S03.E05: Chicanery

[Clanstarling]

On 5/9/2017 at 5:35 AM, ghoulina said:

They looked really upset, quite frankly. They knew what they had to do to protect Jimmy, but there was no glee in it. No superior satisfaction. But if Chuck had won? It'd be all about superior satisfaction. I don't know that he's ever really cared about Jimmy. I think he's done what he's done for him A. out of familial obligation and B. to be close enough to Jimmy to lord his successes over him. I just really cannot stand the man.

Absolutely. This is what makes Chuck unlikable, even though he's right about Jimmy.

On 5/9/2017 at 5:46 AM, Dianaofthehunt said:

I'm disappointed that Jimmy, when displaying the photo of Chuck's house, didn't make more of the kerosene lamp sitting on top of newspapers. "THIS is where my brother stores confidential legal documents," etc.  I wonder why they didn't make that more of a plot point.

I thought it was more "a picture is worth a thousand words" and he expected they could connect the dots on their own.

On 5/9/2017 at 6:05 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

In fairness to Chuck, he also came running when Jimmy needed help, ( "He defecated through a sunroof!!!" lol).  I do get the sense that Chuck helped Jimmy mainly out of a sense of duty, (which is fine), while Jimmy helped Chuck out of love and gratitude (which is even better).  

If I recall correctly, their mother was still alive at the time. So Chuck wouldn't have just abandoned him - he was still trying to get his mother's love.

23 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

"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.

I totally missed the connection. I was even wondering why he'd choose lung cancer over some other, more similar, disease.

20 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

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.

I just took that as Chuck sowing the seeds of his own destruction, by showing Jimmy (at a much later date) a way to undo him.

Loved Huell's return. When I saw how (relatively) svelte he was, I thought that he looked younger, and that no one on the forum would complain about him looking too old. ;)

[buttercupia]

Great episode. Outstanding.

 

Just for the record, as a person with disabilities, the notion that the world has somehow become overly accommodating to the disabled or that "getting disability" is now easy or carefree is flat out ridiculous and insulting/

[Tikichick]

On 5/9/2017 at 8:30 AM, Princenyc said:

Chuck's issue with batteries was documented when he could not even put them in the tape recorder. Had to get the kid to do it.

I love this show.

He put batteries in the recorder when he made the tape, or at least checked on them.  He had Ernesto change the batteries to set him up to trap Jimmy.

[Lurky McLurkerson]

1 hour 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.   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

I'd never thought about that parallel, but this is a great observation.  Vince Gilligan said about Walt that he was turning Mr. Chips into Scarface, and I have always felt like it was more of a revelation than a transformation.  Scarface was there all along with a mask of powerlessness over him.  Jimmy is basically Saul with a very thin veneer of trying to do the right thing, and less for himself but to make Chuck and Kim happy.  I think the role of the women in their lives is interesting, too.  Skylar was pilloried for being an overbearing shrew, but I don't get the sense that Kim is seen in the same way - she's trying to help Jimmy channel his powers for good rather than falling back into his scams (maybe she's seen as more fallible because she sometimes plays along with Jimmy?).

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, buttercupia said:

Great episode. Outstanding.

 

Just for the record, as a person with disabilities, the notion that the world has somehow become overly accommodating to the disabled or that "getting disability" is now easy or carefree is flat out ridiculous and insulting/

It might be more difficult than it should be for people with legitimate disabilities, but it is way too easy for scammers who know how to game the system.  A few year back it was discovered that over 90% of Long Island Railroad employees were retiring on "disability" on top of their already generous pensions.

The statistics show that a greatly increasing percentage of disability recipients suffer from unprovable/disprovable ailments like "back pain" and "mental illness", as opposed to clear, provable disabilities.  

[PeterPirate]

5 minutes ago, Lurky McLurkerson said:

I'd never thought about that parallel, but this is a great observation.  Vince Gilligan said about Walt that he was turning Mr. Chips into Scarface, and I have always felt like it was more of a revelation than a transformation.  Scarface was there all along with a mask of powerlessness over him.  Jimmy is basically Saul with a very thin veneer of trying to do the right thing, and less for himself but to make Chuck and Kim happy.  I think the role of the women in their lives is interesting, too.  Skylar was pilloried for being an overbearing shrew, but I don't get the sense that Kim is seen in the same way - she's trying to help Jimmy channel his powers for good rather than falling back into his scams (maybe she's seen as more fallible because she sometimes plays along with Jimmy?).

That's my take as well.  Jimmy, like Walt is a Force of Nature.  Kim may be the kind of person we all wish Chuck was, but in the end her association with Jimmy will destroy her just as surely as it has destroyed Chuck. 

[Bryce Lynch]

14 minutes ago, Lurky McLurkerson said:

I'd never thought about that parallel, but this is a great observation.  Vince Gilligan said about Walt that he was turning Mr. Chips into Scarface, and I have always felt like it was more of a revelation than a transformation.  Scarface was there all along with a mask of powerlessness over him.  Jimmy is basically Saul with a very thin veneer of trying to do the right thing, and less for himself but to make Chuck and Kim happy.  I think the role of the women in their lives is interesting, too.  Skylar was pilloried for being an overbearing shrew, but I don't get the sense that Kim is seen in the same way - she's trying to help Jimmy channel his powers for good rather than falling back into his scams (maybe she's seen as more fallible because she sometimes plays along with Jimmy?).

I think it is somewhere in between "He was always Heisenberg/Saul" and "He transformed into Heisenberg/Saul".  I think nearly all people have the potential to do a lot more evil than they do.  Things like needs, traumatic experiences, betrayals, disillusionment, etc. can lead some people to embrace more and more of their dark sides.  

I think Walt changed more than Jimmy.  I imagine the seed of Heisenberg was always in there, but his behavior and character changed extremely radically from the time he got the cancer diagnosis to the end of the show.   I think under normal circumstances, (i.e., no cancer and financial stress) Walt would not have become Heisenberg.  

I think you can see a lot more of Saul in Jimmy from the start and you could argue that Saul was more or less the "real" Jimmy and "Jimmy" was him partially and temporarily restraining the Saul in him.  The shady con-artist lawyer part of Saul seems natural to Jimmy.  The darker side (suggesting the murder of a witness and such) seems more like a transformation, as I couldn't see Slippin' Jimmy doing that. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[Tikichick]

22 hours ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

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.

And there's a place and a need for both types of lawyers, a fact Chuck could never countenance.

[axlmadonna]

18 hours ago, ghoulina said:

Yes, we knew he and Rebecca were no longer together. But did we know they actually divorced?

I was thinking it was a separation, since Chuck was debating whether he should have his wedding ring on or off during the dinner with her. Surely it would have long been off if they were divorced?

I'm unclear on what the "assault" was that Jimmy supposedly committed. Threatened him, yes, damaged / destroyed property, yes... but he never actually touched Chuck at any point, so how was there an assault?

[Bryce Lynch]

22 hours ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

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.

It is true that Chuck can't related to clients the way Jimmy can.  On the other hand, there is no reason a lawyer who can relate to clients can't also follow the rules.  If Jimmy had followed all the rules, perhaps Chuck might have learned not to resent Jimmy being a lawyer.  It is also possible it would not have mattered ,but we will never know as Chuck saw Jimmy pulling scams (and doesn't even know half the scams we know about).  

[Tikichick]

20 hours 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.  

Outside of what makes for great storytelling for compelling television, the ideal trajectory for newly minted James McGill, Esq. was to be brought into the fold at HHM in a role that suited his talents, with oversight and support from management, associates and staff at the firm.  Free Jimmy up to do the kind of client interactive work that is his wheelhouse, with none of the straightjacket tasks that suit Chuck's talents -- no pun intended.  If this issue between the brothers hadn't existed it's entirely possible that Jimmy could have found a satisfying and very successful, above board career at HHM, working happily in Kim's company, down the hall from his big brother -- who could be happily and lucratively practicing the kind of law he excels at.  Both brothers' success could have happily thrived and mutually benefited the other.  If only.

[Bryce Lynch]

8 minutes ago, axlmadonna said:

I was thinking it was a separation, since Chuck was debating whether he should have his wedding ring on or off during the dinner with her. Surely it would have long been off if they were divorced?

I'm unclear on what the "assault" was that Jimmy supposedly committed. Threatened him, yes, damaged / destroyed property, yes... but he never actually touched Chuck at any point, so how was there an assault?

In NM, assault does not require physical contact (which would be "battery) and is a misdemeanor. 

[JudyObscure]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

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.  

Whoa.  I hadn't thought of that.  I don't know how confidential the hearing was but if that gets back to Mesa Verde, Kim would probably definitely be fired by them.

 

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

  Kevin, especially seems like the type who values transparency an upfrontness and would become angry when he finds a lack of it. 

Yes he does, but Paige was the one who looked most unhappy with Kim's disclosure and was most hesitant to say, "No problem."  I think she feels responsible to Mesa Verde for suggesting  Kim in the first place.

[scenario]

8 hours ago, RealReality said:

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?

The only real thing is the breaking and entering. The assault was that Jimmy pushed Chuck and Chuck said to the first judge that that really wasn't assault. There is such a thing as extenuating circumstances. Two brothers have been pushing each other's buttons for years and finally one brother sets the other brother up to be disbarred for something he didn't do. Nobody believes that Jimmy forged anything. 

So its brother A is seriously mentally ill. Brother B takes care of him for years, while he is working full time and studying for the bar. Brother A gets more and more paranoid and disconnected from reality. He makes a mistake and in his paranoia, he blames his brother. Then he invites his brother over. Makes it appear to his brother that he is much more ill than before and springs his paranoid theories on him. Brother B knows that Brother A might have a breakdown and end up in the hospital again if he doesn't get his own way so he agrees with his brother and even adds a few details to make it seem real.

Then his brother uses his "confession" to try to get him disbarred. Brother B loses it and does stuff he will regret. But he never hurts his brother. 

I believe that brother B will get punished and have to go to anger management classes and stuff. I can't see disbarring him forever. If that's the case many, many lawyers who go through divorces would be disbarred. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by scenario
Added info

[ShadowFacts]

16 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

The statistics show that a greatly increasing percentage of disability recipients suffer from unprovable/disprovable ailments like "back pain" and "mental illness", as opposed to clear, provable disabilities.  

I don't understand the notion of back injuries and mental illness being unprovable.  It's not the case.  The initial comment was about society being hyper-accommodating to people with disabilities and that is news to people with all sorts of disabilities. 

3 minutes ago, axlmadonna said:

I was thinking it was a separation, since Chuck was debating whether he should have his wedding ring on or off during the dinner with her. Surely it would have long been off if they were divorced?

I'm unclear on what the "assault" was that Jimmy supposedly committed. Threatened him, yes, damaged / destroyed property, yes... but he never actually touched Chuck at any point, so how was there an assault?

I thought I heard Jimmy say something at some point in the episode about a divorce having happened. 

The assault (which doesn't have to be actual battery but the threat or fear of bodily injury) was dropped from the charges, I believe, after Chuck had his meeting with the DA.  She questioned him about if he felt afraid, he basically said no, he knew Jimmy wouldn't hurt him.  I think she then said or implied she would not go after that charge, but was not going to let a lawyer get away with the serious crime of breaking and entering. 

[Tikichick]

20 hours 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. 

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

No.  The attorney is bound by the privilege, not the client.

I am not certain, but I thought Chuck had cut a deal which involved Jimmy being gainfully employed at HHM in the mailroom.  Considering what has now been established about Chuck's regard for his brother, I find it unlikely he would broker a deal resulting in no consequences for Jimmy, not to mention he's certain to want a blemish on his brother's permanent record.  He is keeping accounts after all.

[ShadowFacts]

4 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

  Kevin, especially seems like the type who values transparency an upfrontness and would become angry when he finds a lack of it. 

Yes he does, but Paige was the one who looked most unhappy with Kim's disclosure and was most hesitant to say, "No problem."  I think she feels responsible to Mesa Verde for suggesting  Kim in the first place.

Paige was dubious, and she is also a lawyer.  I think that whole scene was there as set-up for how Kim's association with Jimmy is going to cause the walls to come tumbling down for her. 

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Outside of what makes for great storytelling for compelling television, the ideal trajectory for newly minted James McGill, Esq. was to be brought into the fold at HHM in a role that suited his talents, with oversight and support from management, associates and staff at the firm.  Free Jimmy up to do the kind of client interactive work that is his wheelhouse, with none of the straightjacket tasks that suit Chuck's talents -- no pun intended.  If this issue between the brothers hadn't existed it's entirely possible that Jimmy could have found a satisfying and very successful, above board career at HHM, working happily in Kim's company, down the hall from his big brother -- who could be happily and lucratively practicing the kind of law he excels at.  Both brothers' success could have happily thrived and mutually benefited the other.  If only.

It was more than "this issue between the brothers".  Chuck knew that Jimmy was a con artist and that he was addicted to con artistry.  If Jimmy couldn't fit in at D&M, which seemed more laid back and less corporate than HHM, he would have never fit in at HHM either.  

If some other "lawyer" named Timmy McDonald, came in for an interview with a distance learning degree from the University of American Samoa (Go, Land Crabs!) and a history as a con artist, the partners at HHM would have laughed together about him for weeks.   

Jimmy could never work under Chuck's rules.  At his very best he is a free spirit and rule bender, at worst a con artist and criminal.  

6 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Whoa.  I hadn't thought of that.  I don't know how confidential the hearing was but if that gets back to Mesa Verde, Kim would probably definitely be fired by them.

 

Yes he does, but Paige was the one who looked most unhappy with Kim's disclosure and was most hesitant to say, "No problem."  I think she feels responsible to Mesa Verde for suggesting  Kim in the first place.

Good point about Paige.  She could be Kim's new "Howard"; a colleague who gets embarrassed by going out on a limb for her.  

[axlmadonna]

3 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Outside of what makes for great storytelling for compelling television, the ideal trajectory for newly minted James McGill, Esq. was to be brought into the fold at HHM in a role that suited his talents, with oversight and support from management, associates and staff at the firm.  Free Jimmy up to do the kind of client interactive work that is his wheelhouse, with none of the straightjacket tasks that suit Chuck's talents -- no pun intended.  If this issue between the brothers hadn't existed it's entirely possible that Jimmy could have found a satisfying and very successful, above board career at HHM, working happily in Kim's company, down the hall from his big brother -- who could be happily and lucratively practicing the kind of law he excels at.  Both brothers' success could have happily thrived and mutually benefited the other.  If only.

Much has been said on these threads with regard to Chuck's decision not to hire Jimmy as a lawyer in his firm. And, while I agree that it was cowardly of him to make Howard the Mean Mommy in denying Jimmy a place in HHM, I do believe that Chuck had every right... knowing what he knew about his brother's morals and judgment... to make that choice. Despite their being brothers, Chuck did not owe Jimmy a job at the company that he [Chuck] had spent his entire professional life creating and maintaining. It is a prestigious firm, built on a strong reputation, and hiring Jimmy as a lawyer there had the potential of destroying what Chuck had so carefully built.

If Chuck had not been so craven and bitter, he would have explained to Jimmy that he was pleasantly surprised and proud of Jimmy's acheivement in obtaining a law license, and flattered that Jimmy chose to follow in his footsteps, but that his history gave Chuck pause with regard to hiring him on directly as an attorney at HHM. Rather, he [Chuck] would be happy to give him advice and possibly pull a few strings to help him get started with another (less prestigious) firm, so that Jimmy could learn the ropes, prove that he could be an ethical lawyer, and earn his own reputation in the legal community. Alas, that was not the path that Chuck chose to take.

I would like to point out, though, that at the beginning of Season One, Chuck actually was giving Jimmy professional advice for getting going in the law profession. He didn't become psychotic about it until after Jimmy started pulling stunts like copying the HHM look and logo on his billboard, and "saving" the guy from falling off the billboard and then hiding it from Chuck by stealing his newspaper. Rather than assuaging Chuck's concerns about his morals and judgment, Jimmy only exacerbated them and proved Chuck right in his decision not to bring that kind of liability to HHM. That was when Chuck really started trying to sabotage Jimmy's law career.

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

No.  The attorney is bound by the privilege, not the client.

I am not certain, but I thought Chuck had cut a deal which involved Jimmy being gainfully employed at HHM in the mailroom.  Considering what has now been established about Chuck's regard for his brother, I find it unlikely he would broker a deal resulting in no consequences for Jimmy, not to mention he's certain to want a blemish on his brother's permanent record.  He is keeping accounts after all.

I read the scripts of the 2 episodes where the Chicago Sunroof situation was discussed and I couldn't find any indication of what sort of deal was cut and whether or not Jimmy admitted that he "Defecated through a sunroof!" in court or in any sort of written confession.  

So, hypothetically,  suppose OJ Simpson gives an interview to Barbara Walters or Oprah or whoever and gives a detailed confession about how he murdered Ron and Nicole.  If later on, one of his "Dream Team" attorneys said, "OJ murdered 2 people." (and assuming OJ had told the lawyer he did it) would that still be violating attorney-client privilege?

[Joimiaroxeu]

Arriving late to the party but OMG, that was spectacular. Jimmy took Chuck down with surgical precision (with a little wet work on the side from Huell). Bravo performance from Michael McKean.

Quote

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. 

I'm almost ashamed that it took me five minutes to get this reference. Vince Gilligan should all the awards. All of them. All.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Joimiaroxeu

[buttercupia]

40 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

It might be more difficult than it should be for people with legitimate disabilities, but it is way too easy for scammers who know how to game the system.  A few year back it was discovered that over 90% of Long Island Railroad employees were retiring on "disability" on top of their already generous pensions.

The statistics show that a greatly increasing percentage of disability recipients suffer from unprovable/disprovable ailments like "back pain" and "mental illness", as opposed to clear, provable disabilities.  

You're talking about one example in an internal disability system that was set up with a loophole that made it easy for people to exploit, specific to the railroad retirement system.  that loophole was closed with a quickness once it was discovered. also, something like 500 cases out of how many nationwide?

I work with disability claims for a living. I watch people with cancers, MS, spina bifida, etc get denied multiple times for ssd and ssi. It's how the system actually works, not some imaginary world where thousands of spurious claims are handwaved.  It's incredibly difficult to get approved for disability except for end stage renal, certain cancers, and AIDS.  

[JudyObscure]

2 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

The statistics show that a greatly increasing percentage of disability recipients suffer from unprovable/disprovable ailments like "back pain" and "mental illness", as opposed to clear, provable disabilities.  

Schizophrenia has long been the number one use of disability funds.  That's even though  people  with the disease usually have to get a lawyer to help them apply. Documentation from at least one psychiatrist is necessary and it would be almost impossible to fake over any period of time. Even then the first request is routinely  turned down.  Just to make it even harder for sick people with impaired cognitive ability and a great fear of the government.  The reason so much of the SSDI money goes to people with schizophrenia is simply that the onset is young, usually late teens to mid twenties, and even though it's extremely debilitating, people don't die from it, unless you count the high rate of suicide.  So they're on the books much longer than someone with a progressive disease.  Maybe if the tax payers of America get fed up with the high cost they'll start allocating some funds toward finding a cure.  The last time I looked the NIH was spending more money on tooth decay research.

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, axlmadonna said:

Much has been said on these threads with regard to Chuck's decision not to hire Jimmy as a lawyer in his firm. And, while I agree that it was cowardly of him to make Howard the Mean Mommy in denying Jimmy a place in HHM, I do believe that Chuck had every right... knowing what he knew about his brother's morals and judgment... to make that choice. Despite their being brothers, Chuck did not owe Jimmy a job at the company that he [Chuck] had spent his entire professional life creating and maintaining. It is a prestigious firm, built on a strong reputation, and hiring Jimmy as a lawyer there had the potential of destroying what Chuck had so carefully built.

If Chuck had not been so craven and bitter, he would have explained to Jimmy that he was pleasantly surprised and proud of Jimmy's acheivement in obtaining a law license, and flattered that Jimmy chose to follow in his footsteps, but that his history gave Chuck pause with regard to hiring him on directly as an attorney at HHM. Rather, he [Chuck] would be happy to give him advice and possibly pull a few strings to help him get started with another (less prestigious) firm, so that Jimmy could learn the ropes, prove that he could be an ethical lawyer, and earn his own reputation in the legal community. Alas, that was not the path that Chuck chose to take.

I would like to point out, though, that at the beginning of Season One, Chuck actually was giving Jimmy professional advice for getting going in the law profession. He didn't become psychotic about it until after Jimmy started pulling stunts like copying the HHM look and logo on his billboard, and "saving" the guy from falling off the billboard and then hiding it from Chuck by stealing his newspaper. Rather than assuaging Chuck's concerns about his morals and judgment, Jimmy only exacerbated them and proved Chuck right in his decision not to bring that kind of liability to HHM. That was when Chuck really started trying to sabotage Jimmy's law career.

I agree with most of this, except:

1) I'm not so sure it was craven bitterness on Chuck's part that prevented him from explaining to Jimmy why he didn't want HHM to hire him.  I think it was more a combination of cowardice and not wanting to hurt Jimmy's feelings.

2) If Chuck didn't think Jimmy was fit to be a lawyer at his own firm, particularly because of character concerns, I think it would have been highly unethical of Chuck to foist him off on some other unsuspecting firm.  It also would have been more risky as Chuck would not be able to keep an eye on him like he could at HHM.  

[PeterPirate]

Just now, Joimiaroxeu said:

Arriving late to the party but OMG, that was spectacular. Jimmy took Chuck down with surgical precision (with a little wet work on the side from Huell). Bravo performance from Michael McKean.

I'm almost ashamed that it took me five minutes to get this reference. Vince Gilligan should all the awards. All of them. All.

Five minutes?  Took me about five hours.  I was thinking about poor George VI in The Crown. 

[Tikichick]

16 hours 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.

 

15 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

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.   

My problem with the tape being played is this.  I realize it was a disciplinary hearing and rules of evidence don't apply.  However, if they attempt to use the tape as evidence against Jimmy in order to sanction him the fact that they allowed the tape to be played without any of the evidence standards being even close to followed should be problematic.  The tape should have only been heard after Chuck was on the stand to explain its production. 

15 hours 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 wonder if Jimmy has also planned for Rebecca to be there for Chuck when Jimmy can't and the situation with Howard and HHM runs off the rails?  A piece of his plan may in fact be Jimmy putting a measure of protection in place for Chuck before he departs to take up a life of Saul.

[Joimiaroxeu]

48 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Five minutes?  Took me about five hours.  I was thinking about poor George VI in The Crown. 

Heh, the five minutes was after I read that post I quoted. I never picked up on it while I was watching the episode. It gets too distracting for me to be looking for BB references while watching BCS. I just appreciate them whenever I happen to recognize one. (And then I come to this fine establishment to learn about the ones I didn't catch.)

Edited May 10, 2017 by Joimiaroxeu

[axlmadonna]

Just now, Bryce Lynch said:

If Chuck didn't think Jimmy was fit to be a lawyer at his own firm, particularly because of character concerns, I think it would have been highly unethical of Chuck to foist him off on some other unsuspecting firm.  It also would have been more risky as Chuck would not be able to keep an eye on him like he could at HHM.  

My point was that Chuck didn't actually (as far as we know) think that Jimmy was unfit to be a lawyer, per se. Jimmy hadn't done any "Slippin' Jimmy" stuff since the chicago sunroof fiasco, and had been working at HHM in the mail room for some time when the events of BCS began, presumably without incident. Jimmy had been trying to prove that he had changed, and apparently was doing so well enough to remain employed at HHM for years.

I don't believe that it would have been unethical of Chuck to recommend Jimmy as a newbie lawyer to a small law firm or private practice, even with Jimmy's history. People can change, especially when they've hit rock bottom and worked hard to prove themselves ever since... in Jimmy's case, not only by committing to excellence in the lowest rung of Chuck's company for years, but also bootstrapping his way to a law degree of his own. That's no easy feat, even through a distance learning program at the Universtity of American Samoa (Go, Land Crabs!).

Chuck could have given Jimmy professional advice and sent him along to get started without being responsible for Jimmy's actions later on. He had good reason to believe that Jimmy had turned a corner and deserved a second chance, while still maintaining caution with regard to hiring Jimmy at his own prestigious law firm... which would have been a bad fit for someone in Jimmy's situation even without the history of which only Chuck was aware. As someone mentioned above, if Jimmy had applied for a position with HHM on his own, without Chuck's knowledge, based on his education and experience alone, he would have been laughed out of the office. But he might have had a shot at a smaller firm starting out.

[peeayebee]

43 minutes ago, axlmadonna said:

I was thinking it was a separation, since Chuck was debating whether he should have his wedding ring on or off during the dinner with her. Surely it would have long been off if they were divorced?

Not necessarily. Since Chuck was still in love with Rebecca, I can imagine him continuing to wear his wedding ring even though they were divorced. Jimmy rightly told him to leave the ring off. If Chuck had worn it, Rebecca would probably see him as desperate and in denial. I think if they were only separated, Jimmy wouldn't tell him to take the ring off.

[Tikichick]

3 hours 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. 

I don't want to lose Chuck, not to mention the superb job Michael McKean has done to bring him to life.  I took it as Chuck's exit from the bar, the legal profession, HHM.  Please let this not be Chuck's exit from BCS.

[RealReality]

46 minutes ago, scenario said:

The only real thing is the breaking and entering. The assault was that Jimmy pushed Chuck and Chuck said to the first judge that that really wasn't assault. There is such a thing as extenuating circumstances. Two brothers have been pushing each other's buttons for years and finally one brother sets the other brother up to be disbarred for something he didn't do. Nobody believes that Jimmy forged anything. 

So its brother A is seriously mentally ill. Brother B takes care of him for years, while he is working full time and studying for the bar. Brother A gets more and more paranoid and disconnected from reality. He makes a mistake and in his paranoia, he blames his brother. Then he invites his brother over. Makes it appear to his brother that he is much more ill than before and springs his paranoid theories on him. Brother B knows that Brother A might have a breakdown and end up in the hospital again if he doesn't get his own way so he agrees with his brother and even adds a few details to make it seem real.

Then his brother uses his "confession" to try to get him disbarred. Brother B loses it and does stuff he will regret. But he never hurts his brother. 

I believe that brother B will get punished and have to go to anger management classes and stuff. I can't see disbarring him forever. If that's the case many, many lawyers who go through divorces would be disbarred. 

But legally it is an assault.  Saying it's "not really" an assault doesn't mean it isn't legally one.  Pushing someone is an assault, and even swinging that fireplace poker around could be considered an assault.  Extenuating circumstances doesn't make it any less of an assault.  There really isn't a "But my brother sucks" affirmative defense to assault.  

As for the tape, had anyone believed the tape it would have been considered for the disbarment.  

I was positing that the charges against Jimmy were very much offenses for which he could be disbarred.   And frankly it wouldn't be unfair, from an outside perspective you don't want an attorney who breaks the law, then breaks into a house to destroy the evidence of his lawbreaking.  

Edited May 10, 2017 by RealReality

[RealReality]

51 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

 

The assault (which doesn't have to be actual battery but the threat or fear of bodily injury) was dropped from the charges, I believe, after Chuck had his meeting with the DA.  She questioned him about if he felt afraid, he basically said no, he knew Jimmy wouldn't hurt him.  I think she then said or implied she would not go after that charge, but was not going to let a lawyer get away with the serious crime of breaking and entering. 

Fear isn't required to pursue an assault charge and I'm surprised the show gave that impression unless it was to show that the attorney wasn't vindictive.

[benteen]

Whether or not Chuck stays around, I think this season has to be the culmination of his feud with Jimmy.  They've gotten a lot out of it but I can't imagine another three seasons of this type of intense fighting between the two.  That would be overkill.

[ShadowFacts]

4 minutes ago, RealReality said:

Fear isn't required to pursue an assault charge and I'm surprised the show gave that impression unless it was to show that the attorney wasn't vindictive.

I got that impression from the discussion between the DA and Chuck.  And I thought it was a testosterone thing --  Chuck didn't want her or anyone to think he was afraid of his younger, smaller brother.  I probably overthink some of this.  Yeah, not probably, or I wouldn't be here. 

[scenario]

17 minutes ago, RealReality said:

But legally it is an assault.  Saying it's "not really" an assault doesn't mean it isn't legally one.  Pushing someone is an assault, and even swinging that fireplace poker around could be considered an assault.  Extenuating circumstances doesn't make it any less of an assault.  There really isn't a "But my brother sucks" affirmative defense to assault.  

As for the tape, had anyone believed the tape it would have been considered for the disbarment.  

I was positing that the charges against Jimmy were very much offenses for which he could be disbarred.   And frankly it wouldn't be unfair, from an outside perspective you don't want an attorney who breaks the law, then breaks into a house to destroy the evidence of his lawbreaking.  

It could be grounds, certainly. If this happened a few years down the line with Saul, it probably would have been used. But in the real world, this is the kind of murky situation where the court would probably give Jimmy the benefit of the doubt and punish him less than the maximum allowed.

If you believe that what's on the tape is the result of a seriously mentally ill persons fantasies then the rest, while serious, is understandable, 

[Tikichick]

53 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I read the scripts of the 2 episodes where the Chicago Sunroof situation was discussed and I couldn't find any indication of what sort of deal was cut and whether or not Jimmy admitted that he "Defecated through a sunroof!" in court or in any sort of written confession.  

So, hypothetically,  suppose OJ Simpson gives an interview to Barbara Walters or Oprah or whoever and gives a detailed confession about how he murdered Ron and Nicole.  If later on, one of his "Dream Team" attorneys said, "OJ murdered 2 people." (and assuming OJ had told the lawyer he did it) would that still be violating attorney-client privilege?

Only the client can release privilege.  The attorney cannot comment on what the client has revealed in attorney client conversations, period. 

My comments about Jimmy's legal troubles in Chicago come simply from watching the show and using the information I see and hear about the characters.  I'm not attempting to do a research paper, merely enjoy the show and discussing different opinions about it.

[Bryce Lynch]

6 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I got that impression from the discussion between the DA and Chuck.  And I thought it was a testosterone thing --  Chuck didn't want her or anyone to think he was afraid of his younger, smaller brother.  I probably overthink some of this.  Yeah, not probably, or I wouldn't be here. 

I think that might also have been Chuck not wanting Jimmy to get into too much trouble.  He doesn't want him to go to prison, just lose his law license. Saying he wasn't in fear probably made the idea of the PPD easier to sell to the DA.

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

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. 

Bringing up things you did when you were a child as proof positive of some sort of congenital, incurable character defect is a total sibling/parent move. That part rang very true.

[Tikichick]

11 minutes ago, benteen said:

Whether or not Chuck stays around, I think this season has to be the culmination of his feud with Jimmy.  They've gotten a lot out of it but I can't imagine another three seasons of this type of intense fighting between the two.  That would be overkill.

I have to believe this episode marked a departure in which both brothers find themselves moving in different trajectories.

[Tikichick]

14 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Bringing up things you did when you were a child as proof positive of some sort of congenital, incurable character defect is a total sibling/parent move. That part rang very true.

It rang true, tragically so.  Even though Jimmy knew Chuck was out to settle a score with him, he had no idea until Chuck made mention of his being nine years old that Chuck had real issues with him for years.  He thought his big brother was exasperated with him, but loved him.  Jimmy was deeply wounded yet again by the end of the hearing.

Ultimately I suspect the story to pick up again at some point to give us more insight into Chuck's feelings and how they came to be.  Right now my guess is it's likely the business failure came at a time and a cost to Chuck that no one in the McGill family understood or even knew about. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Tikichick

[RealReality]

21 minutes ago, scenario said:

It could be grounds, certainly. If this happened a few years down the line with Saul, it probably would have been used. But in the real world, this is the kind of murky situation where the court would probably give Jimmy the benefit of the doubt and punish him less than the maximum allowed.

If you believe that what's on the tape is the result of a seriously mentally ill persons fantasies then the rest, while serious, is understandable, 

But it's not really all that murky, especially not for a bar disciplinary hearing with a lower standard of proof.

The issue with the bar hearing isn't that you didn't get a lot of time, it's that you committed any crime and a felony to boot.  It become a especially bad where the crime involved fraud and deceit.  Attorneys are given a lot of trust, and so it's hard to keep one around who isn't trustworthy. 

Yes, that's a pretty big "if" though.  We, the audience know that Jimmy did all that stuff...and until Chuck went off the rails I suspect the disciplinary board would have believed it too.  The only saving grace on that tape was "But you feel better, right"

[Bryce Lynch]

9 minutes ago, RealReality said:

But it's not really all that murky, especially not for a bar disciplinary hearing with a lower standard of proof.

The issue with the bar hearing isn't that you didn't get a lot of time, it's that you committed any crime and a felony to boot.  It become a especially bad where the crime involved fraud and deceit.  Attorneys are given a lot of trust, and so it's hard to keep one around who isn't trustworthy. 

Yes, that's a pretty big "if" though.  We, the audience know that Jimmy did all that stuff...and until Chuck went off the rails I suspect the disciplinary board would have believed it too.  The only saving grace on that tape was "But you feel better, right"

I think the point is that if the board believes the tape shows a man saying whatever he needed to say to placate his mentally disturbed brother as opposed to a genuine confession, the dishonesty related issues would be off the table.  All that would remain would be anger related offenses, which the bar would probably be more lenient on.  They would also be somewhat understandable if you believe Chuck made false accusations against Jimmy rather than true ones.

I could see them giving him a 6 month suspension and anger management classes for the breaking and entering and destruction of property stuff.

[Boilergal]

In the opening when Rebeccah answered her phone, it looked like Chuck began as irritated,  quickly became furious which then morphed into his "allergy"   Which is kind of what happened in the copy shop too?  The more the copy guy denied Jimmy being in there the more angry Chuck got and the "allergy" got the best of him.   

Chuck didn't seem to care a bit about Jimmy being a lawyer as long as it was scum law and lived in the back of the nail salon - but when Jimmy discovered Sandpiper, and had a legit big $$ case Chuck couldn't wrestle that away from him fast enough.  Which incidentally, was when Chuck found it critical to put on his tin foil suit and go into meetings and ensure "legit" lawyers saw Jimmy as a scum lawyer.

Found it funny that Chuck accused Jimmy of chicanery - while admitting to playing up his disease to get the Jimmy to confess.  

[Tikichick]

3 minutes ago, RealReality said:

But it's not really all that murky, especially not for a bar disciplinary hearing with a lower standard of proof.

The issue with the bar hearing isn't that you didn't get a lot of time, it's that you committed any crime and a felony to boot.  It become a especially bad where the crime involved fraud and deceit.  Attorneys are given a lot of trust, and so it's hard to keep one around who isn't trustworthy. 

Yes, that's a pretty big "if" though.  We, the audience know that Jimmy did all that stuff...and until Chuck went off the rails I suspect the disciplinary board would have believed it too.  The only saving grace on that tape was "But you feel better, right"

Even with a lower standard of proof and normal courtroom rules and rules of evidence not being normally at issue in disciplinary proceedings, if the board is going to sanction based on what's heard on the tape the way it was admitted into evidence is likely problematic.  The way it transpired is the tape was played and then Chuck testified as to the circumstances of its creation.   Origins of the tape will no doubt be a large part of the committee's discussions.  The fact it is not the only copy made becomes a material fact as well by virtue of Jimmy's written confession and the statement of damages -- and raises more questions about the condition of and the motivations of its maker and what effects they have on the tape played in the hearing.

Then you have to factor in the possibility Howard may intervene via back channels to the committee in an attempt to mitigate damages to HHM, urging them to leave the details of the tape out of their findings.

[Auntie Anxiety]

Quote

 thought I heard Jimmy say something at some point in the episode about a divorce having happened. 

I rewatched the show last night (without the closed captioning, which I like to use but find distracting from the action because I'm too busy reading!) and it seemed to me that Rebecca and Chuck had divorced but it had happened in the recent past, thus Chuck's indecision about the wedding ring. Jimmy helped set up the dinner, helped Chuck with the sham power outage and even did his part in being "shocked" that the power was off. He played his role very well. 

My thought on the name change to Saul Goodman is that Chuck ends up telling Jimmy to just go away, change his name and they will never have contact again. And Jimmy agrees just to make Chuck happy.

35 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Saying he wasn't in fear probably made the idea of the PPD easier to sell to the DA.

Chuck wasn't in fear of Jimmy and Chuck would never lie just to make his case seem stronger.

[Dobian]

When Chuck was in the hospital, the doctor left some piece of equipment turned on by Chuck's bed without his knowledge and he never reacted, and the doctor called that out.  Wasn't Jimmy there to hear that?  I figured that would have been the impetus for his battery trick.  I agree that in a real hearing, Jimmy's stunt wouldn't have gone over well with that board.  I also think they would have taken a dim view of Chuck admittedly exaggerating his illness to coax a confession out of Jimmy, which by itself would have cast reasonable doubt on the confession.  They could have thrown the whole thing out before Jimmy ever questioned Chuck, given Jimmy a slap on the wrist for the breaking and entering, and called it a day.

[Tikichick]

3 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

I rewatched the show last night (without the closed captioning, which I like to use but find distracting from the action because I'm too busy reading!) and it seemed to me that Rebecca and Chuck had divorced but it had happened in the recent past, thus Chuck's indecision about the wedding ring. Jimmy helped set up the dinner, helped Chuck with the sham power outage and even did his part in being "shocked" that the power was off. He played his role very well. 

My thought on the name change to Saul Goodman is that Chuck ends up telling Jimmy to just go away, change his name and they will never have contact again. And Jimmy agrees just to make Chuck happy.

Chuck wasn't in fear of Jimmy and Chuck would never lie just to make his case seem stronger.

I feel like Saul is Jimmy's response to discovering his brother he's loved and idolized his whole life is not only angry with him for recent screwups, but in fact has never loved him his whole life since he was a kid.  I suspect we're about to see what happens when Jimmy accepts the prophecy and the mantle Chuck held out for Jimmy in front of everyone.  Oh yeah, 'sall good, man -- right in the eye.

[PeterPirate]

Just now, Dobian said:

When Chuck was in the hospital, the doctor left some piece of equipment turned on by Chuck's bed without his knowledge and he never reacted, and the doctor called that out.  Wasn't Jimmy there to hear that?  I figured that would have been the impetus for his battery trick.  I agree that in a real hearing, Jimmy's stunt wouldn't have gone over well with that board.  I also think they would have taken a dim view of Chuck admittedly exaggerating his illness to coax a confession out of Jimmy, which by itself would have cast reasonable doubt on the confession.  They could have thrown the whole thing out before Jimmy ever questioned Chuck, given Jimmy a slap on the wrist for the breaking and entering, and called it a day.

I'm inclined to think that's what we'll see before too long. If Jimmy McGill gets disbarred, I doubt that he could to on to practice as Saul Goodman. Then again, everything I know about the law I learned from The West Wing.

[scenario]

57 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I think the point is that if the board believes the tape shows a man saying whatever he needed to say to placate his mentally disturbed brother as opposed to a genuine confession, the dishonesty related issues would be off the table.  All that would remain would be anger related offenses, which the bar would probably be more lenient on.  They would also be somewhat understandable if you believe Chuck made false accusations against Jimmy rather than true ones.

I could see them giving him a 6 month suspension and anger management classes for the breaking and entering and destruction of property stuff.

I think the main point is, is it reasonable that the bar would let Jimmy keep his licence in this instance. The charge of fraud is being brought by a mentally ill man who has a known history being paranoid against his brother.  The real issue is breaking and entering and assault. The assault was legally assault but because it wasn't violent, it doesn't have to be charged as a felony. Breaking and entering is very serious and legitimate grounds for disbarment but it happened at a time of extreme emotional distress for Jimmy.  In that instance, the bar may decide to disbar Jimmy or it may decide that a lesser punishment is more appropriate.

Bottom line, I think the show did enough to justify the Bars decision not to disbar Jimmy. It could have gone either way. 

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, scenario said:

I think the main point is, is it reasonable that the bar would let Jimmy keep his licence in this instance. The charge of fraud is being brought by a mentally ill man who has a known history being paranoid against his brother.  The real issue is breaking and entering and assault. The assault was legally assault but because it wasn't violent, it doesn't have to be charged as a felony. Breaking and entering is very serious and legitimate grounds for disbarment but it happened at a time of extreme emotional distress for Jimmy.  In that instance, the bar may decide to disbar Jimmy or it may decide that a lesser punishment is more appropriate.

Bottom line, I think the show did enough to justify the Bars decision not to disbar Jimmy. It could have gone either way. 

I agree.  I think there is technically a strong enough case to disbar Jimmy permanently without the MV cut and paste. But, I also agree that they would probably tend to go easy on him, especially given the distress he was under, assuming they believe Chuck is a lunatic. 

One thing I keep forgetting is that the defense has not begun to present its case yet.  Once that happens, things could get a lot better for Jimmy and a lot worse for Chuck.  If they bring the police who tasered Chuck, the ER doctor who proved his condition was psychcosomatic, etc. to the stand, the board could really think Chuck is a lunatic and Jimmy is a hero.