Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Celebrating 1,000 NCIS-franchise episodes
The Forum Doesn't Have A Moderator Listed - What Now?

S07.E05: Brooklyn Housing

Princess Sparkle

By Princess Sparkle
in Suits [V]

Recommended Posts

PumpkinPK

PumpkinPK

Ick.  Now in addition to her smug, "I'm Donna," we also have to endure "I'm not your secretary" and "I'm COO."

She's such an overbearing know-it-all.  I have come to dislike that character more than any other on this dumb show (except Mike of course).

While I am picking on her anyway, she really needs a new hairstyle.  It's remained the same for the entire duration of the series.  

Nice to see Louis do something well without them writing in the obligatory screw-up they usually do.

Was the new attorney just absent this episode?

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Ashand11

Ashand11

(edited)

Also, who the hell does Donna think she is? Why does she think it's her right to confront the named partners about why they were meeting. It could have been for any number of business related purposes that they were speaking. None of which are any of her business unless Harvey wants her to know. 

 

Also, why the heck does Donna get a say in who the firm hires?

Edited by Ashand11
  • Love 6
Link to comment
ItCouldBeWorse

ItCouldBeWorse

1 hour ago, Ashand11 said:

So Mike thinks meeting with these potential clients isnt going to get out? Why wouldnt Oliver go by himself? Mike isnt very discreet.  How would this not get out?

And Mike's "friend" from prison will certainly never say anything about his involvement...

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Rascotes

Rascotes

6 hours ago, Ashand11 said:

Also, who the hell does Donna think she is? Why does she think it's her right to confront the named partners about why they were meeting. It could have been for any number of business related purposes that they were speaking. None of which are any of her business unless Harvey wants her to know. 

 

Also, why the heck does Donna get a say in who the firm hires?

The show is clearly struggling to find something more for Donna to do and they will bend or break believability in order to make that happen.  The issue is that as much as they built up the "OMG Donna is amazing" persona the character itself is entirely undeveloped and one dimensional.  There simply isn't enough depth there to make her interesting outside of being a support character to the more significant plots.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
ItCouldBeWorse

ItCouldBeWorse

(edited)

I actually thought that Harvey's psychiatrist girlfriend didn't want to work with Louis because Harvey has told her in depth about all of Louis' shenanigans in the course of his therapy.  It's hard to believe that a lawyer is the best when you've repeatedly heard how mercurial and childish he is.

Edited by ItCouldBeWorse
Link to comment
Broderbits

Broderbits

This has got to be the most unprofessional law firm in the history of the world! Every single day someone comes close to breaking privilege, Donna runs the place however she sees fit because they let her, and the named partners are always in a panic about losing clients.

And what was with that guy from the law clinic acting like Mike was his own personal servant. Isn't he a lawyer? If he can't do the job, then he needs to find another line of work.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
ItCouldBeWorse

ItCouldBeWorse

(edited)
1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

And what was with that guy from the law clinic acting like Mike was his own personal servant. Isn't he a lawyer? If he can't do the job, then he needs to find another line of work.

I like how Nathan, the head of the clinic, sees no way that Mike's malfeasance can affect the clinic (doubt that's true) so after being lied to many, many times by Mike, he's happy to just sit back and wait for him to implode.

I repeat my earlier comment that I cannot understand why Mike didn't ask Robert Zane to take on the class action prison case as a favor to him.  If the case is as good as Mike thinks it is, Zane's firm would make a huge amount of money. Maybe Rachel will suggest it?  Mike has still broken the agreement and the promise he made to Harvey, Alex, etc.  Clearly, no one trusts anyone's word anymore because Louis had to repeatedly promise Donna that he wasn't mad at Harvey, and didn't she demand a guarantee from Harvey that he wasn't mad at someone?  I can't even remember who.

Mike is approaching sociopath territory if defined as follows:

1) Repeated violations of the law

2) Pervasive lying and deception

3) Physical aggressiveness

4) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others

5) Consistent irresponsibility in work and family environments

6) Lack of remorse

He believes that his view of the greater good justifies all of the above except, perhaps, #3, and that may not be far off.

Edited by ItCouldBeWorse
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Broderbits

Broderbits

1 hour ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Mike is approaching sociopath territory if defined as follows:

1) Repeated violations of the law

2) Pervasive lying and deception

3) Physical aggressiveness

4) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others

5) Consistent irresponsibility in work and family environments

6) Lack of remorse

He believes that his view of the greater good justifies all of the above except, perhaps, #3, and that may not be far off.

That's pretty much the way the entire firm operates. That consultant doesn't know how lucky she is to escape being a full-time employee.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Ashand11

Ashand11

4 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

I like how Nathan, the head of the clinic, sees no way that Mike's malfeasance can affect the clinic (doubt that's true) so after being lied to many, many times by Mike, he's happy to just sit back and wait for him to implode.

I repeat my earlier comment that I cannot understand why Mike didn't ask Robert Zane to take on the class action prison case as a favor to him.  If the case is as good as Mike thinks it is, Zane's firm would make a huge amount of money. Maybe Rachel will suggest it?  Mike has still broken the agreement and the promise he made to Harvey, Alex, etc.  Clearly, no one trusts anyone's word anymore because Louis had to repeatedly promise Donna that he wasn't mad at Harvey, and didn't she demand a guarantee from Harvey that he wasn't mad at someone?  I can't even remember who.

Mike is approaching sociopath territory if defined as follows:

1) Repeated violations of the law

2) Pervasive lying and deception

3) Physical aggressiveness

4) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others

5) Consistent irresponsibility in work and family environments

6) Lack of remorse

He believes that his view of the greater good justifies all of the above except, perhaps, #3, and that may not be far off.

I thought the same thing about Zane.  Why wouldnt he at the least ask Rachel to ask her father to help.  Seems like a huge case

  • Love 2
Link to comment
bros402

bros402

I think all of us have thought or said that Mike should've referred it to Zaine - they are having a thin quarter, after all!

Also, we had someone who writes Louis well!

Or I have such stockholm syndrome from crappy Louis that he seemed good this episode.

12 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

I like how Nathan, the head of the clinic, sees no way that Mike's malfeasance can affect the clinic (doubt that's true) so after being lied to many, many times by Mike, he's happy to just sit back and wait for him to implode.

I repeat my earlier comment that I cannot understand why Mike didn't ask Robert Zane to take on the class action prison case as a favor to him.  If the case is as good as Mike thinks it is, Zane's firm would make a huge amount of money. Maybe Rachel will suggest it?  Mike has still broken the agreement and the promise he made to Harvey, Alex, etc.  Clearly, no one trusts anyone's word anymore because Louis had to repeatedly promise Donna that he wasn't mad at Harvey, and didn't she demand a guarantee from Harvey that he wasn't mad at someone?  I can't even remember who.

Mike is approaching sociopath territory if defined as follows:

1) Repeated violations of the law

2) Pervasive lying and deception

3) Physical aggressiveness

4) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others

5) Consistent irresponsibility in work and family environments

6) Lack of remorse

He believes that his view of the greater good justifies all of the above except, perhaps, #3, and that may not be far off.

He fits 1, 2, 5, and arguably 4 & 6.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Jediknight

Jediknight

19 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

I actually thought that Harvey's psychiatrist girlfriend didn't want to work with Louis because Harvey has told her in depth about all of Louis' shenanigans in the course of his therapy.  It's hard to believe that a lawyer is the best when you've repeatedly heard how mercurial and childish he is.

He has told her all the childish things that Louis has done, but he's never talked shit on Louis's ability as a lawyer.  He probably would have praised Louis's ability during the sessions when she asked why he works with Louis.  Louis can be childish, but when it comes to a case, Louis is like a cougar on wounded running prey.

Mike is going to sink this case, and then play the victim.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Happywatcher

Happywatcher

I wanted to post this in the last epi, but just watched this one.

I don;t know NY bar rules, but in my state agreements not to represent a client are unethical. It came up because firms were forcing associates to sign noncompetes. They haven't busted anyone yet because they just decided it a few years ago

  • Love 1
Link to comment
ItCouldBeWorse

ItCouldBeWorse

4 minutes ago, Happywatcher said:

I don;t know NY bar rules, but in my state agreements not to represent a client are unethical. It came up because firms were forcing associates to sign noncompetes. They haven't busted anyone yet because they just decided it a few years ago

But can't a firm insist that its presently employed associates not represent a new client whose interests run counter to a current client?  There's no need to ask them to sign a form; it just makes sense and is probably the only ethical thing to do unless you are dumping the older client (and have gained no inside information that would unfairly help the new client.)

Link to comment
Happywatcher

Happywatcher

5 minutes ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

But can't a firm insist that its presently employed associates not represent a new client whose interests run counter to a current client?  There's no need to ask them to sign a form; it just makes sense and is probably the only ethical thing to do unless you are dumping the older client (and have gained no inside information that would unfairly help the new client.)

Yes, the current firm can say there is a conflict. They can also just decline the client for economic reasons, in which case Mike would have to refer them out or leave the firm. They, and Mike, can't sign an agreement not to take a client or class of clients, at least in my state.

When you come to me with a drunk driver accident and the insurance company is jacking you around, we made a decision not to take those types of clients so you would get referred out (or I could leave the firm). I can't sign an agreement not to take that sort of case.

Pro bono through legal services can be a trap, so that is realistic. I was helping give advice at a clinic and they put me in a room with someone who had a malpractice claim against an attorney I worked with quite a bit, even though I told them I wouldn't do anything like that. I told the potential client I don't specialize in that area of law and a mistake had been made. The employees smirked when I told them about the mistake, that was the last time I helped them.

Link to comment
bros402

bros402

19 hours ago, CaptainCranky said:

I quit watching this show 5 minutes into the second episode of the season and to see from the comments I made a very wise choice.

Like White Collar and Burn Notice, this show ran out of rational story lines.

At least White Collar and Burn Notice were still fun. White Collar still had a bit of pep in its step .

Link to comment
Crs97

Crs97

What did Nathan say?  Something about how this time Mike is betraying Harvey and not him?  As I recall, Mike got Nathan a half million dollars and promised to take on some of their cases for free when he left.  Someone should feel free to betray me in that way; I won't mind.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Ashand11

Ashand11

I don't understand why it's even a problem for mike to work on the case in the first place. Their client  only made the prisons that are being sued. How does that affect their client in any way. Are they supposed to not sue any building this company has built?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
bros402

bros402

5 hours ago, Ashand11 said:

I don't understand why it's even a problem for mike to work on the case in the first place. Their client  only made the prisons that are being sued. How does that affect their client in any way. Are they supposed to not sue any building this company has built?

The prison company pressured the builder to pressure PSL

Link to comment
statsgirl

statsgirl

On 2017-08-10 at 2:46 AM, Ashand11 said:

Also, why the heck does Donna get a say in who the firm hires?

She's the COO.  She doesn't get a say in what lawyers they hire, although possibly in how many they hire, but non-lawyers fall under her jurisdiction.

On 2017-08-10 at 1:35 PM, ItCouldBeWorse said:

I repeat my earlier comment that I cannot understand why Mike didn't ask Robert Zane to take on the class action prison case as a favor to him.  If the case is as good as Mike thinks it is, Zane's firm would make a huge amount of money. Maybe Rachel will suggest it?  Mike has still broken the agreement and the promise he made to Harvey, Alex, etc.  Clearly, no one trusts anyone's word anymore because Louis had to repeatedly promise Donna that he wasn't mad at Harvey, and didn't she demand a guarantee from Harvey that he wasn't mad at someone?  I can't even remember who.

Mike is approaching sociopath territory if defined as follows:

1) Repeated violations of the law

2) Pervasive lying and deception

3) Physical aggressiveness

4) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others

5) Consistent irresponsibility in work and family environments

6) Lack of remorse

The line between sociopath and not is about remorse and justification.  I think that #2, 4 and 6 would indicate psychopathy.

Zane's firm taking the case would settle everything nicely.  I wonder why they're not doing it --maybe something about Alex to be discovered?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Cthulhudrew

Cthulhudrew

What is with this show and having its characters just hanging out in the lobby waiting for a confrontation? Can't the writers come up with more reasonable locations for these scenes to take place? Find another set to do them in?

"Harvey Spector? I tried to set an appointment with your secretary, but apparently you don't have one, so they just told me to wait here in the lobby until you came down the elevator. I'm lucky I got here when I did, because there's a line starting..."

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...