-exit route, the exit sign certainly portends something.  I was thinking more along the lines of this is the end of Chuck's huge reputation in the legal community.  I can also see him trying to make a comeback of sorts, shedding all the foil blankets and coming up with a new plan.  He can't let Jimmy win. 

[Gobi]

There's a saying in the legal practice: "Lawyers make the worst witnesses." Something Chuck demonstrated in this episode.

[DrSpaceman73]

17 hours ago, scenario said:

I think some of it with Chuck is that poor people are crazy. Rich people are eccentric. 

If Chuck were some poor, struggling sole practice lawyer, there's no way that they would have allowed him to get away with avoiding treatment and still continue to practice. 

This is very true. 

Also as much as Chuck like to dismiss Jimmy for his, shall we say, unconventional ways and his personality, we have seen him save Chuck from being committed at the hospital at least once with his oral and persuasive skills, at the hospital with one physician.  And I am guessing that is not the only time that has happened or he has done that for him.  In fact Jimmy it seems was the primary one responsible for allowing Chuck to continue to be a functional member of society after his "illness" started. 

In regard to the question of why Jimmy invited CHuck's ex to the hearing, I think it was partly just to try and emphasize the point of this being more of a mental than a physical problem.  The fact he hasn't told her about it at least shows Chuck knows its a bit crazy how he acts.  However, part of it as well I am sure was just vengeance on Jimmy's part.  Chuck contributed a great deal to his problems/split with Kim (I am not clear if they are just business partners or more than that at this point) and Jimmy I am sure wanted some payback for that

[DrSpaceman73]

1 hour ago, acid burn said:

I have a feeling that Jimmy will get disciplined but not disbarred, and the long-term career damage is going to be felt by Chuck. See: Howard's face during Chuck's meltdown; the pitying looks on the faces of the Bar members; and the foreshadow-y flickering exit sign in the foreground with a staring Chuck in the background at the episode's end.

I wonder if Jimmy doesn't take on the mantle of Saul Goodman to distance himself from Chuck rather than to distance himself from anything he's done (whether it be from hurt or from Chuck's tarnishing the McGill name). I'm not saying that's definitely going to happen but it's interesting to think about and not where I thought they would go with this.

That said, no matter when he starts calling himself "Saul Goodman," I don't think he'll become the Saul we know overnight. We have (hopefully) several more seasons of this fantastic show before that happens and then boom, Breaking Bad. 

As with Walt in Breaking Bad, in terms of when they "become" their alter ego, I think both shows point to their alter ego being a manifestation of their true personality all along.  That is the parallel between Walt and Saul.   The Walter White we see at the beginning of Breaking Bad is sort of a shell and the person we know he was earlier in his life from flashbacks.  He adapted over time to the situation and curves life dealt him, then reached a point with his cancer where he realized he had little time to change his short future and reverted back more to his earlier persona.  That is not to say he was always going to end up a meth dealer.  But he was always a brilliant chemist who had control issues, always has to not only BE the smartest person in the room but also has to PROVE he is the smartest person in the room, could not work well with a partner and that ultimately caused the split with his former Grey Matter group.  They never explicitly say that in Breaking Bad, but its heavily implied.  We see the same thing really repeat itself with him in the meth business. 

I think we are seeing the same thing with Saul/Jimmy.  His true inner personality is more Saul than Jimmy.  Its more a transformation back to his true nature than morphing into someone new. 

And I've said from the beginning I would much rather see Saul than Jimmy and I don't necessarily need to see the whole process like we did on Breaking Bad just because they are such similar stories.

And I would say Chuck and Walt have that same flaw they just can't let go :  not only BEING the smartest person and right about everything but having to prove it and show it to everyone.  Its what caused Chuck to end up where we saw him at the end of this episode.  He could have easily let Mesa Verde go and moved on, his life would be affected very little by it.  Couldn't just let it go though

[Bryce Lynch]

I have been thinking a little about Kim's "full disclosure" to Mesa Verde, and I think it might end up biting her in the butt.

She disclosed that Chuck was making accusations against his brother Jimmy, who she happens to share office space with, about tampering with MV documents.

She failed to disclose that in addition to sharing office space with Jimmy, she also sometimes shares a toothbrush.  Her failing to mention her romantic relationship with Jimmy is relevant, IMO.  

She also failed to mention that there is an audio recording where Jimmy apparently admits to doctoring the documents and says that he did it for her, because she deserved the Mesa Verde business.  

The tape and her relationship with Jimmy would put Chuck's "crazy" accusations in a very, different light.  By going into more details about the brothers' relationship and Chuck's "condition" she might have been able to convince them there was nothing to be concerned about.  But, if I were Kevin or Paige and found out Kim withheld important details, I would feel betrayed and would have serious doubts about whether I could trust her.  Kevin, especially seems like the type who values transparency an upfrontness and would become angry when he finds a lack of it. 

[Bryce Lynch]

37 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

He might take the self-exit route, the exit sign certainly portends something.  I was thinking more along the lines of this is the end of Chuck's huge reputation in the legal community.  I can also see him trying to make a comeback of sorts, shedding all the foil blankets and coming up with a new plan.  He can't let Jimmy win. 

The final 3 episodes of season 3 are "Slip", "Fall" and "Lantern", which could suggest a fire.  Someone pointed out that Chuck told Door Repairman Mike to watch his step multiple times.  Foreshadowing?

If it does happen that way, I wonder if Huell could be involved in another "Act of God"?  "Ain't no accounting for no act of God!" :)

[Ottis]

1 hour ago, acid burn said:

I have a feeling that Jimmy will get disciplined but not disbarred, and the long-term career damage is going to be felt by Chuck.

Based on what we know about his future, Jimmy can't get disbarred, can he? He is practicing law in Breaking Bad, and while his name is different, I can't imagine that's a good secret identity that someone who knew Jimmy wouldn't see right through. He could get temporarily disbarred and then it could be reversed, but that seems like unnecessary hand waving.

17 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

As with Walt in Breaking Bad, in terms of when they "become" their alter ego, I think both shows point to their alter ego being a manifestation of their true personality all along.  That is the parallel between Walt and Saul.  

This is the discussion I've had with friends since BB. Were these people changed by events, or is this who they were all along? It makes me wonder who might be the subject of a third installment in this setting. Kim?

12 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I have been thinking a little about Kim's "full disclosure" to Mesa Verde, and I think it might end up biting her in the butt.

How could it not? I'm not sure how she can say what she did with any confidence. 

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

He might take the self-exit route, the exit sign certainly portends something.  I was thinking more along the lines of this is the end of Chuck's huge reputation in the legal community.  I can also see him trying to make a comeback of sorts, shedding all the foil blankets and coming up with a new plan.  He can't let Jimmy win. 

The last episode of the season is "Lantern". Makes me think about Ole Ran'l McCoy.

[Tikichick]

On 5/8/2017 at 11:39 PM, peeayebee said:

I missed that! Interesting coincidence.

 

I have to admit I agree. I was really expecting to be surprised by how Jimmy "got" Chuck, or maybe that his plan wouldn't work. I was a little surprised because I thought Huell had put a phone in Chuck's pocket that would ring during the hearing, causing Chuck to go off. Anyway, I did enjoy the journey along the way.

And Huell! I didn't even think about him when Jimmy was talking to the vet. It was really good to see him again. And so slim! Well, not SLIM slim, but the weight loss looks great on him.

I liked how Jimmy just fell into his chair after Chuck's blowup. Jimmy wasn't happy with the whole thing. He didn't want to do this to his brother.

I think Jimmy didn't realize his brother had always hated him.  I suspect he thought this was an adult issue, Jimmy screwing up repeatedly, Chuck having to bail him out and then Jimmy becomes an attorney behind Chuck's back.  When Chuck went back to nine year old Jimmy is when Jimmy realized his big brother had always in fact hated him.  Goodbye, James McGill, I'll miss you.

Hello, Saul, Chuck's prophecy fulfilled.