S03.E07: Expenses

[Bannon]

29 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

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.   

Yes, he chose poorly. That's the point. He already had punished her. Then, when she reacted to the punishment by delivering a significant client (which, no, there are not thousands of to obtain), he chose to to continue to punish her, which made it very likely that she would be successfully recruited to another firm, and that Mesa would be lost, especially since Howard is, in a monumentally stupid fashion, relying on the mentally incompetent Chuck to help retain a client like Mesa.

The result is Kim leaves, Mesa is lost, then regained, but only by Howard violating legal ethics, and likely the terms of HHM's malpractice coverage, by using Chuck's skills, despite Chucks clear mental illness, and doing extensive legal work in a structure that is illegal for people to occupy, which Howard is aware of, because, as we saw in season 1, Howard corruptly influenced Albuquerque city goverment to ignore the code violations that the Albquerque police observed. Now the very existence of the firm is at risk.

If Howard is a competent law firm partner, then Bernie Madoff was an honest money manager. 

16 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

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.

Yep, Howard is all ego-driven decision-making, divorced from wisdom with an eye on the horizon.  Which would be less annoying if he actually had a track record of significant achievement  other than having a successful father. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Bannon

[Eulipian 5k]

15 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Also, the best way to deal with Hector's pills is to get the bottle, take some out to reduce the total number, then just add one bad one, put the bottle back and wait. That way, after Hector takes the one bad one, all the remaining pills will be good.  But Nacho probably can't afford to wait.

This is the reason you now have Tamper Proof Packaging. A husband once put one poison pill in his wife's medicine at home, then did the same to bottles still on the shelf in the drug store. It looked like a random killer got his wife, after the other pills killed/hospitalized others in the general public

[PeterPirate]

1 hour 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.

Personally, I put that on Chuck, as the senior partner of HHM. I see Howard as a more or less decent fellow who finds himself between the proverbial rock and hard place.

And, as in all things, mileage varies.  

[Bannon]

35 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

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.

A lawyer can self insure in New Mexico, but the client must sign disclosures stating that they are aware of this. It's probably not ideal from a reputational perspective. 

1 minute ago, PeterPirate said:

Personally, I put that on Chuck, as the senior partner of HHM. I see Howard as a more or less decent fellow who finds himself between the proverbial rock and hard place.

And, as in all things, mileage varies.  

Howard's a senior partner too, and is fully aware of the condition of Chuck's home, without the mitigating factor of being mentally ill.

[Bryce Lynch]

35 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

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.

I would have to rewatch, but I believe she started to say "I didn't realize...." and the pivoted to "I didn't think it was necessary."   I remember at the time thinking, "Tell him you didn't know it was unauthorized, Kim!", but then realizing she had made a conscious decision not to tell Howard that.  She had the opportunity to defend herself with the whole story, but chose not to do so.   

[ItCouldBeWorse]

New discussion topic: after the first time that Jimmy used a couple of small packages of wet wipes to cleanse himself before swapping clothing for his commercial shoot, why didn't he bring a jug of water, some liquid soap, and a towel so he could do a better job in the parking lot next time?  Even a pop up container of diaper wipes would have worked better.

[peeayebee]

16 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Hand raised. :)  Hint...a clue was in the Saul Goodman Productions ad. 

What was the clue in that ad?

 

3 hours ago, jww said:

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

I thought this was an interesting bit of info, so I googled. Nitro comes in both pills form and capsules. Lucky for Nacho Hector takes his in capsule form. :)

[Auntie Anxiety]

3 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

What was the clue in that ad?

At one point in the ad, I believe that Saul Goodman held up a Polaroid camera and snapped a picture.

[Eulipian 5k]

5 hours ago, Lion18 said:

also I thought Mike was burying money in the church playground that's why he didn't want help because the scene before it showed him reaching into his money stash. 

Deep down I think many BB fans want Kaylee to get some of Mike's money. Maybe there is a stash in that playground that the Feds never found out about after BB? Only problem would be how would Kaylee find it? Stay tuned, all will be revealed in BCS Season 9 - The Cinnabon Files.

[Atlanta]

17 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

At one point in the ad, I believe that Saul Goodman held up a Polaroid camera and snapped a picture.

What was that a clue for? I must have missed something.

[Gobi]

9 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I get that it was transactional and he wanted something from Nacho, but the chattiness I'm talking about is advising Nacho on killing Hector and not getting caught.  I thought that after meeting with Gus, there might have been an understanding not to mess with Gus' desire to be the one to take him out.  He indicated that maybe he would work with him in the future.  This doesn't match with that.  Besides, Mike doesn't generally do a whole lot of exposition in general.  That's why I perceived it as uncharacteristic -- more words than he usually unleashes at one time, and helping Nacho vs. Hector. 

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so someone may have addressed this. Could be that Mike is worried that if Nacho fails (and is made to give up his supplier), it might come back to him via Playah, whether he helps or not.

[Bannon]

Maybe in the next Vince Gillagan exploration of this universe, a man in Omaha named Gene wins the lottery.  No longer needing money, he travels the highways of the country, stopping in local saloons to rip off the most obnoxious dishonest greedy jerk in town, and then giving money to the virtuous needy. The Robin Hood of the smalll time cons. The Kung Fu of the bunko game. Tell me you couldn't get 50 episodes out of that, with a different grift in each one, and a cold open where he surveyed the room like he did in the saloon last night,except this time with a smile on his face.. He'd need a sidekick, though, and I don't think I could do that to KIm. Huell?

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

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. 

 I work in a doctor's office where our doctor is "bare" (i.e. no malpractice insurance). It's becoming much more common. We do have a sign in the office and patients are asked to sign a waiver that they understand he is "bare". ( He does have a contingency fund of a million dollars in case of being sued however). In fact many of the OB/GYN doctors in Miami-Dade county are "bare" because they cannot afford malpractice insurance in such a high risk area.  Malpractice insurance runs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year per doctor. I'm sure Jimmy/Saul could really use a refund of that money if it was even close to that amount.  

And I'm overdo to the Polaroid party, but I did have a Polaroid instant camera back in the day. They are now making an Instax camera that pops out tiny Polaroid type pictures. 

[Irlandesa]

11 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

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.

Or as a lawyer, for example.   I get (yet disagree with) not agreeing with his management decisions.  But when have we ever seen him do enough law to accuse him of being a bad lawyer?

10 hours ago, Bannon said:

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.

You just made the case about why people, and Howard, treat Chuck the way they do.  He is the attorney with the established success. He's the rock star.   He's the money partner in the firm.  Kim has shown promise but she didn't scramble like that until she was hungry.  

And we don't know about the other lawyers in HHM.  I can say that there are absolutely times when it is competent management to be willing to risk losing a excellent employee either by losing or in order to lose their cons. It becomes a heck of a lot easier if the firm isn't in a desperate situation.  

Edited May 24, 2017 by Irlandesa

[Bannon]

40 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Or as a lawyer, for example.   I get (yet disagree with) not agreeing with his management decisions.  But when have we ever seen him do enough law to accuse him of being a bad lawyer?

You just made the case about why people, and Howard, treat Chuck the way they do.  He is the attorney with the established success. He's the rock star.   He's the money partner in the firm.  Kim has shown promise but she didn't scramble like that until she was hungry.  

And we don't know about the other lawyers in HIM.  I can say that there are absolutely times when it is competent management to be willing to risk losing a excellent employee either by losing or in order to lose their cons. It becomes a heck of a lot easier if the firm isn't in a desperate situation.  

I don't understand your point

[evilroyslade]

 I think one of the reasons Howard is so hard on Kim is because HHM not only got her out of the mail-room , they put her through law school and hired her as an associate after she graduated. White shoe firms generally aren't known for that kind of generosity and when we are introduced to Kim  she is sitting next to Howard at the conference table. It's easy to make Howard the focal point  for resentment as  a nepotism  poster child, but he knows the names of the  minor employees , I doubt that Chuck bothered  with that kind of personal touch.   Keeping a major firm aloft when  one of your  senior partners- rainmaker  is mentally ill can't be easy ,  and I think Howard deserved more from Kim, it's one of the few things about Kim that I can find fault with. Her loyalty to Jimmy will be corrosive in her professional life and poisonous in her personal one.

  Besides he was wearing the green shirt of  evil,  whenever someone wears that color in  this universe trouble follows,  along with the other cardinal rule  that there is always something more that can be lost. Watching Jimmy irretrievably  become Saul will  be very painful , but I'm not sure that Chuck winds up dead or Kim goes back  to a small town, it's entirely possible  that  they  live in the same city but a different world.

    I think Mike is going to enlist Gus to help with Nacho's problem.

[ShadowFacts]

3 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I thought this was an interesting bit of info, so I googled. Nitro comes in both pills form and capsules. Lucky for Nacho Hector takes his in capsule form. :)

It's kind of weird that Hector seems to have an attack, then takes a capsule.  The capsules are extended release.  The pills are very tiny and are placed under the tongue and start working in a minute or two.  My dad has those kind for angina.  A capsule wouldn't do him any good. 

[LotusFlower]

6 hours ago, ShannaB said:

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.

I agree that Mike and Nacho seem to respect each other, but I think Mike took out the notepad to write down the name of Anita's missing/dead husband for Nacho to check out.  It was telegraphed in the earlier scenes - Mike initially had no interest in helping Baseball or Pharmaceutical Guy (I forget his name!), and he certainly doesn't need the money.  He changed his mind after talking to Anita at the support group.  He either likes her or relates to her or feels compassionate towards her predicament.

 

8 hours ago, RealReality said:

I got the impression that he just didn't want playuh, a good natured idiot, to go missing the same way her husband did.

No, I don't think he cares.  Notice he initially said no, and only changed his mind when he needed something from Nacho (see above).

[smorbie]

21 hours ago, benteen said:

Very good episode.  Jimmy is definitely making the transition to Saul Goodman.  I knew he was putting on an act but didn't realize the plan was to stick it to Chuck.  I agree, Kim...get over it with Chuck.  He got what he deserved.

Loved the return of Not Walter White.  I never would have expected him and Nacho to be involved in what happens to Hector.

Mike's new lady friend talking about how her husband was never found is foreshadowing for Mike...

I was very glad that the community service guy only credited Jimmy with 30 minutes performance.  Jimmy deserved that one.

except he was right.  He had two full bags of trash to everyone else's one.  That's Jimmy, though, right?  He works harder and gets more done; he just  can't always play by the rules.

21 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Sad to see Jimmy go out of his way to kick Chuck while he is down with the insurance agent.  He had nothing to gain by doing it, except hurting Chuck

He's angry because he's realizing how bad the suspension really is going to be and that there is no way he's going to be able to support himself.  And, in his mind, Chuck, the maker of the crap storm, is getting off scott free.  Why shouldn't he suffer, too?

I'm not saying I agree; I don't.  But then, I wouldn't have made the choices Jimmy made that opened the door for Chuck to destroy him.

[scenario]

3 minutes ago, smorbie said:

except he was right.  He had two full bags of trash to everyone else's one.  That's Jimmy, though, right?  He works harder and gets more done; he just  can't always play by the rules.

But that's how it works in big business or the government. It doesn't matter how much work you do. It only matters how much work it looks like you did. If he's talking on the phone it doesn't look like he worked hard even if he filled up twice as many bags.

[smorbie]

True, but it was also against the rules.

Once all the employees where I worked had to take a temperament test.  Mine came back saying that my temperament was paced.  People with this trait work at a steady speed usually either very fast or very slow.  Either way it makes them look like they aren't working, and draws resentment from coworkers because somehow we never miss deadlines.  So, I understand Jimmy's predicament.  Because I did my work expeditiously and didn't sit around and complain about it before doing just enough to get by, I simultaneously did MUCH more than my share of the work and opened myself up to criticism from other employees because my work (and a good part of theirs) was always "somehow" done.

21 hours ago, Knuckles said:

Kim is starting to move away from Jimmy/Saul.

She's going to have to in order to survive.  I hope she gets out unscathed. 

[smorbie]

20 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

 

 

 

 

Jimmy went in to try to get his refund.  When he gave his last name, the insurance woman pulled up his brother's name first, as Charles comes before James alphabetically.  It's unlikely that Jimmy even knew that his brother used the same insurance company, and he wasn't thinking about Chuck when he went to her office. Then, when Jimmy asked about suspending the insurance (she's right by the way; Jimmy could get sued during his suspension for something that happened prior to the suspension), and she told him that any insurance following the suspension would be 150% more expensive, the wheels turned very quickly and he realized how he could get Chuck.  The breakdown wasn't for real - it helped Jimmy segue naturally into mentioning how worried he was about his sick brother, whose crazy testimony is on record at the Bar, (but please forget that he mentioned it.)

Yeah, those were crocodile tears from the very beginning.

[smorbie]

14 hours ago, SoothingDave said:

I think Kim was maybe trying to sabotage her business with Mesa Verde, cause she feels guilty.  Of course, the lady from MV loves her, so there was none of that happening.  

I think she was just way over tired and is eaten up with guilt.  It happens.

13 hours ago, benteen said:

I think Jimmy would have a little more success if he started out smaller with these pitches instead of trying to get all his money back in one deal.  He was kind of like a boxer trying to knock out his opponent with one punch. 

It showed how desperate he is.

[shapeshifter]

11 minutes ago, smorbie said:

Yeah, those were crocodile tears from the very beginning.

Jimmy's tears reminded me of the Friends episode in which Joey reveals that his secret to crying on cue is to have something like a safety pin in his pocket with which to stab himself.

I wonder if Jimmy supported Chuck's "illness" for so long because it was Chuck's con?

[kieyra]

53 minutes ago, smorbie said:

Yeah, those were crocodile tears from the very beginning.

Yep, it was evident to me from the beginning that the breakdown was fake; in fact I was surprised Odenkirk played it as broad as he did. 

[peggy06]

Tough episode to watch, and I suspect they are only going to get tougher.  The ramifications of the Mesa Verde deal are getting worse when Jimmy thought he'd put most of it behind him. Now Kim is starting to have serious doubts. The looks on both their faces in that bar scene - Jimmy viciously concentrated on conning a jerk, Kim worried and taken-aback.

I am in the camp that's worried about Mesa Verde. Paige smoothed over Kim's snappishness, but that episode can't have helped her with the bank, may even have planted a seed of doubt. Didn't she also basically criticize Paige's reaction to their take-down of Chuck? If I were Kim, I would avoid any mention of that case. 

I'm also slightly puzzled by her guilt over Chuck, unless it's compounded with guilt over knowing she got Mesa Verde back by a crime. She made a pretty quick decision to put *that* behind her. Maybe it's starting to catch up. Either way, I don't see this relationship lasting. And if that happens, I don't see her relationship with Jimmy lasting.

If it lasts in any case. I see her getting disenchanted really quick with how Jimmy is acting. Really she should get out now. I've been waiting for it to happen all season. Someone above said they didn't know whether she felt love for him, or pity. Right now, I'm thinking pity.

I don't think Jimmy went into the insurance office intending to do that to Chuck. It seemed like he genuinely thought he could get a refund, or talk them into it. He didn't even know about his premium going up, let alone be thinking about Chuck's. I think, when he realized the insurance company wouldn't budge, and this was going to cost him even more in the future, he mentally snapped. His expression at first I took to be genuine frustration at everything going wrong. Obviously by the end, he had seen a way to stick it to Chuck. Unworthy and a low blow, but this episode was definitely not Jimmy at his finest. If we were ever in danger of idealizing him, they're disabusing us of that idea this season.

[Jextella]

On 5/23/2017 at 9:19 PM, shapeshifter said:

I wonder if Jimmy supported Chuck's "illness" for so long because it was Chuck's con?

Kudos.  This never crossed my mind but Chuck could be running a big con!

On 5/23/2017 at 10:52 PM, peggy06 said:

I am in the camp that's worried about Mesa Verde. Paige smoothed over Kim's snappishness, but that episode can't have helped her with the bank, may even have planted a seed of doubt. Didn't she also basically criticize Paige's reaction to their take-down of Chuck? If I were Kim, I would avoid any mention of that case. 

Paige has made comments on a few occassions that demonstrate a disdain for Howard and Chuck's arrogance.  Not sure how long it will last, but she seems to support Kim for a few different reasons.  One seems to be she likes putting it to "the man".

Edited May 25, 2017 by Jextella

[Bryce Lynch]

7 hours ago, peeayebee said:

What was the clue in that ad?

 

I thought this was an interesting bit of info, so I googled. Nitro comes in both pills form and capsules. Lucky for Nacho Hector takes his in capsule form. :)

Jimmy took a photo during the ad with a Polaroid when he mentioned autograph hounds and paparazzi.

7 hours ago, Atlanta said:

What was that a clue for? I must have missed something.

It was a clue to the reference Jimmy was making when he told the music store guys he would make them into Garner and Hartley.  Back in the 1970s James Garner and Mariette Hartley did a series of ads for Polaroid 

[Bryce Lynch]

1 hour ago, kieyra said:

Yep, it was evident to me from the beginning that the breakdown was fake; in fact I was surprised Odenkirk played it as broad as he did. 

The tears were obviously fake, but I do think he was tapping into some of his real feelings about believing Chuck hates him to produce them.

He reminded me of Walt crying in Hank's office when he was planting and later removing the bug.

[LittleIggy]

On 5/23/2017 at 0:52 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

Sure, because Jimmy would have felt much better having to go the rest of his life knowing that his Mom was crying out for him on her death bed, while he was out getting a sandwich.

I think Chuck had mixed motives in not telling him, but an argument could be made that telling him would have been cruel.

Um, if Chuck was a good brother, he could have mentioned that Mom spoke Jimmy's name before she died. But Chuck is a jealous dick, so he didn't.

[dwmarch]

I haven't seen anyone mention this yet regarding Chuck's insurance situation as well: he lied about a preexisting condition and I am sure that in the time period this show is set it that means your insurance gets canceled immediately. Chuck has been sick for years and has been renewing his insurance for years as well. I don't know if this is considered fraud or not but I am certain the insurance company won't like it. It is interesting to think it could bring down HHM as well but (since another poster used this example) people who were being deliberately ignorant about Joe Paterno were also being deliberately ignorant about what that situation was going to do to the entire school's reputation unto eternity.

I am surprised so few people remember Wormald's name. Wormald, emphasis on Worm. Wormald the Squat Cobbler.

It would be hilarious if Nacho put sugar in the pills and caused Hector to have a diabetic stroke. Of course sugar is bulky so Hector would have to be popping those pills like candy but who knows, maybe it'll be the straw that breaks the camel's back after Hector eats a plate of churros or something.

[Bryce Lynch]

4 hours ago, LittleIggy said:

Um, if Chuck was a good brother, he could have mentioned that Mom spoke Jimmy's name before she died. But Chuck is a jealous dick, so he didn't.

Again, you could argue that doing that would be pointless and cruel.  It would only make Jimmy feel guilty.  

If Chuck was really such a horrible person he would have lashed out at Jimmy with it.  "Our Mother cried out for you with her dying breath, but you weren't there because your sandwich was more important to you than your mother!"

If I were in Jimmy's shoes, I would rather not know.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 hour ago, dwmarch said:

I haven't seen anyone mention this yet regarding Chuck's insurance situation as well: he lied about a preexisting condition and I am sure that in the time period this show is set it that means your insurance gets canceled immediately. Chuck has been sick for years and has been renewing his insurance for years as well. I don't know if this is considered fraud or not but I am certain the insurance company won't like it. It is interesting to think it could bring down HHM as well but (since another poster used this example) people who were being deliberately ignorant about Joe Paterno were also being deliberately ignorant about what that situation was going to do to the entire school's reputation unto eternity.

I am surprised so few people remember Wormald's name. Wormald, emphasis on Worm. Wormald the Squat Cobbler.

It would be hilarious if Nacho put sugar in the pills and caused Hector to have a diabetic stroke. Of course sugar is bulky so Hector would have to be popping those pills like candy but who knows, maybe it'll be the straw that breaks the camel's back after Hector eats a plate of churros or something.

I don't think preexisting condition exclusions normally apply to renewals.  Are there health questions on legal malpractice renewal forms?  If there are mental health questions, Chuck would not be committing fraud as he believed his condition to be physical.  Also, it has been about 2 years since Chuck's "symptoms" arose, so he might have only renewed once 

FYI, Paterno was one of the ones being deliberately ignorant.  The child molester they were being deliberately ignorant about was Sandusky.

People comparing HHM or Howard to Paterno remind me of Chuck comparing his "condition" to AIDS and Jimmy to the Unabomber.  On some level the analogies are valid, but the severities are so out of proportion that the anologies become absurd.  

[ShadowFacts]

Getting off the Chuck-Jimmy train for a moment, I was thinking about Mike's interaction with Anita, then meeting with Nacho and whipping out his notebook.  I don't think he would have been mining for information about what happened to Anita's husband.  She mentioned eight years ago, and I doubt Nacho would be in the know about victims of the cartel from that long ago.  Mike just met this woman, and I can't see him relaying anything he found out back to her, it's just not his style.  I think it's more likely his guilt over the good samaritan that would be driving his request of Nacho.  Although he did say to Gus that now he can put him out of his head.  Maybe easier said than done.  Bodies that are never found are a motif in BCS already, as they were in BB.  Haunting. 

[RealReality]

9 hours ago, LotusFlower said:

I agree that Mike and Nacho seem to respect each other, but I think Mike took out the notepad to write down the name of Anita's missing/dead husband for Nacho to check out.  It was telegraphed in the earlier scenes - Mike initially had no interest in helping Baseball or Pharmaceutical Guy (I forget his name!), and he certainly doesn't need the money.  He changed his mind after talking to Anita at the support group.  He either likes her or relates to her or feels compassionate towards her predicament.

 

No, I don't think he cares.  Notice he initially said no, and only changed his mind when he needed something from Nacho (see above).

But he may not have really understood the risk when he initially said no.  Its one thing to intellectually understand that someone may "disappear" and never be seen again, its another thing to have someone illustrate it with a very real story of how someone who is basically good (but clueless) can "disappear."  And to me it makes more sense than putting yourself in potential danger to find answers for a woman you just met and have zero relationship with.  As far as Mike knows, this woman isn't actively searching for answers, but he knows that Playah is going to do this because he can't really get out of it.

I'm not saying its not how you say because Tamara Tunie is here for something, but ultimately I dont think it makes as much sense.

[LotusFlower]

20 minutes ago, RealReality said:

But he may not have really understood the risk when he initially said no.  Its one thing to intellectually understand that someone may "disappear" and never be seen again, its another thing to have someone illustrate it with a very real story of how someone who is basically good (but clueless) can "disappear."  And to me it makes more sense than putting yourself in potential danger to find answers for a woman you just met and have zero relationship with.  As far as Mike knows, this woman isn't actively searching for answers, but he knows that Playah is going to do this because he can't really get out of it.

I'm not saying its not how you say because Tamara Tunie is here for something, but ultimately I dont think it makes as much sense.

But I thought the show was pretty clear, in its quiet and subtle ways, of telling us why Mike changed his mind.  He doesn't care about Playah, and he doesn't need the money, so he said no.  With zero pangs of guilt.  He only changed his mind after he met Anita, who he a) seemed to take a liking to; and b) probably wants to help.  Because of the Good Samaritan killing (and later BB examples), we can infer that the unresolved nature of Anita's husband's death/disappearance struck a chord with Mike.  So he walked out of the support group meeting and immediately made the call to say "I'm in."  Plus, when he told Nacho that he needed something in return, he took out a notepad, presumably to write down a name (I'm guessing the missing husband's name).  Another clue.  

[smorbie]

7 hours ago, peggy06 said:

, but this episode was definitely not Jimmy at his finest.

I think we've seen the last of his finest.

His finest was when he was taking such good care of his senior clients and of Chuck.  In his mind that got him nowhere.  Slippin Jimmy was a sweetheart compared to what's coming.

[LotusFlower]

55 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I don't think he would have been mining for information about what happened to Anita's husband.  She mentioned eight years ago, and I doubt Nacho would be in the know about victims of the cartel from that long ago.  

I think that's why he (likely) wrote the name down and gave it to Nacho - so that Nacho could ask around, i.e. older guys in the cartel, or guys that have been around a long(er) time.

[RealReality]

Just now, LotusFlower said:

But I thought the show was pretty clear, in its quiet and subtle ways, of telling us why Mike changed his mind.  He doesn't care about Playah, and he doesn't need the money, so he said no.  With zero pangs of guilt.  He only changed his mind after he met Anita, who he a) seemed to take a liking to; and b) probably wants to help.  Because of the Good Samaritan killing (and later BB examples), we can infer that the unresolved nature of Anita's husband's death/disappearance struck a chord with Mike.  So he walked out of the support group meeting and immediately made the call to say "I'm in."  Plus, when he told Nacho that he needed something in return, he took out a notepad, presumably to write down a name (I'm guessing the missing husband's name).  Another clue.  

I don't think this show is ever clear, which is why we have a 4+ page discussion board about each episode.

He didn't care about the innocent bystander that was killed, but he still didn't want to see someone die if they didn't have to.  Mike took a beating instead of just killing Tuco, who he didn't care about.  Mike doesn't have to have a deep relationship with someone to not want to see them "disappear"

He changed his mind  after Anitas story , which is open to multiple interpretations.  Could be that he would open himself up to potential harm and at the very least annoyance because he wants to maybe find out more about a total stranger's story.  That very well could be.  Or it could be that Mike heard that story, and it became real that Playuh could really get hurt if he was going to do it because he didn't feel like he had another option.

We can infer that Anita's husband's death struck a chord with Mike, but the question is whether it struck a chord for Mike to try to protect Playah (basically a dummy, but generally an innocent) or if it struck a chord to make Mike want to find out more about Anita's husband.  Whichever way the show plays it, I would maintain that option number 1 makes more sense than option number 2.

Just now, LotusFlower said:

I think that's why he (likely) wrote the name down and gave it to Nacho - so that Nacho could ask around, i.e. older guys in the cartel, or guys that have been around a long(er) time.

So, Mike would risk his safety by opening up a can of worms into a husband's death of a woman he has spent an afternoon with, but not for a guy who clearly feels pressured and is likely to end up "disappearing" the same way Anita's husband did?  A guy who has begged him for help?  A guy he knows (though he may not like)?  

I mean, Mike knows what he gets if he plays protection for Playuh, but he has no idea what he gets poking around into a death of a woman he basically doesn't know very much about at all.  It might even make some sort of sense to me if they were both cops.  

Like I said, I don't know the writers intention, but it seems like a hole in logic to me if they go that way.

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, RealReality said:

I don't think this show is ever clear, which is why we have a 4+ page discussion board about each episode.

He didn't care about the innocent bystander that was killed, but he still didn't want to see someone die if they didn't have to.  Mike took a beating instead of just killing Tuco, who he didn't care about.  Mike doesn't have to have a deep relationship with someone to not want to see them "disappear"

He changed his mind  after Anitas story , which is open to multiple interpretations.  Could be that he would open himself up to potential harm and at the very least annoyance because he wants to maybe find out more about a total stranger's story.  That very well could be.  Or it could be that Mike heard that story, and it became real that Playuh could really get hurt if he was going to do it because he didn't feel like he had another option.

We can infer that Anita's husband's death struck a chord with Mike, but the question is whether it struck a chord for Mike to try to protect Playah (basically a dummy, but generally an innocent) or if it struck a chord to make Mike want to find out more about Anita's husband.  Whichever way the show plays it, I would maintain that option number 1 makes more sense than option number 2.

I lean toward option 2, but both options are possible.

[LotusFlower]

5 minutes ago, RealReality said:

I don't think this show is ever clear, which is why we have a 4+ page discussion board about each episode.

He didn't care about the innocent bystander that was killed, but he still didn't want to see someone die if they didn't have to.  Mike took a beating instead of just killing Tuco, who he didn't care about.  Mike doesn't have to have a deep relationship with someone to not want to see them "disappear"

He changed his mind  after Anitas story , which is open to multiple interpretations.  Could be that he would open himself up to potential harm and at the very least annoyance because he wants to maybe find out more about a total stranger's story.  That very well could be.  Or it could be that Mike heard that story, and it became real that Playuh could really get hurt if he was going to do it because he didn't feel like he had another option.

We can infer that Anita's husband's death struck a chord with Mike, but the question is whether it struck a chord for Mike to try to protect Playah (basically a dummy, but generally an innocent) or if it struck a chord to make Mike want to find out more about Anita's husband.  Whichever way the show plays it, I would maintain that option number 1 makes more sense than option number 2.

Touché to your first sentence (and it's why I love this forum), but I guess I disagree about the plot being open to multiple interpretations.  Yes, this show is very subtle and often ambiguous - case in point - I was certain that Jimmy walked into the insurance company meeting with his agenda all pre-planned (and perfectly executed), and was surprised that so many thought he came up with it spur-of-the-moment.  Hence the 4+ pages!  But other plot lines (to me, at least) seem pretty straightforward and unambiguous.  It's funny how ppl. can watch the same scene and see different things.  I guess we'll see.  

[RealReality]

Just now, LotusFlower said:

Touché to your first sentence (and it's why I love this forum), but I guess I disagree about the plot being open to multiple interpretations.  Yes, this show is very subtle and often ambiguous - case in point - I was certain that Jimmy walked into the insurance company meeting with his agenda all pre-planned (and perfectly executed), and was surprised that so many thought he came up with it spur-of-the-moment.  Hence the 4+ pages!  But other plot lines (to me, at least) seem pretty straightforward and unambiguous.  It's funny how ppl. can watch the same scene and see different things.  I guess we'll see.  

Its okay to disagree, but it doesn't mean that either one of us is right.  Personally, I don't think it makes much sense for Mike to put himself out on a limb to solve the scooby doo mystery of Anita's husband when she isn't at risk of getting hurt.  The 4+ pages has covered issues besides Jimmy's motivation in walking into the insurance office.  

You're right, we'll see, however, even if the writers go with Mike just mysteriously caring so much for a near complete stranger to put himself at risk....not to mention putting Kaylee at risk, it will be one of the few times the writers do something completely nonsensical just to move the story ahead IMO.

Running security for Playuh has a pretty limited risk.  Three people at the meeting.  Versus Nacho "looking into" a murder/disappearance with some cartel types that could lead back to Mike....that seems like a lot of risk for very limited reward.  Anita isn't "over" her husband, but she is in the process of moving her life forward as if he isn't coming back, so if the reward of finding out the absolute truth took no risk, I could see it, but when there is significant risk involved....that doesn't make much sense to me.

[JudyObscure]

10 hours ago, smorbie said:

True, but it was also against the rules.

Once all the employees where I worked had to take a temperament test.  Mine came back saying that my temperament was paced.  People with this trait work at a steady speed usually either very fast or very slow.  Either way it makes them look like they aren't working, and draws resentment from coworkers because somehow we never miss deadlines.  So, I understand Jimmy's predicament.  Because I did my work expeditiously and didn't sit around and complain about it before doing just enough to get by, I simultaneously did MUCH more than my share of the work and opened myself up to criticism from other employees because my work (and a good part of theirs) was always "somehow" done.

 

I've been in the same position (as Smorbie and Jimmy) doing more than twice the work, but not perceived as working hard, both because of steady pacing and the cardinal office sin of keeping a clean desk.  If your desk isn't piled with papers you must not being doing anything, right?

I thought the best part of Jimmy's community service stint was his hilarious attempt to rally a protest among his totally apathetic co-workers. I'd love to see a snippet of little Jimmy in grade school with his hapless teacher trying to focus all the energy and rebellion into a constructive, rule abiding citizen.

I'm on the side that says Jimmy went into the office with the only intent of talking his way into a refund. I often forget to bring my account number to the bank, knowing how easy it is to look it up. I thought it was the news of the 150% mark-up that broke him and gave him the impulse to throw Chuck under the bus.  I don't think he knew until then that Chuck's action was going to effect him far beyond the year of suspension.  At that moment Jimmy may have realized that his insurance was going to be so high that it wouldn't be worth it for him to practice regular law ever again.  I know a surgeon who quit his practice completely because of his insurance rates.

[ShadowFacts]

20 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

Touché to your first sentence (and it's why I love this forum), but I guess I disagree about the plot being open to multiple interpretations.  Yes, this show is very subtle and often ambiguous - case in point - I was certain that Jimmy walked into the insurance company meeting with his agenda all pre-planned (and perfectly executed), and was surprised that so many thought he came up with it spur-of-the-moment.  Hence the 4+ pages!  But other plot lines (to me, at least) seem pretty straightforward and unambiguous.  It's funny how ppl. can watch the same scene and see different things.  I guess we'll see.  

It's what makes the world go 'round.  If it was all crystal clear it would be a boring show for me.  I've heard or read Vince Gilligan say words to the effect that he doesn't tell people what to think, he wants them to have their own interpretations.  It makes for good drama to have a bit of a cliffhanger as to what Mike was after.  It may have nothing to do with what we think it does.  In my own view, it would be a little soap opera-ish to have Mike go and work on an unsolved mystery for a person he just met.  He may have been motivated by the missing body without having to go and directly get involved in it. 

[Milburn Stone]

4 hours ago, dwmarch said:

I haven't seen anyone mention this yet regarding Chuck's insurance situation as well: he lied about a preexisting condition and I am sure that in the time period this show is set it that means your insurance gets canceled immediately. Chuck has been sick for years and has been renewing his insurance for years as well. I don't know if this is considered fraud or not but I am certain the insurance company won't like it. It is interesting to think it could bring down HHM as well but (since another poster used this example) people who were being deliberately ignorant about Joe Paterno were also being deliberately ignorant about what that situation was going to do to the entire school's reputation unto eternity.

It's actually worse than that (in one respect) for HHM, because they weren't ignorant at all, deliberately or otherwise. Howard (and others) were completely aware of Chuck's situation, yet presumably continued to list him on the firm's group malpractice insurance. (I say presumably, because I suppose it's possible that Chuck's insurance was purchased individually by Chuck and not by the firm, but that seems unlikely to me.)

[RealReality]

3 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

It's actually worse than that (in one respect) for HHM, because they weren't ignorant at all, deliberately or otherwise. Howard (and others) were completely aware of Chuck's situation, yet presumably continued to list him on the firm's group malpractice insurance. (I say presumably, because I suppose it's possible that Chuck's insurance was purchased individually by Chuck and not by the firm, but that seems unlikely to me.)

I think the question, IMO, would be what the insurance application is asking about.  Was Chuck diagnosed with a mental condition before he had to reapply for malpractice insurance?  A physical ailment, even one that makes it difficult to work with electricity, may not be considered a mental condition, or a physical condition that makes you a more dangerous attorney.  Even if HHM didn't make the proper adjustments to protect client files, there are a lot of different positions an attorney can take on -- a research attorney may not have access to client files, or a transactional attorney/contract attorney doing most of their work from home may not need to use electricity.  

And, honestly, to me at least what happened to Chuck could happen to anyone whether they use a computer/electricity or not.  How easy would it be for someone to steal a USB with client information on it?  Or for an attorney to leave their files in a car that is locked but doesn't have a security system and the files get stolen?  Or for an attorney to leave their car in a bad area with it locked...or even a good area and it gets broken into.  While you have a duty to keep client files and information safe -- I just don't know that it goes so far as to say that a guy that leaves the files in his locked house, in a file cabinet is so bad that they would be uninsurable.

I just wonder if the insurance application asks questions like "do you take files home" and "how do you protect files that you take home?"

[LotusFlower]

37 minutes ago, RealReality said:

Its okay to disagree, but it doesn't mean that either one of us is right.  Personally, I don't think it makes much sense for Mike to put himself out on a limb to solve the scooby doo mystery of Anita's husband when she isn't at risk of getting hurt.  The 4+ pages has covered issues besides Jimmy's motivation in walking into the insurance office.  

You're right, we'll see, however, even if the writers go with Mike just mysteriously caring so much for a near complete stranger to put himself at risk....not to mention putting Kaylee at risk, it will be one of the few times the writers do something completely nonsensical just to move the story ahead IMO.

Running security for Playuh has a pretty limited risk.  Three people at the meeting.  Versus Nacho "looking into" a murder/disappearance with some cartel types that could lead back to Mike....that seems like a lot of risk for very limited reward.  Anita isn't "over" her husband, but she is in the process of moving her life forward as if he isn't coming back, so if the reward of finding out the absolute truth took no risk, I could see it, but when there is significant risk involved....that doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't think Mike trying to track down the missing husband's death as nonsensical at all.  In fact, it seems pretty characteristic for him - we've seen him develop soft spots for people, and we've seen him bothered by unresolved and/or innocent killings and disappearances.  I'm also not sure why you think the request is dangerous or puts anybody at risk.  I think Nacho knows how to be discreet.  

[Adiba]

I love that the show is open to interpretation.

For me, the final scene this week was the best of the episode because of that ambiguity. I did not think that Jimmy went in there with a dastardly plan to f--- Chuck one more time. I thought  he truly went in there hoping to talk her into some sort of refund, and when he realized it was not going to happen, along with the raised premiums, his mind clicked about Chuck. Some of the tears were real-- tears of frustration, rage, hurt --and to Jimmy's mind-- betrayal,  that morphed into an act of vengeance. I know many disagree with this interpretation, but it's much more interesting and entertaining for me to think of it this way. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Adiba

[suzeecat]

Two gut-wrenching announcements at the end:

- No BCS for TWO weeks!  Gah!  Why, network, WHY?!?  Let those lucky peeps who actually have holiday plans use their DVRs! 

- Only three episodes left!  Wah Wah

[RealReality]

11 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

I don't think Mike trying to track down the missing husband's death as nonsensical at all.  In fact, it seems pretty characteristic for him - we've seen him develop soft spots for people, and we've seen him bothered by unresolved and/or innocent killings and disappearances.  I'm also not sure why you think the request is dangerous or puts anybody at risk.  I think Nacho knows how to be discreet.  

Soft spots -- yes.  Generally for people that are in danger, and for his family.  Anita doesn't fall into either category.  We've seen Mike bothered by the killings of innocents....when their death was in some way connected to him, or was his fault.  In this case it isn't his fault and it isn't connected to him.

However, if Playuh were to suddenly "disappear" because Mike refused to help him out, knowing that he felt pressured and like he couldn't get out of it, Mike would feel bad and he wouldn't want that on his conscience.

I think anytime you start asking criminals about their crimes its dangerous.  Especially those involved in drug cartels who would as soon kill you as look at you if they think you are poking around.  I'm not sure how, given everything we've seen in this show, you wouldn't think that these are dangerous people.  I also don't know how "discreet" you can be when you're asking a bunch of connected people for information about a mysterious "disappearance" that happened years ago.  I also think its already dangerous to rely on Nacho any more than a person would absolutely have to.  Mike thinks Nacho is dangerous, which is why he told Playuh to get out of it in the first place.  Why would you ask a dangerous person to do something dangerous if you didn't really have to or have a compelling reason to do so?

What I've seen of Mike is if it involves innocents in trouble, or his family he is willing to go balls to the wall.  But for a near stranger?  Who isn't in danger?  I haven't seen that as part of Mike character.  And while the writers may go there, I would be disappointed because it just doesn't make any sense.

Edited May 24, 2017 by RealReality