Legally Speaking

[RealReality]

3 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Really, this action is not about Mesa Verde. The tape only had to show why Jimmy destroyed property. The tape could have been about anything very damaging to Jimmy's standing in the community say if he had confessed to bestiality with a goldfish, just to make it credible that he wanted to destroy Chuck's property. It's not brought to show his unlawerly practice with MV the action is about the B & E. Jimmy and Kim are arguing that the B & E is the issue and should be ignored by the Bar as a feud between brothers.

 

But, I think Jimmy was also making the point that he was only saying that stuff on tape to make Chuck feel better.  Which...its lucky he made that comment about "well do you feel better now?"  Because I think the B&E ties the whole narrative together.  Jimmy admits to this crap on tape, and its not just some spur of the moment crap he made up because he is so scared once he finds out about the tape that he breaks into Chucks house in a rage and destroys the only evidence of his fraud.  So, I think what he did to MV is a part of it, because he forged documents (fraud/deceit), and then in an effort to cover up what he did he broke into Chucks house to destroy the evidence.

[Bryce Lynch]

13 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Setting up the B&E instead of taking the tape to the bar without passing go.  Never enlightening MV as to how the numbers wound up transposed on their documents in the first place, information they might have found material going forward and in making decisions about how to proceed.  If I'm Mesa Verde I think I'm entitled to all of the facts considering that what happened wasn't a missed typographical error, but a deliberate sabotage of my business deal.  Arguably a sabotage made worse because my attorney was in a compromised physical/mental state for which he is receiving no treatment. 

Yeah, I suppose you could argue that not informing MV that he had evidence (the tape) that their documents had been tampered with by the associate and boyfriend of their current lawyer, for the specific purposes of getting them to return to her could be seen as not acting in the client's best interest.

They might have chosen to sue Jimmy and/or fire Kim, whose trustworthiness they might legitimately doubt after hearing the tape.   Perhaps the banking board would have expedited their new hearing if they knew MV was a victim of fraud and sabotage, as opposed to a clerical error by their pompous lawyer. 

Ironically, by going easy on Kim and perhaps not wanting to seem petty to MV, Chuck was probably negligent in his duty to MV.  I am surprised Howard didn't say anything about this.  He did mention (and Chuck agreed) that the tape would never win MV back. But neither seemed concerned with MV being in the dark about what happened.  Of course that might have been because they both knew Kim was not involved, and her ethics and character were not a threat to MV, but still.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[RealReality]

10 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Perhaps if he were receiving treatment for the disorder he's aware of it would have uncovered the existence of some type of borderline personality disorder or another diagnosis that causes him to have certainty and belief in his infallibility and correctness in all things wherein he deems himself an expert.  For all we know the superciliousness and assholery are simply a manifestation of his disorder that have gone unrecognized for years due to the fact the guy's got a vast intellect and skillset that seemingly backup his attitude a good deal of the time. 

It's a very gray and tricky area of the law, but I see no way HHM can allow Chuck to continue to represent clients until he has medical clearances going forward now that things have spilled out so messily the way they did.  

 

 

LOL...perhaps?  There is absolutely no evidence that Chucks condition made him unable to practice law.  In fact, he did so quite competently.  Even with Mesa Verde, he did do the right thing, he is practicing competently.

This isn't really a grey area.  HHM will force Chuck out, because of the optics, not because his disability has any impact on his ability to competently and ethically practice law.  It doesn't matter if he has a medical clearance from Dr. Oz or the Surgeon General, he is always gonna be that guy with the mental problem, and for bigger clients that will not work or they will request not to have him as an attorney.  

What is a grey area is whether Chuck would have any duty to disclose the existence of the tape to MV.  As a former client, he has an ongoing duty of confidentiality to them, he since he isn't representing MV, does he really have a duty to disclose the tapes to them?

Edited May 11, 2017 by RealReality

[Tikichick]

8 minutes ago, RealReality said:

And?  I leave a pie out on my window because I want to catch a pie thief in the act, now I'm irresponsible because the pie thief stole the pie?  Setting the bait isn't really actionable, and frankly entrapment only applies to government actors.

The B&E sets everything in motion, and it bolsters Chuck's case.  If he had wanted to stop at the tape, I guess he could have, even though it leaves some wiggle room for debate, but the B&E is really the frosting on the cupcake.  Because you don't break into someone's house and pry open their drawer with a fireplace poker in front of two other witnesses because you just wanted to get your old Samantha Fox tape back, you do it because you really need it.

Setting the bait for a pie thief when you have no other evidence to back up your accusation is one thing, completely overlooking pie theft from a windowsill takes some strong persuasion to elevate to felony.  An attorney with evidence in his hands of misdoing by another attorney, evidence which I am assured is beyond adequate for admission to the committee overseeing attorney misconduct, chooses not to report the misconduct to the appropriate authority, instead feels the need to "gild the lily" by insuring the offending attorney is made aware of the existence of the tape in an attempt to goad a felony is really a horse of a different color.

We absolutely know for a certainty Chuck needs his cupcake frosted, always, without a doubt.

[Bryce Lynch]

4 minutes ago, RealReality said:

LOL...perhaps?  There is absolutely no evidence that Chucks condition made him unable to practice law.  In fact, he did so quite competently.  Even with Mesa Verde, he did do the right thing, he is practicing competently.

This isn't really a grey area.  HHM will force Chuck out, because of the optics, not because his disability has any impact on his ability to competently and ethically practice law.  It doesn't matter if he has a medical clearance from Dr. Oz or the Surgeon General, he is always gonna be that guy with the mental problem, and for bigger clients that will not work or they will request not to have him as an attorney.  

I am not so sure that his disability has no impact on his ability to practice law.  Because of it:

1) He cannot use computers to create documents, which could cause delays and make it much more difficult and time consuming to make edits.

2)  He cannot have the same level of communication with his clients that normal lawyers are able to have. No phone, no email, etc.

3) While he did suck it up and go to the banking board meeting, it is not unreasonable to wonder if he might avoid going to court (or outside of his home, in general) as a result of his condition, at times to the detriment of his clients.  For example, he might choose to settle a case rather than go to court and get fried by EM radiation.

4) The fact that he has what seems to be a rather profound mental illness, in the area of fear of electricity, could be an indication of a broader mental defect that could affect his ability to practice.

I think, at a minimum, his clients have a right to know that he is unable to function in the same manner that modern attorneys are expected to function in.  If they still choose to hire him, fine, but I don't think it is right for him to hide it from them.

[RealReality]

1 minute ago, Tikichick said:

Setting the bait for a pie thief when you have no other evidence to back up your accusation is one thing, completely overlooking pie theft from a windowsill takes some strong persuasion to elevate to felony.  An attorney with evidence in his hands of misdoing by another attorney, evidence which I am assured is beyond adequate for admission to the committee overseeing attorney misconduct, chooses not to report the misconduct to the appropriate authority, instead feels the need to "gild the lily" by insuring the offending attorney is made aware of the existence of the tape in an attempt to goad a felony is really a horse of a different color.

We absolutely know for a certainty Chuck needs his cupcake frosted, always, without a doubt.

 

Its adequate for admission of course.  However, it can be much more easily explained away than a tape that Jimmy then broke into a house and destroyed.  It really does make the case that much stronger because it shows that Jimmy was upset over something getting out.  As I said, it really seals the narrative.  Chuck has a tape of Jimmy admitting the wrongdoing....fine, but Jimmy can explain that away pretty easy or do whatever Jimmy tricks he is going to do.  And Chuck, concerned officer of the law, doesn't want to see such a terrible breach of law by a lawyer go unpunished.  So, the tape is there and Jimmy breaks in, in a rage, pries open a drawer and destroys the tape.  Well now you have a guy that broke into your house to destroy evidence of something he didn't do wrong?  That doesn't sound right....its much harder to explain away.

[axlmadonna]

2 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I am not so sure that his disability has no impact on his ability to practice law.  Because of it:

1) He cannot use computers to create documents, which could cause delays and make it much more difficult and time consuming to make edits.

2)  He cannot have the same level of communication with his clients that normal lawyers are able to have. No phone, no email, etc.

3) While he did suck it up and go to the banking board meeting, it is not unreasonable to wonder if he might avoid going to court (or outside of his home, in general) as a result of his condition, at times to the detriment of his clients.  For example, he might choose to settle a case rather than go to court and get fried by EM radiation.

4) The fact that he has what seems to be a rather profound mental illness, in the area of fear of electricity, could be an indication of a broader mental defect that could affect his ability to practice.

I think, at a minimum, his clients have a right to know that he is unable to function in the same manner that modern attorneys are expected to function in.  If they still choose to hire him, fine, but I don't think it is right for him to hide it from them.

Excellent points.

It also occurs to me that Chuck was able to "pretend" to function normally in that MV hearing, even with all the lights on, all the cellphones in the room, the court reporter, etc. There were zero accomodations made for him there because he was hiding his so-called illness from his clients. If he's capable of doing that, of not freaking out in that situation, then why can't he do that all the time? It's one thing to be uncomfortable, it's quite another to melt down simply because someone is talking on a cellphone in your general vicinity or because there's a battery in your pocket. In my opinon, his ability to restrain himself (and even appear perfectly unaffected) when he chooses has always been proof that it wasn't a real, physical ailment.

[RealReality]

8 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I am not so sure that his disability has no impact on his ability to practice law.  Because of it:

1) He cannot use computers to create documents, which could cause delays and make it much more difficult and time consuming to make edits.

2)  He cannot have the same level of communication with his clients that normal lawyers are able to have. No phone, no email, etc.

3) While he did suck it up and go to the banking board meeting, it is not unreasonable to wonder if he might avoid going to court (or outside of his home, in general) as a result of his condition, at times to the detriment of his clients.  For example, he might choose to settle a case rather than go to court and get fried by EM radiation.

4) The fact that he has what seems to be a rather profound mental illness, in the area of fear of electricity, could be an indication of a broader mental defect that could affect his ability to practice.

I think, at a minimum, his clients have a right to know that he is unable to function in the same manner that modern attorneys are expected to function in.  If they still choose to hire him, fine, but I don't think it is right for him to hide it from them.

 

 

1) he is a senior partner and more responsible for strategy than anything else.  I sure hope there is an associate or paralegal doing the heavy typing.  Which is the same thing I expect for Howard.  I doubt Howard is hammering at a computer all day

2) I doubt that Chuck meets clients, at larger firms its years before an attorney meets a client, so one can practice law without ever communicating with a client.

3) knowing his condition, I doubt Chuck ever goes to court, which is not rare at all.  He likely works with another attorney and he does the strategizing.  Many firms have writers and trial attorneys, and the two are separate.  And even a writer at Chucks level could employ someone else to do the actual typing, and then edit from there.  Personally, I don't like to edit on the computer, I do it with a red pen, by hand, so its not uncommon.

4) we haven't seen any indication of his inability to practice, and we've only seen evidence that he is an uber competent, sometimes brilliant attorney.

The client has no right to know as long as it doesn't affect his ability to represent them.  If he is at home, strategizing and looking stuff up like they did in 1972 as long as its not affecting the clients cases, it really is immaterial.  Which it hasn't.  He isn't a client facing attorney, he is a senior partner/founding partner who essentially has the same client obligations as a first year associate...which is none.  He can and likely does have stuff typed up by other attorneys and sends them to court to argue....which is not so out of the ordinary.

Edited May 11, 2017 by RealReality

[Bryce Lynch]

8 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Setting the bait for a pie thief when you have no other evidence to back up your accusation is one thing, completely overlooking pie theft from a windowsill takes some strong persuasion to elevate to felony.  An attorney with evidence in his hands of misdoing by another attorney, evidence which I am assured is beyond adequate for admission to the committee overseeing attorney misconduct, chooses not to report the misconduct to the appropriate authority, instead feels the need to "gild the lily" by insuring the offending attorney is made aware of the existence of the tape in an attempt to goad a felony is really a horse of a different color.

We absolutely know for a certainty Chuck needs his cupcake frosted, always, without a doubt.

I definitely get you point.  I supposed Chuck's defense could be that he felt he needed, and could quickly obtain, more evidence against Jimmy, that doing so would benefit the bar and MV, and that immediately handing the tape over to the bar would have compromised his ability to get that additional.  It might be BS, but it might hold up.

While Chuck is not law enforcement (though, as he told the copy shop guy  he is an officer of the court LOL), there is plenty of precedent for law enforcement and prosecutors holding off making an arrest or seeking an indictment while they seek more evidence.  I don't think it would be a huge stretch for Chuck to apply that principle to his situation.  

[Tikichick]

33 minutes ago, RealReality said:

He had every right not to share his condition with his clients since it had no bearing on his ability to practice law.  How did it every impair him, even at the MV hearing?  He was just being supercilious and asshole Chuck...that is regular Chuck, even when the lights are off and no one has a cell phone.   Most of the work Chuck did was at his house, so it had no bearing on his ability to practice law and therefore he was under no obligation to share his condition with clients.  

Not particularly an opinion though, which is a thorough explanation of the reasoning for all parties.  Its just a very, very odd and rare use of the word sua sponte.  Its fine though, I understood what you meant.

He's so gravely affected by the effects of electricity that he lives in a home under the conditions he does, is unable to conduct the practice of law in his offices anymore and attends an important client hearing with the minimal and covert protection of a space blanket, a protection that may fail him at any time during the hearing and render him unable to provide the very legal representation they're counting on?  Did he not waive off the attempted intervention of a colleague in the hearing when they attempted to prevent the panel from ruling against the client?

Do we really think in this electronic age that without use of computers Chuck is able to remain abreast of new developments in the highly technical area of law that is his specialty?  A Chuck able to keep abreast of current developments via computer would probably be darn near bulletproof in his wheelhouse.  A Chuck who needs to be kept abreast via the research and reporting of colleagues and the wait for printed media, not so much.

[Tikichick]

6 minutes ago, RealReality said:

1) he is a senior partner and more responsible for strategy than anything else.  I sure hope there is an associate or paralegal doing the heavy typing.  Which is the same thing I expect for Howard.  I doubt Howard is hammering at a computer all day

2) I doubt that Chuck meets clients, at larger firms its years before an attorney meets a client, so one can practice law without ever communicating with a client.

3) knowing his condition, I doubt Chuck ever goes to court, which is not rare at all.  He likely works with another attorney and he does the strategizing.  Many firms have writers and trial attorneys, and the two are separate.  And even a writer at Chucks level could employ someone else to do the actual typing, and then edit from there.  Personally, I don't like to edit on the computer, I do it with a red pen, by hand, so its not uncommon.

4) we haven't seen any indication of his inability to practice, and we've only seen evidence that he is an uber competent, sometimes brilliant attorney.

The client has no right to know as long as it doesn't affect his ability to represent them.  If he is at home, strategizing and looking stuff up like they did in 1972 as long as its not affecting the clients cases, it really is immaterial.  Which it hasn't.  He isn't a client facing attorney, he is a senior partner/founding partner who essentially has the same client obligations as a first year associate...which is none.  He can and likely does have stuff typed up by other attorneys and sends them to court to argue....which is not so out of the ordinary.

 

Kim brought MV to HHM and MV was very receptive for that representation to revolve around Chuck taking the lead due to his prowess.  In fact Chuck was the face of MV's presentation to the banking panel.  He was lead dog and he wasn't going to yield what anybody else in that hearing had to say, period.

Doing things the way they were done in 1972 can be very solid, to a point.  In order to remain up to date on changing regulations and things in the area of the law Chuck excels in today presents significant challenges operating in the 1972 model.  

[Gobi]

2 hours ago, RealReality said:

well...I'm an attorney.  ;)

and I can confidently say that I am the only attorney speaking on the issue of the admissibility of the tape :)

No, you're not :). The tape is not hearsay. Hearsay is when a witness testifies to what someone else said. But that is always allowed when the person being quoted is a party to the case. There can be many reasons for objecting to the tape being admitted, but hearsay is not one of them .

Chuck needed the break in. If he had taken the tape to the Bar, then the whole focus would have been on why Jimmy said what he said. And that would open the door wide for evidence of Chuck's condition. Wasn't it Howard who asked Jimmy to look in on Chuck (I could be wrong, but it was someone)?

As for Chuck's ability to appear at the Mesa Verde hearing, as I recall, he was wearing his tinfoil lined suit for the occasion. Something  else that could have been brought up.

Chuck may have been trying to get Jimmy's MV shenanigans in through the back door with the tape, but the hearing was not concerned with that, only with the B&E and assault.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Gobi
Content

[Tikichick]

12 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I definitely get you point.  I supposed Chuck's defense could be that he felt he needed, and could quickly obtain, more evidence against Jimmy, that doing so would benefit the bar and MV, and that immediately handing the tape over to the bar would have compromised his ability to get that additional.  It might be BS, but it might hold up.

While Chuck is not law enforcement (though, as he told the copy shop guy  he is an officer of the court LOL), there is plenty of precedent for law enforcement and prosecutors holding off making an arrest or seeking an indictment while they seek more evidence.  I don't think it would be a huge stretch for Chuck to apply that principle to his situation.  

Attorneys are referred to as officers of the court.

[RealReality]

5 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

He's so gravely affected by the effects of electricity that he lives in a home under the conditions he does, is unable to conduct the practice of law in his offices anymore and attends an important client hearing with the minimal and covert protection of a space blanket, a protection that may fail him at any time during the hearing and render him unable to provide the very legal representation they're counting on?  Did he not waive off the attempted intervention of a colleague in the hearing when they attempted to prevent the panel from ruling against the client?

Do we really think in this electronic age that without use of computers Chuck is able to remain abreast of new developments in the highly technical area of law that is his specialty?  A Chuck able to keep abreast of current developments via computer would probably be darn near bulletproof in his wheelhouse.  A Chuck who needs to be kept abreast via the research and reporting of colleagues and the wait for printed media, not so much.

 

and?  nothing fell apart and nothing impaired Chucks representation of MV.  If you want to play "what ifs" there are a million of them.  What if an attorney with asthma suddenly had an attack because the vents weren't properly cleaned, what if an attorney tripped and stubbed their toe, and the pain of the stubbed toe kept them from making the best legal argument?  But here, Chuck was able to represent the client competently.  And has never been shown giving anything but competent representation.

And just LOL @ waving off a colleague as proof of anything other than him being an supercilious asshole.

Actually, I think Chuck could, while most attorneys use databases, everything also comes out in paper form.  There is no reporter that I know of that doesn't release a hard copy version of what is online.  This is why law libraries are still a thing.  

And you don't need to be bulletproof to be a competent attorney.  Plenty attorneys cite old case law and get case law wrong, even good attorneys.  The bar is competency, not the best.  And I would say that Chuck is better than a lot of attorneys who are able to use the computer.

So, is Chuck able to competently and ethically practice law?  We haven't seen anything to suggest that he has not rendered competent counsel to his clients.

4 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

 

Kim brought MV to HHM and MV was very receptive for that representation to revolve around Chuck taking the lead due to his prowess.  In fact Chuck was the face of MV's presentation to the banking panel.  He was lead dog and he wasn't going to yield what anybody else in that hearing had to say, period.

Doing things the way they were done in 1972 can be very solid, to a point.  In order to remain up to date on changing regulations and things in the area of the law Chuck excels in today presents significant challenges operating in the 1972 model.  

 

Exactly, that prowess is centered around strategy and knowledge.  Both of which Chuck has.  

That he wasn't going to yield doesn't make him mentally incompetent, it makes him like a lot of other attorneys who have no mental deficiencies.

It really doesn't even present a significant challenge.  Most everything that comes out on the computer, is available in print.  You can get law review articles, treatieses, case law and most everything else that is on a legal database in hardcopy form.  For a guy that is taking on very few cases, it wouldn't be a stretch at all.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, RealReality said:

and?  nothing fell apart and nothing impaired Chucks representation of MV.  If you want to play "what ifs" there are a million of them.  What if an attorney with asthma suddenly had an attack because the vents weren't properly cleaned, what if an attorney tripped and stubbed their toe, and the pain of the stubbed toe kept them from making the best legal argument?  But here, Chuck was able to represent the client competently.  And has never been shown giving anything but competent representation.

And just LOL @ waving off a colleague as proof of anything other than him being an supercilious asshole.

Actually, I think Chuck could, while most attorneys use databases, everything also comes out in paper form.  There is no reporter that I know of that doesn't release a hard copy version of what is online.  This is why law libraries are still a thing.  

And you don't need to be bulletproof to be a competent attorney.  Plenty attorneys cite old case law and get case law wrong, even good attorneys.  The bar is competency, not the best.  And I would say that Chuck is better than a lot of attorneys who are able to use the computer.

So, is Chuck able to competently and ethically practice law?  We haven't seen anything to suggest that he has not rendered competent counsel to his clients.

Is it likely MV could have been granted an easier, more immediate mulligan from the banking commission if Chuck had thrown himself on the grenade during the hearing when the transposed numbers came up?  If so, Chuck's conduct was not in the client's best interest, nor do I consider it competent to sacrifice an opportunity for the client to choose to stand on his insistence there was no error on his part.  Who paid the price?  HHM lost the client, yes.  But apparently it was a costly delay for MV, one with the potential for disaster for them.    I doubt MV found anything in the situation LOL worthy.

It doesn't sound like Chuck's area of the law revolves as extensively around what's in the reporters as much as many others might.  We were given the impression based on the dog and pony they put on for MV that regulations in that area of the law are legion and frequently updating.  I doubt hardcopy coverage is a high priority in the digital age. 

[RealReality]

12 hours ago, Tikichick said:

Is it likely MV could have been granted an easier, more immediate mulligan from the banking commission if Chuck had thrown himself on the grenade during the hearing when the transposed numbers came up?  If so, Chuck's conduct was not in the client's best interest, nor do I consider it competent to sacrifice an opportunity for the client to choose to stand on his insistence there was no error on his part.  Who paid the price?  HHM lost the client, yes.  But apparently it was a costly delay for MV, one with the potential for disaster for them.    I doubt MV found anything in the situation LOL worthy.

It doesn't sound like Chuck's area of the law revolves as extensively around what's in the reporters as much as many others might.  We were given the impression based on the dog and pony they put on for MV that regulations in that area of the law are legion and frequently updating.  I doubt hardcopy coverage is a high priority in the digital age. 

 

No.  They had a calendar with a hearing date months out, which is not uncommon for regulatory authorities.  They don't always meet and may consider a number of matters on a particular day, and can be booked months out.  Would they convene a special session because an attorney made a mistake?  It seems unlikely because they probably schedule their other business around the hearing dates.

Being an asshole to clients doesn't make you legally incompetent to practice law, and that would be a HUUUUUGE stretch since there are so many abrasive personalities in the legal profession.  However, you can fire your attorney at anytime for anything, so that is the decision a person has to escape an attorney with a personality they don't like.  But legally speaking, competence isn't measured by kindness.  And even if it was, Chucks behavior wouldn't rise to that level.

Case law is in the reporters, which is essential in most any area of law.  Updates to statutes would also be available via hardcopy.  Hardcopy is just the way it works, updates to laws are released via hardcopy as are the reporters that carry case law.  Legal databases make these things easier, but they aren't a requirement.  You can still go to most any legal library and find hardcopies of everything.  Recent and updated.  You need only go to the nearest law school in your area and check out the law library.

[RealReality]

13 hours ago, Gobi said:

No, you're not :). The tape is not hearsay. Hearsay is when a witness testifies to what someone else said. But that is always allowed when the person being quoted is a party to the case. There can be many reasons for objecting to the tape being admitted, but hearsay is not one of them .

Chuck needed the break in. If he had taken the tape to the Bar, then the whole focus would have been on why Jimmy said what he said. And that would open the door wide for evidence of Chuck's condition. Wasn't it Howard who asked Jimmy to look in on Chuck (I could be wrong, but it was someone)?

As for Chuck's ability to appear at the Mesa Verde hearing, as I recall, he was wearing his tinfoil lined suit for the occasion. Something  else that could have been brought up.

Chuck may have been trying to get Jimmy's MV shenanigans in through the back door with the tape, but the hearing was not concerned with that, only with the B&E and assault.

 

Yes, I am.  And I would no reason to lie to anyone, especially online.  As for the tape, I believe it is hearsay but as you said an exemption would apply.  

Statements by a party are considered an exemption to the hearsay rule.  But to say that I'm lying about being an attorney because I forgot about an exemption to the hearsay rule, when for all intents and purposes in any other matter the tape would be hearsay seems like a strange assertion and oddly aggressive....but okie dokie.

[mattie0808]

Not to speak for Gobi (or anyone), but I'm pretty sure all that was meant was that you're not the only attorney on this thread/forum. Not accusing you of lying, just saying that Gobi is also an attorney, since you said, "and I can confidently say that I am the only attorney speaking on the issue of the admissibility of the tape :)"

Edited May 12, 2017 by mattie0808

[Gobi]

6 hours ago, RealReality said:

Yes, I am.  And I would no reason to lie to anyone, especially online.  As for the tape, I believe it is hearsay but as you said an exemption would apply.  

Statements by a party are considered an exemption to the hearsay rule.  But to say that I'm lying about being an attorney because I forgot about an exemption to the hearsay rule, when for all intents and purposes in any other matter the tape would be hearsay seems like a strange assertion and oddly aggressive....but okie dokie.

Real Reality: My apologies for the misunderstanding. I meant that you weren't the only attorney posting (I'm one, too), not that you were not an attorney.

[RealReality]

On 5/12/2017 at 10:49 AM, Gobi said:

Real Reality: My apologies for the misunderstanding. I meant that you weren't the only attorney posting (I'm one, too), not that you were not an attorney.

Well don't I feel like an asshole -- my bad :(

[rue721]

I'm so curious about Saul Goodman's shell company, Ice Station Zebra Associates. Maybe ISZA and name change questions are more "accounting speaking" than "legally speaking" in this case, but this still seems like the best thread for it...?

Anyway, I think that Jimmy needs Saul's payments to be made payable to a shell company because he has no legitimate Saul Goodman identification. Without ID, if he received payment made payable to Saul Goodman, he wouldn't be able to cash or deposit it (or at least not easily).

My guess is that even up through Breaking Bad, Jimmy is still legally James McGill, and that ISZA is registered under the name James McGill, (and that the lease, insurance, payroll, etc etc etc for Saul's business is all registered under Ice Station Zebra Associates). IMO, Saul Goodman is likely to simply be an alias that he uses in his business dealings, kind of just a "street name." If it weren't, if it were his real legal name or even just a name that he had some backup documentation for, he wouldn't use a shell company to receive Saul Goodman's legitimate payments from his legitimate clients (like Badger).

My guess for why he would need a street name is so that clients/associates can refer to him without it being immediately obvious to outsiders who they are talking about. He wouldn't WANT any legal ties to a street name like that.

What's funny is that, if that ends up being the case, then Jimmy (literally) becoming Saul Goodman may not be a dramatic thing at all. It may just be that he wants to market by word of mouth, but doesn't want his real name getting thrown around by people who are discussing committing crimes and things in the very same breath as they're mentioning him/his services. And BTW, by "market" and "services," I mean market his money laundering and financial crime services as well as his legal services.

Saul is actually extremely sophisticated in how he handles money IMO. It'll be interesting watching Jimmy go from where he is now, basically a lone wolf just dealing with his own personal money, to becoming someone conducting financial crimes on the scale of Saul's. I don't just mean scale in terms of the amounts that Saul was dealing with, either. Even just his laundering schemes seemed to be very complex. He really cleaned the hell out of that money. I have to hand it to Jimmy, the man is kind of a genius. And he works so freaking hard. It's too bad, he really could have made something of himself, if he had had any idea WHAT to make of himself. 

[ShadowFacts]

I think he comes by the Saul Goodman identity legally.  He has a big public presence, or tries to, with his t.v. commercials and signs on bus stop benches, etc.  He couldn't be appearing in court in anything other than his legal name.  He may be using the small-time criminal cases and the money he gets from that as a 'front' so to speak, and hides away his big money from his heavy-hitters.