S03.E07: Expenses

[Bannon]

35 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Kim lost Howard's trust by convincing him to recommend Jimmy, and more importantly, by (as far as he knows) not informing him about the unauthorized ad (of course, she didn't know it was unauthorized, but she didn't tell Howard that).  Howard could have just fired her, but instead he gave her a chance to earn back his trust.  MV was a great step, but Howard evidently thought he needed to see more.  He was probably more concerned with her being forthcoming with him and making good decisions than with her bringing in new business.  New business is great, but trust is essential.  

She went out on a limb for Jimmy.  When you go out on a limb and things don't work out, the limb often  breaks and you hit the ground, hard.  Jimmy is the one who screwed her.  He deceived her into thinking the D&M ad was approved and left her twisting in the wind with Howard.  Then he pulled all his shenanigans at D&M to get fired, further embarrassing Howard and hurting Kim.  Howard has been much better to Kim than Jimmy has.  

It isn't just new business (although new business is essential as well, believe me, because without it any business dies), it's the existing business of Mesa Verde, which Kim may be critical to keeping.

Yes, Howard could have fired Kim. He may as well have, because continuing to punish her was essentially pushing her out the door. That's fine if Howard puts little value on retaining Mesa. Just dumb, dumb, managment. Howard's at best a middling lawyer with middlng management skills (how stupid is it to expose HHM to the risk of Chuck practicing law in his current condition?), who had the right daddy.

[Bannon]

3 minutes ago, MissBluxom said:

Sorry. This thread is so long and I haven't been able to read many of the posts.

I get the idea that Jimmy was putting on an act with the lady at the Ins Company. I'm guessing his goal is to get Chuck's malpractice ins costs to rise. But I have two questions:

1) Just how much will this likely cost Chuck?  Any chance it will impact the entire firm and not just Chuck alone? If so, have we ever been told just how many lawyers work at Chuck's firm? If the rise will be around 150 percent, what kind of impact will that likely make? I'd guess offhand that it won't be a major problem for that firm given that Howard drives a new Jaguar. But, it could affect other kinds of insurance. Could it become a huge expense? If the problem affects all the lawyers working at the firm, it could become a serious problem.

2) Any chance this problem could affect other areas in Chuck's world? Could it affect other kinds of insurance? Could it start an investigation that will get Chuck suspended? Could there be any ripple effects that would get some of the other lawyers in that firm suspended at well?

Bottom line, can anyone make an educated guess just what size of an impact this will likely make on Chuck? Any chance it could be just the first step of more serious problems to come? The legal profession is not very tolerant of mistakes like this. I don't know but I would guess this could snowball into a big problem for Chuck and Howard. That would be delicious in many ways. I think the first segment tonight ("On the previous episode ... ") was very important. IMHO, it drove home the point that Chuck deserves to be confronted with a bunch of penalties for his past conduct. It sure doesn't seem to me like one brother is completely innocent while the other is completely guilty. I don't know enough to say which one deserves how much of the blame. But my guess is that Chuck deserves to suffer a lot more than he has so far. But I could be completely wrong about that. "The Law" is a very strange creature when it comes to disciplining lawyers.

A lot of your questions are addressed in the thread.

[MisterBluxom]

1 minute ago, Bannon said:

A lot of your questions are addressed in the thread.

OK. Sorry. Thank you. I will read it.

[rue721]

19 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

He can see the respectable life that's supposed to accompany the suit slipping through his fingers.

I don't think that Jimmy ever cared about a respectable life. I think he tried to go straight for Chuck's sake, to earn Chuck's love and approval. But that ambition is dead and buried now. In fact, I think that it's possible that he now would get some bitter, pyrrhic joy out of purposefully being exactly what Chuck hates and thinks that Jimmy has always been -- a degenerate sleaze.

But I do think that what Jimmy cares about pretty fundamentally is money. The way he goes after money is like how an emotional eater goes after food IMO. Not excessively greedy per se, but it seems like it means something symbolic to him. To me, it seems like when he gets someone to give him money, he feels like he's "won." And when he takes money from someone else, he feels like he "beat" them. I think that's also why the way he shows compassion is usually by refusing taking money from someone. Like the camera girl, or Kim (for the law office bills) or even the Kettlemens or the old lady when he first started elder law. In any case, his desire for money -- and his desire to take it from others -- is what is going to keep him in the law, I think. Because the law is a pretty good way to get and take money!

[MisterBluxom]

13 hours ago, Sharper2002 said:

Seriously. I know she doesn't feel good about what she did to Chuck and didn't enjoy his take down, but I hope she owns her relationship with Mesa Verde more moving forward.

Of COURSE this is how Nacho would try to get the pills to stage Hector's demise. Good callback as I thought that character was gone for good.

Mike still not done with Hector, eh? I see he doesn't realize fully who he'd be messing with in Gus.

Jimmy loves to take short cuts. Most of the time, yes is yes and no is no. Life sucks sometimes. Get over it and buck up.

If she didn't take down Chuck, someone else would have done it. I would point the finger at Howard. He should have never permitted this action to proceed. He should have realized just how vulnerable Chuck was.

[Bannon]

2 minutes ago, MissBluxom said:

If she didn't take down Chuck, someone else would have done it. I would point the finger at Howard. He should have never permitted this action to proceed. He should have realized just how vulnerable Chuck was.

Spot on. Absent inheritance, there's no way Howard rises to the top of what is in Albuquerque a very large law firm. He's at best a mediocre manager and lawyer. He's a champ at feeling entitled, however.

[Bryce Lynch]

16 minutes ago, Bannon said:

It isn't just new business (although new business is essential as well, believe me, because without it any business dies), it's the existing business of Mesa Verde, which Kim may be critical to keeping.

Yes, Howard could have fired Kim. He may as well have, because continuing to punish her was essentially pushing her out the door. That's fine if Howard puts little value on retaining Mesa. Just dumb, dumb, managment. Howard's at best a middling lawyer with middlng management skills (how stupid is it to expose HHM to the risk of Chuck practicing law in his current condition?), who had the right daddy.

As it turned out, while Kim was essential to winning MV, she was irrelevant to keeping it.  Howard and (mostly) Chuck handled that themselves and they would have kept the business if Jimmy had not stooped to committing felonies to steal it from HHM and give it back to Kim.  

 Bringing in one new client is meaningless, especially to a large firm, if they don't believe they can trust you and trust your judgment.  There are thousands of other potential clients out there and a similar number of young associates (many of whom have superior credentials to Kim).   Kim, because of Jimmy screwing her over multiple times, had earned the reputation of an associate whose honesty, loyalty to the firm, and judgment were questionable.  Howard was giving her an opportunity to repair her reputation with him and the firm, but he was doing it on his terms, not hers, which is the correct way to do it. 

Believe it or not, the world and HHM do not revolve around a single associate, who has displayed bad judgment and as far as the firm knows, a lack of loyalty and forthrightness. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[MisterBluxom]

12 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

No, it was vindictiveness.  I doubt Kim will get over it because she still is and wants to remain a decent human being, unlike Jimmy.

I'm not sure how much is justice and how much is vindictiveness. There is a lot of both elements present on both of the brothers. They could have resolved their brotherly differences in such a better way than by trying to do such great harm to each other.

Chuck took an underhanded swing at Jimmy and tried to do him serious harm in that way.  IMO, Jimmy had every right to seek justice. Chuck could have approached his brother in an open-handed way and tried to find a solution that would not do either of the brothers serious harm. But he chose the underhanded way. If Jimmy was to now approach Chuck in an open-handed way and laid his cards on the table at the outset, Chuck could have protected himself and Jimmy would never have been able to hurt him the way he did. (I'm talking about the trick with the battery). So, this is a very hard situation to call.

In a way, this is a very classic case of two brothers who will do themselves great harm because neither is willing to seek justice from the other in a reasonable kind of way. It smacked of something that was said in the most recent episode of  Fargo. So many situations in the Bible where two brothers fight with each other and wind up doing far more harm to each other than could have ever been done had they tried an honest confrontation at the beginning.

I fear this post isn't making a whole lot of sense to people who aren't familiar with all the stories in the Bible about how brothers who tend to be willing to confront each other about their problems and wind up burning down the world instead of trying to solve their problems in a constructive way and I apologize for that.

Edited May 23, 2017 by MissBluxom

[Bannon]

6 minutes ago, rue721 said:

I don't think that Jimmy ever cared about a respectable life. I think he tried to go straight for Chuck's sake, to earn Chuck's love and approval. But that ambition is dead and buried now. In fact, I think that it's possible that he now would get some bitter, pyrrhic joy out of purposefully being exactly what Chuck hates and thinks that Jimmy has always been -- a degenerate sleaze.

But I do think that what Jimmy cares about pretty fundamentally is money. The way he goes after money is like how an emotional eater goes after food IMO. Not excessively greedy per se, but it seems like it means something symbolic to him. To me, it seems like when he gets someone to give him money, he feels like he's "won." And when he takes money from someone else, he feels like he "beat" them. I think that's also why the way he shows compassion is usually by refusing taking money from someone. Like the camera girl, or Kim (for the law office bills) or even the Kettlemens or the old lady when he first started elder law. In any case, his desire for money -- and his desire to take it from others -- is what is going to keep him in the law, I think. Because the law is a pretty good way to get and take money!

I don't quite know what you are saying here. The Jimmy of season 1 fundamentally cared about two things. He wanted to work with Chuck as a lawyer, with Chuck's respect, and he wanted to be around Kim. If those two things had been attainable, I think Jimmy may have been able to live a respectable life as an attorney.

What we see now is a man consumed with anger borne of grief, grief over the loss of his relationship with his brother. The grief will soon be compounded, I suspect, by losing his relationship with Kim, and then the rage will be monumental. Ugly, ugly, stuff will ensue.

[Bryce Lynch]

14 minutes ago, MissBluxom said:

I'm not sure. Chuck took an underhanded swing at Jimmy and tried to do him serious harm.  IMO, Jimmy had every right to seek justice. Chuck could have approached his brother in an open-handed way and tried to find a solution that would not do either of the brothers some serious harm. But he chose the underhanded way. If Jimmy was to now approach Chuck in an open-handed way and laid his cards on the table at the outset, Chuck could have protected himself and Jimmy would never have been able to hurt him the way he did. (I'm talking about the trick with the battery). So, this is a very hard situation to call.

In a way, this is a very classic case of two brothers who will do themselves great harm because neither is willing to seek justice from the other in a reasonable kind of way. It smacked of something that was said in the most recent episode of  Fargo. So many situations in the Bible where two brothers fight with each other and wind up doing far more harm to each other than could have ever been done had they tried an honest confrontation at the beginnin.

I know this post isn't making a lot of sense to anyone who isn't familiar with all the stories in the Bible about how brothers tend to be willing to burn down the world instead of trying to solve their problems in a constructive way and I apologize for that.

Actually Chuck first confronted Jimmy, man to man, about the felonies that he committed against him and his client and Jimmy lied through his teeth about it, and bribed the copy shop guy to cover it up.  

Only then did Chuck take an "underhanded" swing a Jimmy, and IMHO, it was an appropriate action.  Jimmy absolutely, positively, 100% deserved to be disbarred.  Any lawyer who would do that to another lawyer and his client has no business having a license to practice law.  He was, as Chuck put it earlier a "chimp with a machine gun."

I get Jimmy responding with more lies and underhanded tactics to try to save his own career (though it was still wrong).  That was self-preservation and not necessarily vindictiveness.  But, intentionally ratting out Chuck to the insurance company was pure vindictiveness.  It did nothing to help Jimmy, it would only harm Chuck.

Jimmy had already gotten his "justice' against Chuck (and then some) by humiliating him at the hearing and in front of Rebecca.  The piling on with the insurance company was vindictive and vile, IMO.  

Edited May 23, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[MisterBluxom]

12 hours ago, Bannon said:

Because you can't, on an ongoing basis, do legal work, including securing client's documents, in a building which isn't legal for people to occupy. Also if the insurance company investigates, and finds out a physician wanted to have Chuck committed (and I'd be shocked if the malpractice policy doesn't contain a provision where the insured consents to allowing the insurance company access to medical records), well, that'll about do it. Maybe HHM could self insure (it depends on NM law and regulations), but Howard would be an idiot to agree to it.

That answers a lot of my questions. Thank you. I may not admire Jimmy's sneaky nature. But I sure do have to step back and marvel at his extremely clever way of thinking. Isn't he a crafty little Devil? Amazing. This will make for some very entertaining episodes in the weeks to come. The other plot line is going great too. I'm really excited now.

[Milburn Stone]

3 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

(Maybe I'm paranoid, but Mesa Verde this episode was giving me serious shades of Lucky Strike on Mad Men and I keep waiting for that shoe to drop.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~

What's interesting to me is that the insurer should probably know that Chuck is "on medical leave" for what are obviously mental issues but is still practicing law and exposing himself and clients to risk.

On your first point, yeah, you're not paranoid. Let's not forget that before Kim had her inappropriate moment of pique, Mesa Verde Lady was seriously challenging her numbers and her expertise. Kim was in the right on those, and had good answers, but the challenge itself showed that Mesa Verde Lady's level of trust in Kim's expertise and competence is not everything we thought it was.

On point two, I agree, and I think there will be insurance ramifications for HHM as well as Chuck. The insurance company will be saying, "Let me get this straight...you knew he was operating under these conditions, and you let us keep insuring him under your group policy?"

Edited May 23, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[MisterBluxom]

16 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Spot on. Absent inheritance, there's no way Howard rises to the top of what is in Albuquerque a very large law firm. He's at best a mediocre manager and lawyer. He's a champ at feeling entitled, however.

Very reminiscent of the film "The Caine Mutiny" with Bogart.

Excuse me for gushing but I think this forum is very lucky to have you offer your insights and knowledge. It makes this thread much easier to figure out.

[ShadowFacts]

8 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Bringing in one new client is meaningless, especially to a large firm, if they don't believe they can trust you and trust your judgment.  There are thousands of other potential clients out there and a similar number of young associates (many of whom have superior credentials to Kim).   Kim, because of Jimmy screwing her over multiple times, had earned the reputation of an associate whose honesty, loyalty to the firm, and judgment were questionable.  Howard was giving her an opportunity to repair her reputation with him and the firm, but he was doing it on his terms, not hers, which is the correct way to do it. 

That was essentially the silent treatment, sending her to the "cornfield."  The silent treatment doesn't work.  It doesn't do anything in the way of proving loyalty or testing judgment.  It's just mindlessly punitive.  It was busy work, a waste of an associate's ability, and pushed her right out the door.  Howard's management skill lost him an associate, a client and ended up unmasking Chuck's disability to the larger community.  Lose-lose-lose. 

[PeterPirate]

I don't think that HHM or Chuck McGill survive the third season.

[jww]

I don’t believe lawyers have to have malpractice insurance much like doctors  in most states don’t have to have malpractice insurance; they can just take their chances-go bare- and self-insure which a large firm like HHM would likely do.  I had to have a physical before I started graduate school in 1975 and the doctor I went to had a large handwritten sign in the waiting room stating he did not have malpractice insurance and was not rich so you would not get anything if you sued (he added he has never been sued)   The physical was brief and he signed my form so I was satisfied.

You would not use gel caps for nitro as they can take hours to dissolve usually in the gut.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, ShadowFacts said:

That was essentially the silent treatment, sending her to the "cornfield."  The silent treatment doesn't work.  It doesn't do anything in the way of proving loyalty or testing judgment.  It's just mindlessly punitive.  It was busy work, a waste of an associate's ability, and pushed her right out the door.  Howard's management skill lost him an associate, a client and ended up unmasking Chuck's disability to the larger community.  Lose-lose-lose. 

We'll see.  Kim chose to leave and then to turn down a great opportunity with S&C to share an office with a chimp with a machine gun.  How many associates does HHM have and how many others would jump at the chance to work at the firm?  I just don't see Kim as being all that vital to HHM and if she can't be trusted, she is a liability, not an asset.  If Jimmy hadn't gotten her head all turned around and screwed her over with the commercial and his behavior at HHM, she probably would have done very well at HHM, but ultimately she is responsible for her own decisions.  

[nodorothyparker]

15 minutes ago, rue721 said:

I don't think that Jimmy ever cared about a respectable life. I think he tried to go straight for Chuck's sake, to earn Chuck's love and approval. But that ambition is dead and buried now. In fact, I think that it's possible that he now would get some bitter, pyrrhic joy out of purposefully being exactly what Chuck hates and thinks that Jimmy has always been -- a degenerate sleaze.

I don't think Jimmy cares a ton about a respectable life either, at least not for himself.  But I think he cares very much that Kim obviously cares about it.   He can't really have her without it.  Once upon a time I think he also cared about those things because he knew Chuck cared about them and he wanted his approval, but we already know how that turned out.

There's also a certain amount of classicism in the Chuck vs. Jimmy war.  Chuck clearly considers himself someone of certain taste and refinement that are part and parcel of having his name on the building.  You can tell by the way he talks and treats people that he's cultivated that in going from a small storekeeper's son to a Very Big Deal Big Law lawyer.  He said as much to Rebecca in her first appearance as he was warning her of how terribly crass and uncouth his kid brother could be.  Jimmy was good enough for the mailroom but not the board room or polite company.  Jimmy isn't oblivious to that, which is probably why Saul Goodman will be such a complete repudiation of everything from respectable law to respectable behavior.

[Bannon]

10 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

As it turned out, while Kim was essential to winning MV, she was irrelevant to keeping it.  Howard and (mostly) Chuck handled that themselves and they would have kept the business if Jimmy had not stooped to committing felonies to steal it from HHM and give it back to Kim.  

 Bringing in one new client is meaningless, especially to a large firm, if they don't believe they can trust you and trust your judgment.  There are thousands of other potential clients out there and a similar number of young associates (many of whom have superior credentials to Kim).   Kim, because of Jimmy screwing her over multiple times, had earned the reputation of an associate whose honesty, loyalty to the firm, and judgment were questionable.  Howard was giving her an opportunity to repair her reputation with him and the firm, but he was doing it on his terms, not hers, which is the correct way to do it. 

Believe it or not, the world and HHM do not revolve around a single associate, who has displayed bad judgment and as far as the firm knows, a lack of loyalty and forthrightness. 

Believe it or not, competently managed businesses do not forswear the opportunity to find out if an employee can repeat a significant success, repeatedly, because of a job recommendation that didn't work out. If you think a law firm in Albuquerque has thousands of opportunities to land a client of Mesa's signifigance, you simply are in error.

The only reason Chuck was able to win back Mesa was because Kim didn't try to take Mesa to Schweikert, instead of hanging out her own shingle, which Howard was surprised by. Schweikert would have had no scruples with regard to making sure Mesa became aware of Chuck's condition. HHM would not have stood a chance. Howard's an idiot with regard to anything connected to  Chuck.

[rue721]

16 minutes ago, Bannon said:

The Jimmy of season 1 fundamentally cared about two things. He wanted to work with Chuck as a lawyer, with Chuck's respect, and he wanted to be around Kim. If those two things had been attainable, I think Jimmy may have been able to live a respectable life as an attorney.

I agree that he wanted Chuck's love and acceptance, and he wanted to be with Kim. But I don't think he cared about the law qua the law (nor do I think he cares about it now). Which is why he's OK with breaking it.

Rules are meaningless to Jimmy IMO. He's indifferent to them, they have no resonance for him. That's why he was so put out when the community service supervisor docked him hours for using the cell phone. If someone actually valued rules for their own sake, they would probably agree that docking him was only fair. But Jimmy doesn't have that kind of innate respect for rules, which is why he tried to negotiate with the guy instead, and was pissed when the guy wouldn't budge.

I don't actually mind that about Jimmy. If anything, I like and relate to it. But IMO it makes him poorly suited to a "respectable" life.

It's a values difference IMO. Jimmy just ultimately values rules or following the rules very little -- much less than he does other things -- so he was always going to choose some other goal over following the rules at some point or another, and his "respectability" would inevitably have been (was) ruined.

Edited May 23, 2017 by rue721

[Bannon]

24 minutes ago, MissBluxom said:

I'm not sure how much is justice and how much is vindictiveness. There is a lot of both elements present on both of the brothers. They could have resolved their brotherly differences in such a better way than by trying to do such great harm to each other.

Chuck took an underhanded swing at Jimmy and tried to do him serious harm in that way.  IMO, Jimmy had every right to seek justice. Chuck could have approached his brother in an open-handed way and tried to find a solution that would not do either of the brothers serious harm. But he chose the underhanded way. If Jimmy was to now approach Chuck in an open-handed way and laid his cards on the table at the outset, Chuck could have protected himself and Jimmy would never have been able to hurt him the way he did. (I'm talking about the trick with the battery). So, this is a very hard situation to call.

In a way, this is a very classic case of two brothers who will do themselves great harm because neither is willing to seek justice from the other in a reasonable kind of way. It smacked of something that was said in the most recent episode of  Fargo. So many situations in the Bible where two brothers fight with each other and wind up doing far more harm to each other than could have ever been done had they tried an honest confrontation at the beginning.

I fear this post isn't making a whole lot of sense to people who aren't familiar with all the stories in the Bible about how brothers who tend to be willing to confront each other about their problems and wind up burning down the world instead of trying to solve their problems in a constructive way and I apologize for that.

Let's not forget that Jimmy's attempt at justice undeniably caused harm to an innocent third party, Mesa Verde. Jimmy was a creep to do this.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, Bannon said:

Believe it or not, competently managed businesses do not forswear the opportunity to find out if an employee can repeat a significant success, repeatedly, because of a job recommendation that didn't work out. If you think a law firm in Albuquerque has thousands of opportunities to land a client of Mesa's signifigance, you simply are in error.

The only reason Chuck was able to win back Mesa was because Kim didn't try to take Mesa to Schweikert, instead of hanging out her own shingle, which Howard was surprised by. Schweikert would have had no scruples with regard to making sure Mesa became aware of Chuck's condition. HHM would not have stood a chance. Howard's an idiot with regard to anything connected to  Chuck.

Howard's handling of Chuck is much more debatable, though I think he might be stuck between a rock and a hard place on that one.

His handling of Kim is not a problem, IMO.  She screwed up (mainly because she let her heart cloud her judgment and trusted Slippin' Jimmy) and Howard took  disciplinary action.   She probably would have earned back his trust, but she chose to leave.  Howard was very gracious, wished her well and forgave her tuition debt.  

[Bannon]

21 minutes ago, rue721 said:

I agree that he wanted Chuck's love and acceptance, and he wanted to be with Kim. But I don't think he cared about the law qua the law (nor do I think he cares about it now). Which is why he's OK with breaking it.

Rules are meaningless to Jimmy IMO. He's indifferent to them, they have no resonance for him. That's why he was so put out when the community service supervisor docked him hours for using the cell phone. If someone actually valued rules for their own sake, they would probably agree that docking him was only fair. But Jimmy doesn't have that kind of innate respect for rules, which is why he tried to negotiate with the guy instead, and was pissed when the guy wouldn't budge.

I don't actually mind that about Jimmy. If anything, I like and relate to it. But IMO it makes him poorly suited to a "respectable" life.

It's a values difference IMO. Jimmy just ultimately values rules or following the rules very little -- much less than he does other things -- so he's going to choose some other goal over following the rules at some point or another, and his "respectability" will be ruined.

He obeyed rules for 7 years in a mail room, where rules are everywhere, for such a low level employee, because the incentives were aligned in a way to make the benefit of obeying rules obvious. If the incentives had remained favorably aligned, Jimmy may have kept obeying the rules. I agree, however, that one of the incentives for Jimmy will never be the inherent value in obeying rules.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Bannon
Typo

[PeterPirate]

Just now, Bryce Lynch said:

Howard's handling of Chuck is much more debatable, though I think he might be stuck between a rock and a hard place on that one.

His handling of Kim is not a problem, IMO.  She screwed up (mainly because she let her heart cloud her judgment and trusted Slippin' Jimmy) and Howard took  disciplinary action.   She probably would have earned back his trust, but she chose to leave.  Howard was very gracious, wished her well and forgave her tuition debt.  

Howard also did not have to tell Kim that it was Chuck's idea to exclude Jimmy from having an office at HHM.  He tried to play the tough guy at first and couldn't live with the role.

I personally can't think of anything that Howard has done that I would consider "wrong". Which, in my mind, will make HHM the Wayfarer 515 of BCS.

[Bannon]

4 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Howard's handling of Chuck is much more debatable, though I think he might be stuck between a rock and a hard place on that one.

His handling of Kim is not a problem, IMO.  She screwed up (mainly because she let her heart cloud her judgment and trusted Slippin' Jimmy) and Howard took  disciplinary action.   She probably would have earned back his trust, but she chose to leave.  Howard was very gracious, wished her well and forgave her tuition debt.  

Part of being a competent manager is retaining employees who have just had significant success, which the business would benefit mightily from, if it turns out the employee can repeat the success. Incompetent management pushes such employees out the door, whether it is done gracefully or not.

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, Bannon said:

He obeyed rules for 7 years in a mail room, where rules are everywhere, for such a low level employee, because the incentives were aligned in a way to make the benefit of obeying rules obvious. If the incentives had remained favorably aligned, Jimmy may have kept obeying the rules. I agree, however, that one of the incentives for Jimmy will ever be the inherent value in obeying rules.

I wonder if Jimmy was running any cons on the side while he was working in the HHM mail room.  In the flashback just before he moved to ABQ he was running cons and in the first episodes of BCS he was conning the Kettlemens and pulled the billboard con.  Plus, he was sort of conning potential clients with his female receptionist voice.  

There is no evidence that he was pulling con jobs during his mail room days, but we don't know for sure that he wasn't.  

He did apparently follow the rules at HHM though and seemed to be well liked. 

[ShannaB]

Remember when Mike whipped out a note pad and pen while talking to Nacho?  I just bet that he was writing down the Veterinarian's name with a note to the Dr. to help Nacho find a drug to fill the empty capsules.  I think Mike and Nacho have a certain respect for each other as well as hate for Hector and Mike wants to help Nacho stay alive and not have a specific drug traced back to him.

Malpractice insurance is not cheap and I can see Jimmy trying to get his insurance pro-rated to get some needed cash back in his pocket but once you pay, that money is gone.  When realization hit Jimmy, he immediately started his tearful story about Chuck.  Jimmy was pissed.  We all know how good he is at making up stories and cons on the spot, hence the bar scenes with Kim targeting those obnoxious guys.  It also signaled a faster evolution of Jimmy into Saul and more disenchantment for Kim regarding Jimmy.

[Bannon]

2 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Howard also did not have to tell Kim that it was Chuck's idea to exclude Jimmy from having an office at HHM.  He tried to play the tough guy at first and couldn't live with the role.

I personally can't think of anything that Howard has done that I would consider "wrong". Which, in my mind, will make HHM the Wayfarer 515 of BCS.

Letting your firm's clients have their critical legal work done in the manner Chuck did it is wrong. The insurance company will be educating Howard about this shortly.

[rue721]

13 minutes ago, Bannon said:

He obeyed rules for 7 years in a mail room, where rules are everywhere, for such a low level employee, because the incentives were aligned in a way to make the benefit of obeying rules obvious.

 

5 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I wonder if Jimmy was running any cons on the side while he was working in the HHM mail room.

At that time, Jimmy cared about Chuck, so he was trying to do a good job for Chuck.

I actually think it's likely that he broke plenty of rules and cut many corners while in the mailroom, because I don't think that stuff even registers with him. He just sees what needs to be done in order to please this person or that person (or himself) and he does it. Just like he was always saying what the old people want to hear. It's why his commercials are so good, lol.

It's not a bad trait for a low-level employee, TBH.

[Bryce Lynch]

15 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Part of being a competent manager is retaining employees who have just had significant success, which the business would benefit mightily from, if it turns out the employee can repeat the success. Incompetent management pushes such employees out the door, whether it is done gracefully or not.

He didn't push Kim out the door.  She got an unexpected offer from S&C which got her thinking about leaving and then she decided to share an office with Jimmy instead.  A truly incompetent manager would ignore an apparent breach of trust and demonstration of bad judgment just because an associate brought in one client. 

Kim, because her misguided trust in Jimmy, had become an problem employee.  Howard was dealing with the problem.  I'd argue that his management technique of essentially demoting her, motivated her to bring in the new client.  Was she spending her lunch hour going calling every person she ever knew to bring in new business before Howard put her in doc review?

Edited May 23, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[scenario]

27 minutes ago, rue721 said:

I agree that he wanted Chuck's love and acceptance, and he wanted to be with Kim. But I don't think he cared about the law qua the law (nor do I think he cares about it now). Which is why he's OK with breaking it.

Rules are meaningless to Jimmy IMO. He's indifferent to them, they have no resonance for him. That's why he was so put out when the community service supervisor docked him hours for using the cell phone. If someone actually valued rules for their own sake, they would probably agree that docking him was only fair. But Jimmy doesn't have that kind of innate respect for rules, which is why he tried to negotiate with the guy instead, and was pissed when the guy wouldn't budge.

I don't actually mind that about Jimmy. If anything, I like and relate to it. But IMO it makes him poorly suited to a "respectable" life.

It's a values difference IMO. Jimmy just ultimately values rules or following the rules very little -- much less than he does other things -- so he was always going to choose some other goal over following the rules at some point or another, and his "respectability" would inevitably have been (was) ruined.

Jimmy doesn't care about rules, he cares about morality. If something is legal but immoral, he won't do it. If something is illegal but moral in his eyes, he will do it. His view of morality totally changes once he becomes Saul.

[Blakeston]

I think it's terrible management to punish an otherwise excellent employee indefinitely for making a bad hiring recommendation. Especially when that employee brings in an enormous client, who expects to work with her, and you keep her away from them.

(And Howard assuming that Kim knew in advance that Jimmy was airing the commercial without permission is on him. He never even bothered to ascertain whether she knew or not; he was just eager to think the worst of her.)

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, scenario said:

Jimmy doesn't care about rules, he cares about morality. If something is legal but immoral, he won't do it. If something is illegal but moral in his eyes, he will do it. His view of morality totally changes once he becomes Saul.

I think this is largely true, but he is, as Mike put it, "morally flexible".  A person with a firmer sense of morals, might be able to eschew ethics and rules.  But Jimmy's lack of ethics, combined with his moral flexibility is as recipe for disaster.  

[Atlanta]

7 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Letting your firm's clients have their critical legal work done in the manner Chuck did it is wrong. The insurance company will be educating Howard about this shortly.

I'm not a lawyer or familiar with the legal community in general, but is it normal for so much leeway to be given to someone like Chuck? He's clearly unhinged and mentally ill, but the ABQ legal community seems to trip all over themselves and suck up to him. HHM obviously knows he's looking at legal docs by oil lamp and on top of that, he doesn't have a security system or fire alarms/sensors at his house. However, people seem to view him as king of the legal system.

I don't quite think Jimmy was always Saul underneath it all. If someone is always told they're not good enough or that he or she is bad, they will eventually believe it. No matter what he did, he'd never live up to Chuck's expectations and Chuck was happy to tell him that all while Jimmy had to baby him. Even in BB, I don't remember Saul/Jimmy being plain evil. 

[Bryce Lynch]

4 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

I think it's terrible management to punish an otherwise excellent employee indefinitely for making a bad hiring recommendation. Especially when that employee brings in an enormous client, who expects to work with her, and you keep her away from them.

(And Howard assuming that Kim knew in advance that Jimmy was airing the commercial without permission is on him. He never even bothered to ascertain whether she knew or not; he was just eager to think the worst of her.)

Kim had every opportunity to explain to Howard that she did not know that Jimmy had gone rogue with the commercial, but she chose not to, for whatever reason.  Given that, Howard's assumption was reasonable. 

[Bannon]

Just now, Bryce Lynch said:

He didn't push Kim out the door.  She got an unexpected offer from S&C which got her thinking about leaving and then she decided to share an office with Jimmy instead.  A truly incompetent manager would ignore an apparent breach of trust and demonstration of bad judgment just because an associate brought in one client. 

No, it is not unexpected that a lawyer, upon landing a client like Mesa, will be headhunted by other firms. It is predictable as sunshine in Albuquerque, and if a manager doesn't grasp that continuing to keep such a lawyer in doc review after that success makes it quite likely that the headhunting will be successful, and with it will come the good chance of losing  Mesa, that's a manager who is performing in a incompetent fashion.

It is a plainly false dichotomy to imply that the choices are A)keep Kim in doc review or B) "ignore an apparent breach of trust and demonstration of bad judgement just because an associate brought in one client". Competent managers who are actually earning their compensation avoid engaging in such false dichotomies. They are paid to think well, and act accordingly. Howard has failed miserably in this instance.

[scenario]

Just now, Bryce Lynch said:

I think this is largely true, but he is, as Mike put it, "morally flexible".  A person with a firmer sense of morals, might be able to eschew ethics and rules.  But Jimmy's lack of ethics, combined with his moral flexibility is as recipe for disaster.  

Agreed. Some of Jimmy's morals aren't flexible but many are. And his morals aren't the same as most people. The difference between Jimmy and Saul is that Jimmy does have morals against the worst excess. 

[Bryce Lynch]

Just now, Bannon said:

No, it is not unexpected that a lawyer, upon landing a client like Mesa, will be headhunted by other firms. It is predictable as sunshine in Albuquerque, and if a manager doesn't grasp that continuing to keep such a lawyer in doc review after that success makes it quite likely that the headhunting will be successful, and with it will come the good chance of losing  Mesa, that's a manager who is performing in a incompetent fashion.

It is a plainly false dichotomy to imply that the choices are A)keep Kim in doc review or B) "ignore an apparent breach of trust and demonstration of bad judgement just because an associate brought in one client". Competent managers who are actually earning their compensation avoid engaging in such false dichotomies. They are paid to think well, and act accordingly. Howard has failed miserably in this instance.

I'm not so sure about that.  Given the sway that Jimmy has over Kim, I think it is likely that she would have made more bad decisions that would have harmed HHM if she had stayed with the firm.   Until Kim gets Jimmy out of her life and out of her system, she will probably always be damaged goods and a ticking time bomb (and Mike will tell you about those).  

[Bannon]

2 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

I'm not a lawyer or familiar with the legal community in general, but is it normal for so much leeway to be given to someone like Chuck? He's clearly unhinged and mentally ill, but the ABQ legal community seems to trip all over themselves and suck up to him. HHM obviously knows he's looking at legal docs by oil lamp and on top of that, he doesn't have a security system or fire alarms/sensors at his house. However, people seem to view him as king of the legal system.

I don't quite think Jimmy was always Saul underneath it all. If someone is always told they're not good enough or that he or she is bad, they will eventually believe it. No matter what he did, he'd never live up to Chuck's expectations and Chuck was happy to tell him that all while Jimmy had to baby him. Even in BB, I don't remember Saul/Jimmy being plain evil. 

I think it is quite common for people with a track record of brilliance, in all industries, to be afforded way, way, too much leeway, well after things have slipped badly. Look at the college football coach Joe Paterno, to name one horrific example. One of the fascinating things is to watch everybody ignore what is going on.

[Blakeston]

5 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Kim had every opportunity to explain to Howard that she did not know that Jimmy had gone rogue with the commercial, but she chose not to, for whatever reason.  Given that, Howard's assumption was reasonable. 

Howard also had every opportunity to ask her. She was obviously in an awkward position there, and if I were her manager, I wouldn't assume she was in on any kind of scheme without getting all the facts.

[Bannon]

2 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I'm not so sure about that.  Given the sway that Jimmy has over Kim, I think it is likely that she would have made more bad decisions that would have harmed HHM if she had stayed with the firm.   Until Kim gets Jimmy out of her life and out of her system, she will probably always be damaged goods and a ticking time bomb (and Mike will tell you about those).  

This doesn't have much to do with the predictability of Kim being headhunted, what it might mean for keeping Mesa if she was headhunted successfully, or whether the only choices were to keep her in doc review, or ignore her recommendation of Jimmy.

[Bryce Lynch]

7 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

Howard also had every opportunity to ask her. She was obviously in an awkward position there, and if I were her manager, I wouldn't assume she was in on any kind of scheme without getting all the facts.

Howard:It's a simple question, Kim did you or did you not know about this commercial?

Kim: I yes. He showed it to me.

Howard: He showed it to you?

Kim: Yes. A few days ago.

Howard: And you didn't say anything to anyone?

Kim: No. I didn't.

Howard: You didn't think I deserved a heads-up?

Kim: I didn't realize at the time, ­I didn't think it was necessary.

Howard: Well, you were wrong about that. We were caught flat-footed in front of our co-counsel, which I don't need to tell you, does not reflect well on HHM. Or on you. That'll be all. You can go. 

I believe in the bolded line, Kim was about to tell Howard, that she didn't know the ad was unauthorized, but then, switched to "I didn't think it was necessary."  I'm not sure if she was protecting Jimmy or didn't want Howard to know that Jimmy had blindsided her as well, but it gave the impression that she knew and said nothing to Howard.   

[Bryce Lynch]

8 minutes ago, Bannon said:

This doesn't have much to do with the predictability of Kim being headhunted, what it might mean for keeping Mesa if she was headhunted successfully, or whether the only choices were to keep her in doc review, or ignore her recommendation of Jimmy.

It is not just her recommendation of Jimmy.  The tipping point was her apparently knowing about Jimmy's plan to run an unauthorized ad, and saying nothing to Howard.  

Based upon this, Howard reasonably believed:

a) She was more loyal to Jimmy than HHM

b) She was OK with withholding information from HHM that it could have used to protect its reputation

c) He cannot trust her

d) Her relationship with Jimmy is causing her to exercise poor judgment.

[Bannon]

2 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

It is not just her recommendation of Jimmy.  The tipping point was her apparently knowing about Jimmy's plan to run an unauthorized ad, and saying nothing to Howard.  

Based upon this, Howard reasonably believed:

a) She was more loyal to Jimmy than HHM

b) She was OK with withholding information from HHM that it could have used to protect its reputation

c) He cannot trust her

d) Her relationship with Jimmy is causing her to exercise poor judgment.

It is is still a false dichotomy to state that the choices are to keep her in doc review, making her recruitment to another firm much more likely, which may well mean losing Mesa, or ignoring your a b,c, and d. False dichotomies are a very poor form of reasoning, and competent managers avoid them.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

5 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

That's a good explanation for why he decided to "go in." I was thinking of something else. After his first meeting with Anita, there was the glimmer of new love in his life, and he went to his job that night with an actual smile on his face (when have we ever seen Mike smile?) and benevolently told pharmaceutical-guy to stay out of any more dealings.

I thought he was happy because he had actually built something, similar to how he felt after fixing Chuck's door.

[rue721]

4 minutes ago, scenario said:

Jimmy doesn't care about rules, he cares about morality. If something is legal but immoral, he won't do it. If something is illegal but moral in his eyes, he will do it. His view of morality totally changes once he becomes Saul.

I don't even think that Jimmy cared (or cares) a lot about morality. I think he is just very, very good figuring out what people need, and then once he knows what they need, feels driven to give it to them. For better or worse.

That's how he ended up in elder law. That's how he gave Marco the best week of his life. That's how he nearly fell down the rabbit hole of teaching some asshole in the bar a lesson about exploiting and demeaning others (by conning him). That's how he ended up conniving to score Kim back Mesa Verde from HHM. That's how he ended up confessing to Chuck. I mean, think about even when he forced the Kettlemens to "give up" their bag of money, because he knew they needed to. Or even in those little scenes when he's "Gene": the cops question him about the shoplifter and he tells them what they need to know, and then the shoplifter shows up and he tells the shoplifter what he needs to know, too.

14 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

I'm not a lawyer or familiar with the legal community in general, but is it normal for so much leeway to be given to someone like Chuck? He's clearly unhinged and mentally ill, but the ABQ legal community seems to trip all over themselves and suck up to him. HHM obviously knows he's looking at legal docs by oil lamp and on top of that, he doesn't have a security system or fire alarms/sensors at his house. However, people seem to view him as king of the legal system.

I don't quite think Jimmy was always Saul underneath it all. If someone is always told they're not good enough or that he or she is bad, they will eventually believe it. No matter what he did, he'd never live up to Chuck's expectations and Chuck was happy to tell him that all while Jimmy had to baby him. Even in BB, I don't remember Saul/Jimmy being plain evil. 

Jimmy was also taking care of Chuck and propping up his lifestyle for years, and all that care and propping was nearly invisible. Even Howard was basically in the dark about it until after Jimmy and Chuck had already fallen out and Jimmy gave Howard that list of his duties. I think the invisibility of all that care and propping-up made it really easy to pretend that things were more "fine" than they were, and Chuck wasn't as sick as he really was. Everyone could live in delusion as long as Jimmy (or Ernie) showed up with the morning ice.

I just can't not have a soft spot for Jimmy because of that. That he would take on such a thankless job for so long gives me a lot of respect for him. YMMV.

I don't think that Jimmy has secretly been Saul this whole time. I think that Chuck betraying him was painful, and his response to that pain was to harden his heart.

IMO his behavior gets so amoral and chaotic because he doesn't really have a "code" (aka rules) to keep him in line, and he doesn't have a big ego or (arguably) even a strong sense of identity that he has to behave in any particular way in order to feed, so without his heart to guide him, either, he doesn't have any limits.

[Tara Ariano]

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

 

Shouldn't Better Call Saul's Jimmy Be Thinking Up A Way To Slip Out Of His Community Service?

And more not-quite-burning questions sparked by 'Expenses'!

[Auntie Anxiety]

1 hour ago, jww said:

I don’t believe lawyers have to have malpractice insurance much like doctors  in most states don’t have to have malpractice insurance; they can just take their chances-go bare- and self-insure which a large firm like HHM would likely do.

Somehow I managed to screw up the highlighting and quoting. The original post mentioned a doctor's office displaying a sign warning the patients about the doctor not carrying malpractice insurance, but that was in 1975.  We've gotten far more litigious since then and people sue doctors and lawyers (and anyone else they can think of) for what might be minor/trivial offenses/trumped up offenses all the time these days. Even if the suit doesn't hold up, the insured needs to protect himself/herself which means hiring a competent attorney. It would be quite risky to do without. Yes, many larger companies do self-insure (hee, my lawyer son does what's called "captive insurance," which can legally be set up only in Vermont and Missouri as far as I know), but it's not that common.

ETA--I am a person who follows the rules, I'm no saint but I need to be able to sleep at night without worrying about something catching up with me. However, I've known people who skirt the rules, find and use loopholes, have been warned time and again, but still manage to skate. Makes me question why the hell I work so hard to keep my nose clean, sort of like no good deed goes unpunished. It is maddening to feel like nice guys DO finish last. Jimmy has tried to do the right thing, but for what? 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Auntie Anxiety

[Bryce Lynch]

10 minutes ago, Bannon said:

It is is still a false dichotomy to state that the choices are to keep her in doc review, making her recruitment to another firm much more likely, which may well mean losing Mesa, or ignoring your a b,c, and d. False dichotomies are a very poor form of reasoning, and competent managers avoid them.

He chose doc review.  He also could have chosen to fire her, or send her back to the mail room, reprimanded, etc.  He could have restored her when she got MV, but he apparently thought it wasn't time yet.  Given how she has behaved with Jimmy since leaving HHM, Howard may well have been right in his assessment that he still could not trust her.  

It seems like only now she is starting to see Jimmy for who he is (or has become) and is realizing she needs to separate herself from him.   

[Blakeston]

43 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Howard:It's a simple question, Kim did you or did you not know about this commercial?

Kim: I yes. He showed it to me.

Howard: He showed it to you?

Kim: Yes. A few days ago.

Howard: And you didn't say anything to anyone?

Kim: No. I didn't.

Howard: You didn't think I deserved a heads-up?

Kim: I didn't realize at the time, ­I didn't think it was necessary.

Howard: Well, you were wrong about that. We were caught flat-footed in front of our co-counsel, which I don't need to tell you, does not reflect well on HHM. Or on you. That'll be all. You can go. 

I believe in the bolded line, Kim was about to tell Howard, that she didn't know the ad was unauthorized, but then, switched to "I didn't think it was necessary."  I'm not sure if she was protecting Jimmy or didn't want Howard to know that Jimmy had blindsided her as well, but it gave the impression that she knew and said nothing to Howard.   

What she said was completely ambiguous. It could easily have meant, "I didn't realize at the time that he hadn't asked permission, so I didn't think it was necessary to say anything about it." Or, "I didn't realize what he was going to do with it, so I didn't think it was necessary."

I think he ordinarily would have pressed further to find out what she didn't realize - but he was angry that Jimmy made them look bad, and he wanted to throw the book at her, and so he went with it.