S01.E22: Dirty Little Secrets

[MyAimIsTrue]

Bull works with J.P. Nunnelly on the first of three cases to repay her for defending his brother, Benny, at trial. However, they clash over their client, a computer cloud company that is battling the F.B.I. to retain privacy over their client files that could help identify the source of a recent eco-terrorist attack.

[marina to]

I actually liked this episode. Looking at the different side of the privacy issue, a more vulnerable Bull, Cable being the one who gets to do the words of wisdom, some points of natural conflict between the team.

Don't know how I feel about the obvious setup of JP with Bull - it was done pretty heavy-highhandedly with the apartment search criteria but I do like that she doesn't let him manipulate her. It gives Bull some much needed humbling.

[Bobbin]

A very educational episode. It helps to take a step back to see the bigger picture. It's the very nature of law enforcement to always want direct access to all available data to solve a case. And it's the nature of individuals to want absolute privacy in their activities and relationships. The United States Constitution comes down on the side of the individual. I'm glad to see that Bull eventually did, too. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[JackONeill]

I didn't catch everything right as the bad guy was being arrested, but I do remember Bull standing up and saying that he wasn't an attorney so there was no attorney-client protection. Although it may be arguable, I think that since Bull works for the attorney, and since, apparently based upon a comment I think I heard that it wasn't disclosed that he wasn't an attorney, which is a no-no, anything said to him would be protected under attorney-client. So, again, I think this show plays fast and loose with all things legal.

Along those lines, I'm willing to bet that a lot of what Bull's asst (name?) was doing in following and listening in to the bad guy was not above-board either.

[Netfoot]

2 hours ago, JackONeill said:

I think that since Bull works for the attorney...

Interesting thought.  Is a lawyer's assistant/typist/office clerk bound by attorney-client privelege?

[Bobbin]

3 hours ago, JackONeill said:

I didn't catch everything right as the bad guy was being arrested, but I do remember Bull standing up and saying that he wasn't an attorney so there was no attorney-client protection. Although it may be arguable, I think that since Bull works for the attorney, and since, apparently based upon a comment I think I heard that it wasn't disclosed that he wasn't an attorney, which is a no-no, anything said to him would be protected under attorney-client. So, again, I think this show plays fast and loose with all things legal.

Along those lines, I'm willing to bet that a lot of what Bull's asst (name?) was doing in following and listening in to the bad guy was not above-board either.

My understanding is that "privilege" applies to information divulged by a client to his attorney. All of Bull's evidence was obtained independently through his own private sources and was not introduced during the course of the trial.

[sinkwriter]

Quote

A very educational episode. It helps to take a step back to see the bigger picture. It's the very nature of law enforcement to always want direct access to all available data to solve a case. And it's the nature of individuals to want absolute privacy in their activities and relationships. 

I was glad to see someone from the Bull team finally argue on the side of privacy. On the one hand, they violate people's privacy on a regular basis in order to research the juries and do their jobs, so I suppose it would be pretty hypocritical of them to argue for privacy. However, I just couldn't believe that not one of them seemed to understand why it's important. That's like saying every single person on the team is for capital punishment, and not a single one has a differing (or wavering) opinion about it. Impossible.

And frankly, I don't buy that it took Cable finding Bull's failure online to learn that lesson. As a website designer, I'm 100% for net neutrality and privacy, so I was super surprised that as a tech person Cable wasn't already on that side. It felt forced for the writers to make her on the side of giving up the data, even if it was to catch the bad guys who hurt her neighbor. I would have thought she'd be full force on the side of J.P. and the idea that there's always another way to catch the bad guy. Giving up the right to privacy for all shouldn't be part of the price.

One thing I wish they'd done was give J.P. her own stance and let her stand firm in it all the way through. To have her lose confidence in her own argument, enough to nearly botch the closing argument and not reach her jury audience, only to be saved because Bull talked her back into it? That's bullshit. Why can't Bull just be wrong for once and that's it? No buts. He's simply wrong and learned something new. The end. As a character in The West Wing once said, "No 'however'. Just be wrong. Just stand there in your wrongness and be wrong..." LOL.

That said, I did appreciate learning that something Bull tried for, he wasn't able to attain. I appreciated that brief bit of vulnerability. I suppose this is the area where Bull's character needs to grow, so they're going to go slowly (soooo slowly) in this regard. I just wish the show would let him sit in that for a bit longer and not feel the need to overcompensate for it by immediately pushing the story to lift him back up to hero status. Why can't he be vulnerable and "just stand there in his vulnerability"? End an episode with him being wrong or being vulnerable and that's okay.

P.S. He should go to prison, but I think that guilty guy could get a good lawyer to throw out the recording. Illegally obtained, recorded without his knowledge, and technically Bull was working for J.P. so anything said to her should fall under that client-attorney privilege umbrella. Bull's argument didn't seem to be on solid ground.

[Showthyme]

This show is worth watching now. 

[Netfoot]

Can't say I'm happy with the Bull/JP romance that's being pushed down out throats.  I quite like Eliza Dushku so it would be nice to have her hang around for a while.  But the two actors don't seem to have much in the way of chemistry.  And the two characters getting involved seems somehow totally unlikely.  But worst of all is that if they do get together, the writers have as much as insinuated that Bull is only in it for the apartment and the pond outside, and not because of any affection for, or appreciation of, JP.  And I just don't like where that takes me.

[Mama No Life]

I'm sad for the lawyer in Tx because I guess she's about to get bumped.  I mean, wth?

[sinkwriter]

I'm cool with that. I didn't like her character (the lawyer in Texas). I found her to be manipulative, deceitful and rude, and I grit my teeth every time she was on screen. I'd be happy if we never saw her character again.

[Minerette]

I'm not a lawyer, just an old  paralegal, but at least in California, it's the client who has the privilege, which binds the attorney – and all employees of the attorney – to confidentiality. 

Oh, and I just need to get this off my chest: Eliza Dushko cannot act. She is actually painful to watch. 

[waving feather]

10 hours ago, Minerette said:

Oh, and I just need to get this off my chest: Eliza Dushko cannot act. She is actually painful to watch. 

She's so bad I wonder how she even became an actress. Her line reading is atrocious. Was she always this bad? I thought she was alright in Dollhouse. She's just not convincing here.

[Callietwo]

On 5/18/2017 at 11:10 AM, sinkwriter said:

I'm cool with that. I didn't like her character (the lawyer in Texas). I found her to be manipulative, deceitful and rude, and I grit my teeth every time she was on screen. I'd be happy if we never saw her character again.

That actress is a BEC for me.  I cannot *stand* her and feel she ruins everything I've ever seen with her.  I yelled 'oh HELL no' when she showed up so I'll take just about anyone over her!  

[Trey]

8 minutes ago, Callietwo said:

so I'll take just about anyone over her!  

Don't say that or Amy Acker will turn up!

I've never been an Eliza Dushku fan since she stole Buffy's french fries.

[Minerette]

11 hours ago, waving feather said:

She's so bad I wonder how she even became an actress. Her line reading is atrocious. Was she always this bad? I thought she was alright in Dollhouse. She's just not convincing here.

She was - barely - tolerable in Dollhouse because her character, Echo, was a blank. Apparently she's good at blank.