S03.E07: Expenses

[RealReality]

11 minutes ago, Adiba said:

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. 

I think thats the way it went down.   I don't think Jimmy would have made all those phone calls in advance if his plan had been to go in to screw Chuck over.  I feel like he would have just gone straight to the source.  Can't remember at what point he started crying, but I think the die was cast after he found out about the premium increase.  It was just life throwing one too many shit sandwiches Jimmy's way.

[DrSpaceman73]

Typically a malpractice application, I assume its the same for doctors and lawyers, asks some general areas of questions :

 

1.  Have you been diagnosed with any mental or physical impairment that may impair your ability to perform your job

2.  Is there any history or current substance abuse problems?

3.  Do you have any current criminal history or charges against you?

4.  Do you have any current legal claims against you? 

It goes into more detail than this, but those are the general areas.  Its self reporting, they don't have access to medical records. 

In addition, typically you need 2 or 3 peers that fill out similar forms asking similar questions to the ones above, plus questions about how well they do their job and how well they know the law.  Its checking boxes, yes/no questions, but then if you answer yes you have to provide explanations. 

This is where Howard could be in trouble as well.  He obviously knew of Chuck's condition, so would be obligated to report it when filing the malpractice forms. 

[LotusFlower]

3 minutes ago, RealReality said:

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.

I think it's common to try to help people for reasons other than helping them escape danger.  And Mike's that kind of guy.  Plus, he seems to like and/or relate to her, so I don't see that as nonsensical.

[RealReality]

7 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

I think it's common to try to help people for reasons other than helping them escape danger.  And Mike's that kind of guy.  Plus, he seems to like and/or relate to her, so I don't see that as nonsensical.

Sure, if you're helping them to figure out the treadmill at the gym, or how to recline the seat on the airplane.  But asking drug dealers involved in a drug cartel who are known for killing people about the mysterious disappearance of someones husband is another kettle of fish entirely.

Its all risk for no reward.  And not just a risk to him, but a risk to his family.  

Mike's not really been shown to be "that type of guy" to go out of his way for someone who isn't in immediate danger or isn't near and dear to him.  BUT, Mike has shown tremendous guilt when he felt that someone was harmed because of his actions, and that guilt will make him take a risk.  Mike caring enough to take that risk after what amounts to a few hours together doesn't really make sense with his personality.  He can be nice, like he was to the waitress, but to put himself at such great risk, more importantly, his family?  No.  I don't see that.  

To me its nonsensical because while Mike may like her well enough, to put yourself, and your family in that type of danger means you care a lot.  Mike turned down 3k because he didn't want to deal with Nacho and the danger it brings again.  And that is pretty limited risk.  But he wants to risk asking around about a cartel murder because he met this lady the other day?  This lady that shows no sign of being in any danger?

Edited May 24, 2017 by RealReality

[Ottis]

30 minutes ago, Adiba said:

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. 

Basically we are watching Jimmy "break bad." Just like Walter White. Elements of this behavior were always there, but for years he struggled against them. Not perfectly, and often failing. But he tried, and a lot of that effort was tied to his feelings for Chuck and the fact he cared for him  and respected his opinion even as Chuck was an increasingly more bitter dick (and, I suspect, at some level Jimmy knew Chuck had a point). But the trial, and the struggles he faces due to it, are the final straw pushing Jimmy to become Saul. And he will pay a price, no doubt, and that will almost certainly include Kim.

[EtheltoTillie]

21 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Typically a malpractice application, I assume its the same for doctors and lawyers, asks some general areas of questions :

 

1.  Have you been diagnosed with any mental or physical impairment that may impair your ability to perform your job

2.  Is there any history or current substance abuse problems?

3.  Do you have any current criminal history or charges against you?

4.  Do you have any current legal claims against you? 

It goes into more detail than this, but those are the general areas.  Its self reporting, they don't have access to medical records. 

In addition, typically you need 2 or 3 peers that fill out similar forms asking similar questions to the ones above, plus questions about how well they do their job and how well they know the law.  Its checking boxes, yes/no questions, but then if you answer yes you have to provide explanations. 

This is where Howard could be in trouble as well.  He obviously knew of Chuck's condition, so would be obligated to report it when filing the malpractice forms. 

I feel I must weigh in here.  Some of the speculation about the malpractice insurance and other issues doesn't feel right to me.

I'm a solo practitioner attorney in New York.  I just pulled up one of my annual recertifications for malpractice insurance just to double check.  They don't ask you to report on your mental or physical condition or  drug abuse.  They only ask if you have been subject to disciplinary or criminal action in the past year or if you know of any omissions or acts in your practice that might subject you to a malpractice claim.  You're supposed to self report as these things happen.

It's the latter to which I think Chuck is vulnerable.  The malpractice insurer was not apprised of the number-switching incident, which might have resulted in a malpractice claim from Mesa Verde.   I think that's what the insurance lady was jotting down.

The insurer can't report you or or get you disbarred or discontinue your malpractice insurance for being ill.  You have to do something that results in a claim.  There isn't a preemptive strike for the mentally ill.  That would be disability discrimination.  I happen to have cancer!  I don't report that to them or my clients or to the New York State court system (which licenses and disciplines attorneys).

Also, I've found the speculation about whether you can take documents home or store them in an unlighted house to be a bit over the top in risk assessment.   I carry documents around on the NYC subway all the time.  So do other attorneys.  How else would we get to court?

If there is something different in other states, I'd be curious to hear about it.

Edited May 24, 2017 by GussieK

[Ottis]

6 minutes ago, RealReality said:

Sure, if you're helping them to figure out the treadmill at the gym, or how to recline the seat on the airplane.  But asking drug dealers involved in a drug cartel who are known for killing people about the mysterious disappearance of someones husband is another kettle of fish entirely.

Its all risk for no reward.  And not just a risk to him, but a risk to his family.  

All true, but Mike can't help himself. He stubbornly chooses his causes, based on his internal code. Logic isn't a part of it. He got back at Hector and could have walked away. he didn't. And it is this aspect of his personality that makes him compelling and leads to his fate.

[RealReality]

3 minutes ago, Ottis said:

All true, but Mike can't help himself. He stubbornly chooses his causes, based on his internal code. Logic isn't a part of it. He got back at Hector and could have walked away. he didn't. And it is this aspect of his personality that makes him compelling and leads to his fate.

Yes, but we've never seen that internal code include widows he just met whose husband may or may not have been killed by the drug cartel.  We've seen him go balls to the wall when an innocent has been harmed and he thinks its his fault.  Or for his family.  Anita doesn't fit into either of those categories.  And Mike, the vigilante for a woman he doesn't know makes the character more two dimensional for me, it almost cheapens him and it doesn't really fit with his personality.  So, while they may go there, it won't make any sense to me.

[Bryce Lynch]

53 minutes ago, RealReality said:

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?"

You make some great points.  From a big picture perspective, Chuck's frontier style law practice is almost certainly LESS vulnerable to client information and documents being stolen, tampered with, or accessed without authorization than electronic files or physical files in the hands of a lawyer who gets out of the house a lot more than Chuck.

I doubt HHM will be badly damaged from an insurance standpoint, though Chuck, personally, will likely be.  

HHMs real risk is to its reputation, if Chuck's "condition" gets widely known, gossiped about, and perhaps exaggerated or otherwise incorrectly explained through the game of "telephone" that could happen among members of the legal community and HHM clients.

I was thinking it would be ironic, if to get past the bad publicity, HHM had to change its name, to say, "Gibraltar Law or Vanguard Legal".  

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, smorbie said:

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.

Saul Goodman is Slippin' Jimmy to me.  Then there is Good Jimmy, the one who decided to go straight after his brother bailed him out of a potential sex offender conviction. Good Jimmy worked in the mail room, struck up a friendship/relationship with Kim Wexler, and went to law school.  Even after being kicked out of HHM, Good Jimmy took good care of his senior clients, his brother, his receptionist, and even his goldfish. But Slippin' Jimmy never really went away, and began to re-emerge once Good Jimmy started his own law practice. Slippin' Jimmy was the one who hired the skateboarders to bamboozle the skateboarders, changed the Mesa Verde documents, and lied to his brother's ex-wife so she would be at his disbarment hearing. The duality of personality is not dissimilar to Smeagol/Gollum.  

[Tatum]

19 hours 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.

Even though I don't dislike Howard, I agree with this. Kim should have been able to escape doc review once she brought in MV, not for her own sake, but for MV's. They wanted her, not a random associate who hadn't invited Howard's ire.

I think Kim is going to deteriorate pretty rapidly. She's stuck in a rock and a hard place- she really should, ethically, come clean about what Jimmy did. But if she does, I think MV is going to have  to fire her. They may believe she is 100% innocent in the fiasco, but as long as she is professionally and personally tied to Jimmy, she's a liability. What happens if someone at MV does Kim wrong? Or one of their clients? Will Jimmy, unbeknownst to Kim, find a way to get involved? That's a risk MV can't take. And if she gets fired, not only is Kim hosed, but MV has to find new legal representation in the midst of a huge expansion project. Coming clean punishes two parties, neither of which did anything wrong.

 

Do you guys get the impression her lack of sleep is due to having more work than she can handle, or the stress of the McGill drama? I always thought the workload MV provided was way too much for one person, even a type A like Kim who's willing to work 20 hour days.

[LotusFlower]

32 minutes ago, RealReality said:

Its all risk for no reward.  And not just a risk to him, but a risk to his family.  

There's no risk to his family.  And there's potentially a big reward for Anita if he gets an answer.  

[PeterPirate]

Just now, LotusFlower said:

There's no risk to his family.  And there's potentially a big reward for Anita if he gets an answer.  

There's also potential risk to Anita. If the cartel finds out that she knows what happened to her husband, some guys in ski masks could show up inside her house to tell her to keep quiet. Or maybe show up on her front porch saying her husband is in a car across the street.

[DrSpaceman73]

35 minutes ago, GussieK said:

I feel I must weigh in here.  Some of the speculation about the malpractice insurance and other issues doesn't feel right to me.

I'm a solo practitioner attorney in New York.  I just pulled up one of my annual recertifications for malpractice insurance just to double check.  They don't ask you to report on your mental or physical condition or  drug abuse.  They only ask if you have been subject to disciplinary or criminal action in the past year or if you know of any omissions or acts in your practice that might subject you to a malpractice claim.  You're supposed to self report as these things happen.

It's the latter to which I think Chuck is vulnerable.  The malpractice insurer was not apprised of the number-switching incident, which might have resulted in a malpractice claim from Mesa Verde.   I think that's what the insurance lady was jotting down.

The insurer can't report you or or get you disbarred or discontinue your malpractice insurance for being ill.  You have to do something that results in a claim.  There isn't a preemptive strike for the mentally ill.  That would be disability discrimination.  I happen to have cancer!  I don't report that to them or my clients or to the New York State court system (which licenses and disciplines attorneys).

Also, I've found the speculation about whether you can take documents home or store them in an unlighted house to be a bit over the top in risk assessment.   I carry documents around on the NYC subway all the time.  So do other attorneys.  How else would we get to court?

If there is something different in other states, I'd be curious to hear about it.

 

Good to know

Seems to be different from doctors and lawyers

They aren't asking though if you have any medical problem on the forms I have seen for medical malpractice. And its similar questions you get as well for state licensing, which may be different from malpractice and for us has to be renewed every year, I don't know how often law licenses have to be renewed.  They are asking if you have any medical problems that may impair your ability to do your job.  Its somewhat subjective in that way and arguable what you have to report. 

I do know from a lawyer friend in Arizona at least, I believe it was when applying for a license, there are questions about diagnosed mental illness, or at least in some fashion it is asked about on the form, I forget the details. 

I agree about carrying around files, either paper or electronic.  There is no rule you can't do it.  But if you lose it or they are stolen, at least for medical files, it can, and has in many cases, result in large HIPAA fines.  And its also true electronic is not necessarily any more safe than paper files

Edited May 24, 2017 by DrSpaceman73

[LotusFlower]

3 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

There's also potential risk to Anita. If the cartel finds out that she knows what happened to her husband, some guys in ski masks could show up inside her house to tell her to keep quiet. Or maybe show up on her front porch saying her husband is in a car across the street.

Don't forget the lasers!

[Bryce Lynch]

18 minutes ago, Tatum said:

Even though I don't dislike Howard, I agree with this. Kim should have been able to escape doc review once she brought in MV, not for her own sake, but for MV's. They wanted her, not a random associate who hadn't invited Howard's ire.

I think Kim is going to deteriorate pretty rapidly. She's stuck in a rock and a hard place- she really should, ethically, come clean about what Jimmy did. But if she does, I think MV is going to have  to fire her. They may believe she is 100% innocent in the fiasco, but as long as she is professionally and personally tied to Jimmy, she's a liability. What happens if someone at MV does Kim wrong? Or one of their clients? Will Jimmy, unbeknownst to Kim, find a way to get involved? That's a risk MV can't take. And if she gets fired, not only is Kim hosed, but MV has to find new legal representation in the midst of a huge expansion project. Coming clean punishes two parties, neither of which did anything wrong.

 

Do you guys get the impression her lack of sleep is due to having more work than she can handle, or the stress of the McGill drama? I always thought the workload MV provided was way too much for one person, even a type A like Kim who's willing to work 20 hour days.

Now that she has represented Jimmy in the hearing, I'm not sure if Kim can come clean, at this point.  I believe she would be violating attorney-client privilege, which is obviously a huge no no.  

I'm not sure at what point she knew for a fact that Jimmy tampered with the files.  She obviously "knew" when she punched Jimmy when they were sitting in the car, after leaving Chuck's house, but she didn't technically "know" (no confession or evidence).  

I am wondering if it was unethical for Kim to represent Jimmy  given that the case involved MV, as they are her client, and Chuck's allegation was that Jimmy doctored the files to help her win them back.  That seems like a conflict of interest.  

12 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

Don't forget the lasers!

LOL!  This brings up another point.  BCS has gone on WAY too long without giving us Badger or Skinny Pete!   Service your fans, Vince Gilligan! :)

[smorbie]

28 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Saul Goodman is Slippin' Jimmy to me.  Then there is Good Jimmy, the one who decided to go straight after his brother bailed him out of a potential sex offender conviction. Good Jimmy worked in the mail room, struck up a friendship/relationship with Kim Wexler, and went to law school.  Even after being kicked out of HHM, Good Jimmy took good care of his senior clients, his brother, his receptionist, and even his goldfish. But Slippin' Jimmy never really went away, and began to re-emerge once Good Jimmy started his own law practice. Slippin' Jimmy was the one who hired the skateboarders to bamboozle the skateboarders, changed the Mesa Verde documents, and lied to his brother's ex-wife so she would be at his disbarment hearing. The duality of personality is not dissimilar to Smeagol/Gollum.  

I see your point.  I just view it as more of a continuum rather than a duality.  There's Jimmy, a sweet man who loves his brother and Kim and wants to take care of his elderly clients.  And there's Saul who once referred to killing Jesse as putting down Ol Yeller.  And sliding down the continuum is Slippin Jimmy (see what I did there?).  He's shady, but not heartless.

And,  no, Slippin Jimmy didn't go away.  He's just a part of Jimmy that he was trying to ignore, the devil on his shoulder if you will.  But once he let the devil take control, the demon no longer sat on his shoulder, but inhabited his being.

[buttercupia]

I was holding my breath waiting for Badger or Skinny Pete to show up in the music store.

[smorbie]

2 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I know a surgeon who quit his practice completely because of his insurance rates.

I went to grad school with an ER doc who was quitting practice because of the same thing.

[Bryce Lynch]

19 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

 

Good to know

Seems to be different from doctors and lawyers

They aren't asking though if you have any medical problem on the forms I have seen for medical malpractice. And its similar questions you get as well for state licensing, which may be different from malpractice and for us has to be renewed every year, I don't know how often law licenses have to be renewed.  They are asking if you have any medical problems that may impair your ability to do your job.  Its somewhat subjective in that way and arguable what you have to report. 

I do know from a lawyer friend in Arizona at least, I believe it was when applying for a license, there are questions about diagnosed mental illness, or at least in some fashion it is asked about on the form, I forget the details. 

I agree about carrying around files, either paper or electronic.  There is no rule you can't do it.  But if you lose it or they are stolen, at least for medical files, it can, and has in many cases, result in large HIPAA fines.  And its also true electronic is not necessarily any more safe than paper files

If Chuck had all the files on the computer, Jimmy probably could have hacked into the files, done a find and replace on 1261 and 1216 and been done in seconds.  (Would have been a short montage).  How hard could Chuck's password be to guess?  "Rebecca", "fujiapple", "magnacarta1215", "ih8jimmy"?

[Tatum]

7 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Now that she has represented Jimmy in the hearing, I'm not sure if Kim can come clean, at this point.  I believe she would be violating attorney-client privilege, which is obviously a huge no no.  

I'm not sure at what point she knew for a fact that Jimmy tampered with the files.  She obviously "knew" when she punched Jimmy when they were sitting in the car, after leaving Chuck's house, but she didn't technically "know" (no confession or evidence).  

I am wondering if it was unethical for Kim to represent Jimmy  given that the case involved MV, as they are her client, and Chuck's allegation was that Jimmy doctored the files to help her win them back.  That seems like a conflict of interest.  

LOL!  This brings up another point.  BCS has gone on WAY too long without giving us Badger or Skinny Pete!   Service your fans, Vince Gilligan! :)

I think she knew right away. It sounds super farfetched to someone who doesn't know Jimmy and Chuck, but she knows them both. When Chuck was appealing to Kim, and she was like, are you sure you didn't just make a mistake? Because I think you did, and she's stammering while saying it, at that point I think she knew that Chuck was likely correct, but it sounds pretty ridiculous that one person would go to such lengths to undermine someone else, and who hasn't been guilty of a transposition error?

 

Has Jimmy even confessed to Kim that he did it? I can't remember if he has. I think they both know he did, but are just choosing to not talk about it.

I think the best course of action (strictly speaking in terms of MV, not as far as the best general choice for Kim), would have been to tell Paige and that other guy that after listening to the transcript of the tape, she believes Jimmy is guilty, but he has not confessed and still maintains that he only admitted it to Chuck to talk him down off the ledge. She could say that knowing what she knows about both men, she happens to think there's a good chance Jimmy actually did it. She doesn't know, but she strongly believes it, and so she is untangling her practice from Jimmy's and is no longer associating with him. She still runs the risk of MV telling her to pound sand, but she has been honest, and she hasn't violated anything Jimmy told her in confidence. Of course, if Jimmy actually has confessed to her, then that does complicate things, because she can't then be honest without violating attorney client privilege. Poor Kim. Jimmy's way of fixing things always leads to further complications.

6 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

 How hard could Chuck's password be to guess?  "Rebecca", "fujiapple", "magnacarta1215", "ih8jimmy"?

Haha, Chuck would never deign to use text speak.

[RealReality]

40 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

There's no risk to his family.  And there's potentially a big reward for Anita if he gets an answer.  

 There was a risk to Mikes family even when they weren't involved because I doubt the twins were just hanging out watching Kaylee for fun.  

These are people who, if you mess with them and start poking around into the skeletons in their closer have no compunction about coming after your family.  Which they have already shown when they basically threatened Kaylee.

I don't see how anyone could definitively say there is no risk to a person's family when they are poking around in cartel business.  Cartel business they don't want to make public.

And honestly I don't really get the reward.  Like Mike finds out the man was killed by the cartel.  Okay, but Anita already seems to think he is dead and is moving forward.  Is knowing what she already has accepted a huge reward?  Or Mike finds out he wasn't killed by the cartel but no one knows what happened to him.  Then she is in the same boat.  Or this goes all burn notice and Mike has to save this guy from a hostage situation?  Yes, there is some reward in knowing for sure...but not nearly enough on the chance that the cartel can give him answers.

Edited May 24, 2017 by RealReality

[Tatum]

5 minutes ago, RealReality said:

And honestly I don't really get the reward.  Like Mike finds out the man was killed by the cartel.  Okay, but Anita already seems to think he is dead and is moving forward.  Is knowing what she already has accepted a huge reward?  Or Mike finds out he wasn't killed by the cartel but no one knows what happened to him.  Then she is in the same boat.  Or this goes all burn notice and Mike has to save this guy from a hostage situation?  Yes, there is some reward in knowing for sure...but not nearly enough on the chance that the cartel can give him answers.

 

For some reason, Mike seemed really moved by the supposed widow's desperation to know what happened, even if at the end of the day, he's still dead. I have heard that a lot from people who have lost loved ones but never knew what happened. I can understand why Mike is sympathetic, but I was also surprised he was moved enough to get involved himself.

[ShadowFacts]

2 minutes ago, RealReality said:

 There was a risk to Mikes family even when they weren't involved because I doubt the twins were just hanging out watching Kaylee for fun.  

These are people who, if you mess with them and start poking around into the skeletons in their closer have no compunction about coming after your family.  Which they have already shown when they basically threatened Kaylee.

I don't see how anyone could definitively say there is no risk to a person's family when they are poking around in cartel business.  Cartel business they don't want to make public.

I agree, and it's the problem with all of these drug-connected people, their families are always at risk.  Look at Nacho right now, with his father.  As far as Nacho being discreet, I wouldn't count on it.  At their first meeting, Mike laid out what he had found out about Nacho, including that he deals on his own, aside from his work for Hector.  Nacho is just lucky so far that Hector hasn't found out, and Tuco hasn't applied his lie detection skills on him. 

[Tatum]

3 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I agree, and it's the problem with all of these drug-connected people, their families are always at risk.  Look at Nacho right now, with his father.  As far as Nacho being discreet, I wouldn't count on it.  At their first meeting, Mike laid out what he had found out about Nacho, including that he deals on his own, aside from his work for Hector.  Nacho is just lucky so far that Hector hasn't found out, and Tuco hasn't applied his lie detection skills on him. 

I really like Nacho, but he is not long for this world, I don't think. You're right, he is way too blatant with the shit he does.

[PeterPirate]

I still don't know why Jesse changed his mind about becoming Walt's partner (while he was lying in his hospital bed after getting beaten up by Hank).

 

34 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

Don't forget the lasers!

Touche!

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, Tatum said:

I think she knew right away. It sounds super farfetched to someone who doesn't know Jimmy and Chuck, but she knows them both. When Chuck was appealing to Kim, and she was like, are you sure you didn't just make a mistake? Because I think you did, and she's stammering while saying it, at that point I think she knew that Chuck was likely correct, but it sounds pretty ridiculous that one person would go to such lengths to undermine someone else, and who hasn't been guilty of a transposition error?

 

Has Jimmy even confessed to Kim that he did it? I can't remember if he has. I think they both know he did, but are just choosing to not talk about it.

I think the best course of action (strictly speaking in terms of MV, not as far as the best general choice for Kim), would have been to tell Paige and that other guy that after listening to the transcript of the tape, she believes Jimmy is guilty, but he has not confessed and still maintains that he only admitted it to Chuck to talk him down off the ledge. She could say that knowing what she knows about both men, she happens to think there's a good chance Jimmy actually did it. She doesn't know, but she strongly believes it, and so she is untangling her practice from Jimmy's and is no longer associating with him. She still runs the risk of MV telling her to pound sand, but she has been honest, and she hasn't violated anything Jimmy told her in confidence. Of course, if Jimmy actually has confessed to her, then that does complicate things, because she can't then be honest without violating attorney client privilege. Poor Kim. Jimmy's way of fixing things always leads to further complications.

To clarify, it was clear Kim knew, or very strongly suspected Jimmy did it as soon as Chuck made the accusation, based upon what she knows about Jimmy, but she technically had no evidence, which I believe changes what she can an cannot do ethically.  I think if Jimmy had confessed to her, (before hiring her as his lawyer) she probably would have had an ethical obligation to inform MV.

Once she started representing Jimmy, I don't think she could tell them much of anything, and couldn't give an opinion that her client is guilty, regardless of whether he had confessed to her.    

[LotusFlower]

7 minutes ago, RealReality said:

 There was a risk to Mikes family even when they weren't involved because I doubt the twins were just hanging out watching Kaylee for fun.  

These are people who, if you mess with them and start poking around into the skeletons in their closer have no compunction about coming after your family.  Which they have already shown when they basically threatened Kaylee.

I don't see how anyone could definitively say there is no risk to a person's family when they are poking around in cartel business.  Cartel business they don't want to make public.

Don't forget the reward, the payoff.

As for the risk, I think you're imagining a non-existent scenario.  It's not going to get traced back to Mike.  Nacho  is asking around, not Mike.  Ergo = no risk to Mike, let alone his family.

6 minutes ago, Tatum said:

I really like Nacho, but he is not long for this world, I don't think. You're right, he is way too blatant with the shit he does.

Like he's going to reveal that he's trying to help Mike in exchange for Mike's assistance in killing Hector!  And don't forget, Nacho makes it to BB, so he's not going to die any time soon.

[Tatum]

3 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

 

Once she started representing Jimmy, I don't think she could tell them much of anything, and couldn't give an opinion that her client is guilty, regardless of whether he had confessed to her.    

I don't have any legal training, but couldn't she tell MV she believed him guilty of the numbers switch? She represented him on a B&E, not the actual MV incident. Or does being his lawyer on one charge preclude her from offering her opinion on any previous accusations, including one that was never a formal arrest?

[smorbie]

1 hour ago, Tatum said:

Even though I don't dislike Howard, I agree with this. Kim should have been able to escape doc review once she brought in MV, not for her own sake, but for MV's. They wanted her, not a random associate who hadn't invited Howard's ire.

I think Kim is going to deteriorate pretty rapidly. She's stuck in a rock and a hard place- she really should, ethically, come clean about what Jimmy did. But if she does, I think MV is going to have  to fire her. They may believe she is 100% innocent in the fiasco, but as long as she is professionally and personally tied to Jimmy, she's a liability. What happens if someone at MV does Kim wrong? Or one of their clients? Will Jimmy, unbeknownst to Kim, find a way to get involved? That's a risk MV can't take. And if she gets fired, not only is Kim hosed, but MV has to find new legal representation in the midst of a huge expansion project. Coming clean punishes two parties, neither of which did anything wrong.

 

Do you guys get the impression her lack of sleep is due to having more work than she can handle, or the stress of the McGill drama? I always thought the workload MV provided was way too much for one person, even a type A like Kim who's willing to work 20 hour days.

I think it's for the most part the work load.  She may have envisioned bringing Jimmy in to help her some it, but that's gone by the boards.  I do think her guilt is playing on her, too.  But I think it's really just too much work for one person

54 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

I happen to have cancer! 

I did, too.  I'm in remission now on my way to being pronounced cured in a few years.  I pray your course runs as smoothly as mine did.

And thanks for the info about the insurance renewal.  I wasn't really clear on how that worked.  It seemed likely to me that people would just be able to claim no change and not even pay attention to it.

[Tatum]

2 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

And don't forget, Nacho makes it to BB, so he's not going to die any time soon.

Does he? The only thing I've heard is that Saul possibly references him in his first meeting with Walt and Jesse, but that it's not confirmed that's Nacho as Saul called him a different name.

[smorbie]

33 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

"ih8jimmy"

that one for sure.  It consumes him.

LOL, btw

[DrSpaceman73]

I didn't get the impression Mike was going to try and find out what happened to the lady's husband.

I just thought her story about how hard it is to lose someone and just have them disappear moved him to help baseball card guy, he didn't want that to happen to him. 

But I wasn't sure about that, just kind of vague, but he changed his mind about the job after that story

Also was curious about what he was doing with the guy's gas tank, taking off his gas cap like that. 

[LotusFlower]

1 minute ago, Tatum said:

Does he? The only thing I've heard is that Saul possibly references him in his first meeting with Walt and Jesse, but that it's not confirmed that's Nacho as Saul called him a different name.

That's right.  I forgot that he wasn't a BB character, but I think it was confirmed that Saul was referencing him in that first meeting with Walt and Jesse (he called him Ignacio instead of Nacho).

[smorbie]

28 minutes ago, Tatum said:

who hasn't been guilty of a transposition error

Chuck!  Chuck has never transposed a number or misspelled a word.  He's never mistakenly paid too much for an item he could get elsewhere.  He's never hit a clunker on the piano.  He's never burned dinner or gotten a traffic ticket (because that would be breaking the LAW).

In his spare time he heals the sick, potty trains toddlers, and teaches puppies to fetch.

[Bryce Lynch]

23 minutes ago, Tatum said:

Does he? The only thing I've heard is that Saul possibly references him in his first meeting with Walt and Jesse, but that it's not confirmed that's Nacho as Saul called him a different name.

When Walt and Jesse abduct Saul and make him kneel in a hole in the desert, he yells, "It wasn't me it was Ignacio, he's the one!"  He then starts saying in Spanish that he has always been a friend of the cartel.

Nacho is apparently a common nickname for Ignacio and I read that Peter Gould has hinted that Nacho and Ignacio are the same person.

Even if we assume the Ignacio Saul was referring to is Nacho Varga, it does not necessarily mean Nacho makes it to BB.  He could already be dead and Saul could be explaining (truthfully or not) that Nacho did whatever he thinks the cartel has abducted him over.

I wonder if Jimmy is indirectly involved in the pill tampering that we expect to soon paralyze Hector.  Perhaps he refers Huell to Mike and Nacho to do the pill switch, much  as he did with Jesse's ricin cigarette and planting the phone battery on Chuck.  

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[ShadowFacts]

5 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Also was curious about what he was doing with the guy's gas tank, taking off his gas cap like that. 

He was probably trying to determine if Gus had a tracking device on the vehicle, which I think was Nacho's.

5 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

That's right.  I forgot that he wasn't a BB character, but I think it was confirmed that Saul was referencing him in that first meeting with Walt and Jesse (he called him Ignacio instead of Nacho).

Was that confirmed inside the show, or in some other medium?  Ignacio is a common enough name.

[Cthulhudrew]

On 5/23/2017 at 5:21 AM, 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. 

It wouldn't surprise me if the reason he gave Nacho the advice is because of Nacho's confession that he's turning on Hector in order to protect an innocent that would be caught in the crossfire of his own choice of lifestyle (his father). As we've seen in BCS (I can't recall if he ever demonstrated it during BB), Mike has a very strong regard for keeping collateral damage to a minimum. Mike had already agreed to the meeting because he was getting something out of it (whatever info Nacho is providing), so I agree with Shadowfacts that the advice had to come from a place other than just being transactional.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Cthulhudrew

[Bannon]

2 hours ago, RealReality said:

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?"

Nearly all malpractice policies contain a provision that requires the insured to immediately report to the insurance company anything which a reasonable person would see as substantually increasing the likelihood of a claim. Yes, this is vague, but I think an attorney suing his insurer for not fulfilling an insurance contract would have a tough time arguing, "Well, no reasonable person would think that doing legal work, including the storage of cient's critical documents, in a home that is not legal for people to occupy, due to fire and toxic gas hazard, as result of light being 100% provided by something other than electricity, by a awyer who with some frequency becomes suddenly incapacitated, due to his belief  that electricity attacks him, while the lawyer's firm and partner know of these facts, is something that might substantially increase the likelihood of a claim".

The fact that anybody can have their house broken into is irrelevant. 

4 hours ago, smorbie said:

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.

Yep, this is the heart of the story.

[Hanahope]

I loved how Jimmy chose his words carefully to the insurance lady about Chuck.  He only mentioned evidence and testimony that was specifically used at the hearing, stuff that would be stated in the transcripts.  Thus, the insurance company can tell Chuck/HHM, that they learned the information about Chuck from the hearing transcripts, and HHM/Chuck may presume that the insurance company received/read the transcripts because of Jimmy's suspension, and any adverse action taken by the insurance company is not based on extra information only received from Jimmy.

Legal malpractice insurers want to know about any circumstance that could lead to a claim.  This could be the conditions where the work is being done (i.e. a fire hazard) or the mental faculties of the attorney doing the work.  Either way, Chuck could be in trouble and kicked off the policy, which could keep him from practicing law.  The insurer may require that HHM not allow chuck to be working at an attorney on their files if the firm wants to keep their insurance.

I think Mike is trying to locate the woman's husband.  He may be asking Nacho to subtley ask around a hiker seeing something, getting killed in the mountains.  I presume that if he does get that info, and maybe a location, he can give an anonymous tip to the policy to locate the bones.  I really don't think Mike is worried about Playah getting hurt, or he would have helped him out with Nacho immediately.

[RealReality]

1 hour ago, LotusFlower said:

Don't forget the reward, the payoff.

As for the risk, I think you're imagining a non-existent scenario.  It's not going to get traced back to Mike.  Nacho  is asking around, not Mike.  Ergo = no risk to Mike, let alone his family.

Like he's going to reveal that he's trying to help Mike in exchange for Mike's assistance in killing Hector!  And don't forget, Nacho makes it to BB, so he's not going to die any time soon.

But whats the reward?  What is the payoff?

 Either: a) Mike finds out Anita's husband was killed by the cartel.  In which case, maybe he can tell her or maybe he can't to keep her safe.  And then what, she knows for sure what she is already in the process of accepting (giving away his clothes, keeping his uniform).  Anita isn't really in the denial phase of grief, she is starting to move forward already.  or b) Mike finds out nothing about his death, in which case, he put himself and his family at risk for nothing and Anita is in the same boat, or c) there is some crazy burn notice scheme going on and Mike has to rescue Anita's husband from the cartel, which is equally ridiculous.

Like really, Mike finds out her husband was killed by the cartel, and then what?  What is the payoff.  He can tell Anita he knows her husband is dead, but not how he knows, or really who did it.  And Anita has to deal with the pain she is already dealing with.  Mike gives her answers, but only half the answers?  How is that a good look? 

As for the risk, its very likely traced back to Mike, because who is the one person who knows Nacho and has some connection to the dead guy Nacho is poking around about?  Mike.

Yeah, I'm going to say that while evil, the cartel members aren't stupid, and are paranoid, so are they just gonna be like "hey, Nacho is asking about this random dude we killed, but I bet he is just curious and it has nothing to do with anyone else we should be on the lookout for"  To me, the answer is no.  I mean these are guys that live in the world of paranoia, are they really just going to accept Nacho poking around on its face, or are they going to try to figure out why he is asking them about a guy they killed years ago that probably has nothing to do with his business?

I'm not sure how the writers would deal with it, but creating cartel members smart enough to put a tracking device in a gas cap but dumb enough to let some guy poke around into an unsolved murder doesn't make much sense to me.

Edited May 24, 2017 by RealReality

[Atlanta]

Ah, Skinny Pete and Badger in the background at the music store would have been golden and make total sense. 

Like others here, I don't think Jimmy went to the insurance agency to mess with Chuck. It was merely an opportunity that presented itself after he snapped due to the premium increase. 

I'm reading "Wolf Boys" by Dan Slater. It's about teens who become cartel assassins. Interesting read since "Saul" is in season right now.

Hee! Laser pointers!!

[ShadowFacts]

1 minute ago, RealReality said:

Yeah, I'm going to say that while evil, the cartel members aren't stupid, and have shown themselves to be paranoid, so are they just gonna be like "hey, Nacho is asking about this random dude we killed, but I bet its just for him and has nothing to do with anyone else we should be on the lookout for"  To me, the answer is no.

Right, and not only that, asking too many questions of any kind, out of the blue, about something that happened years ago, would be an unwise move for anyone in a criminal enterprise.  Sounds/smells too much like he's an informant.  If this is the direction they're going with this story, I won't buy it.  Nacho is already skating on thin ice meeting with Mike repeatedly, and dealing on the side.  I think if Mike wants anything about missing persons from Nacho, it should be about someone Nacho has personal knowledge of, in order to make sense to me.

[Bannon]

2 hours ago, GussieK said:

I feel I must weigh in here.  Some of the speculation about the malpractice insurance and other issues doesn't feel right to me.

I'm a solo practitioner attorney in New York.  I just pulled up one of my annual recertifications for malpractice insurance just to double check.  They don't ask you to report on your mental or physical condition or  drug abuse.  They only ask if you have been subject to disciplinary or criminal action in the past year or if you know of any omissions or acts in your practice that might subject you to a malpractice claim.  You're supposed to self report as these things happen.

It's the latter to which I think Chuck is vulnerable.  The malpractice insurer was not apprised of the number-switching incident, which might have resulted in a malpractice claim from Mesa Verde.   I think that's what the insurance lady was jotting down.

The insurer can't report you or or get you disbarred or discontinue your malpractice insurance for being ill.  You have to do something that results in a claim.  There isn't a preemptive strike for the mentally ill.  That would be disability discrimination.  I happen to have cancer!  I don't report that to them or my clients or to the New York State court system (which licenses and disciplines attorneys).

Also, I've found the speculation about whether you can take documents home or store them in an unlighted house to be a bit over the top in risk assessment.   I carry documents around on the NYC subway all the time.  So do other attorneys.  How else would we get to court?

If there is something different in other states, I'd be curious to hear about it.

Transporting documents as necessary is not the same thing as deliberately storing them in a building, for an extended period, which would have been deemed unfit for human occupancy, due to fire hazard, if not for the corrupt influence of Howard/HHM on Albuquerque's building code enforcement. This would be an act in your practice that you would be contractually obligated to report to the insurer, and as you note, the contractual obligation is to self report as these things happen.

The medical condition stuff is interesting. Certainly, knowing that your partner has suddenly been exhibiting, for hypotehtical example, psychotic behavior, which leads him to think that his clients are secret agents who want to be convicted of crimes,, so they can live undercover in prison, is something your insurance company would state it has a right to be informed of, prior to your partner endeavoring to get a client convicted. Where this would go, I don't know I wonder if it has been litigated.

[RealReality]

18 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Nearly all malpractice policies contain a provision that requires the insured to immediately report to the insurance company anything which a reasonable person would see as substantually increasing the likelihood of a claim. Yes, this is vague, but I think an attorney suing his insurer for not fulfilling an insurance contract would have a tough time arguing, "Well, no reasonable person would think that doing legal work, including the storage of cient's critical documents, in a home that is not legal for people to occupy, due to fire and toxic gas hazard, as result of light being 100% provided by something other than electricity, by a awyer who with some frequency becomes suddenly incapacitated, due to his belief  that electricity attacks him, while the lawyer's firm and partner know of these facts, is something that might substantially increase the likelihood of a claim".

The fact that anybody can have their house broken into is irrelevant. 

Yep, this is the heart of the story.

That is very vague, and I believe the onus would be on the insurer to prove why they are denying the claim.  I'm also surprised that an insurance contract would have something so very vague in it and open to multiple interpretations.  I would argue that a reasonable person would expect that certain precautions be taken with their documents.  That would include locking them up in a house at night.  As for the mental/physical issues, we have never seen these keep Chuck from providing competent counsel.  He WAS right about the documents, he didn't transpose the numbers.  He is able to practice at home and do so competently, as far as I could tell.

The fact that anyone can have their house broken into is relevant because it goes to what you would expect of a reasonable person to prevent a clients documents from being taken.  How much more of a precaution does an attorney have to take to keep their house from being broken into or from a fire happening?  Jimmy's nail salon situation may have been a fire hazard as well.  I thought Chuck had the gas turned off, but cooked over a butane stove -- if thats the case I'm not sure I would see it as a toxic gas situation.  While Chucks situation was far from ideal, I don't think it was something where an insurer would automatically boot him from a malpractice policy.

[PeterPirate]

9 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

Ah, Skinny Pete and Badger in the background at the music store would have been golden and make total sense. 

Like others here, I don't think Jimmy went to the insurance agency to mess with Chuck. It was merely an opportunity that presented itself after he snapped due to the premium increase. 

I'm reading "Wolf Boys" by Dan Slater. It's about teens who become cartel assassins. Interesting read since "Saul" is in season right now.

Hee! Laser pointers!!

There's been speculation that we will see Skinny Pete with Tuco in prison. That would be awesome.  

[Hanahope]

I don't think Jimmy intended to stiff the food delivery guy, he just ran out of money.  Jimmy is clearly living off his D&M bonus.  He's not getting back the money he spent on the commercials, he can't find people interested in making more than one commercial, and even most of those are at a discount.  I don't really understand why someone would agree to do a commercial, then balk when Jimmy gets there.  And all of the places that Jimmy filmed/tried to film seemed to have no customers at all,  How do they make a living?  Jimmy would be better off trying to find places that already have some traffic, but just want a little more.

Seriously, the first thing Jimmy needs to do is spend $1,000 to get a better used car.

I think Kim is uncomfortable about the MV bit because Paige was making fun of Chuck, his word use, when Kim knows that's exactly what Chuck is like and that Chuck was actually right about what Jimmy did.  Kim would rather put it all behind her, but Paige's wanting to go over it all amped up the stress on Kim, and also now Paige is questioning everything, making Kim guess herself, causing even more stress.

While Kim isn't 100% opposed to doing a con on people, she probably is completely scared for Jimmy to do so now, since if he get's caught, his PPD goes away and he'll do prison time.  

[Bannon]

6 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

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.  

The only comparison was as way of providing an example of how people with track records of brilliance can slip very, very, far in their performance, without it being plainly recognized. Since, as you note, the Penn State situation was extraordinarily more horrific (as I noted) the example strengthens the argument.

[LotusFlower]

9 minutes ago, RealReality said:

Like really, Mike finds out her husband was killed by the cartel, and then what?  What is the payoff.  He can tell Anita he knows her husband is dead, but not how he knows, or really who did it.  And Anita has to deal with the pain she is already dealing with.  

I think you're missing the relief or closure that comes with finding out what happened.  That was the whole point of what Anita conveyed to Mike when she talked to him privately and told him her story.  And Mike could relate, because he's haunted by the good samaritan's family not knowing how he died.

19 minutes ago, RealReality said:

As for the risk, its very likely traced back to Mike, because who is the one person who knows Nacho and has some connection to the dead guy?  Mike.

Nacho isn't going to give him up; therefore Mike's not even in the picture.

[Hanahope]

8 minutes ago, RealReality said:

 As for the mental/physical issues, we have never seen these keep Chuck from providing competent counsel.  He WAS right about the documents, he didn't transpose the numbers.  He is able to practice at home and do so competently, as far as I could tell.

The point is, even if Chuck "knew" the numbers were transposed, MV could still make a claim against HHM because of the hearing, Chuck's actions, and the possibility that Chuck did make a mistake.  The possibility of a claim is what concerns the malpractice insurer.  Even if HHM can prove they didn't make a mistke, a lawsuit still could have been filed and still triggered the insurance coverage/defense.  Chuck's mental condition could adversely affect another case, another client.  All the insurance company care's about is preventing claims.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Hanahope