Real Lawyer Reacts to Damages (Episode 1)

Real Lawyer Reacts to Damages (Episode 1)

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments

– [Host] This episode of Legal Eagle was made possible by Skillshare. Learn to think like a lawyer
for free for two months by clicking on the link
in the description. (soft bar piano playing) – You know what this means. They’re gonna keep coming after her, personally, legally, in
whatever way they can. – Take it to the judge! There will be sanctions! (light, jaunty music) Hey, Legal Eagles, it’s
time to think like a lawyer. Today, we are covering
an oldie but a goodie, Damages episode one, starring
Glenn Close and Rose Byrne. I’ve never seen an episode of Damages, but I’ve heard a lot about it. So I’m really looking forward to this. As always, be sure to comment
in the form of an objection, which I will either sustain or overrule, and let me know what movie
or TV show I should do next. And, of course, stick around until the end of the video where I give this episode of Damages a grade for legal realism. So, without further ado, let’s
dig into Damages episode one. (jackhammer pounding in distance) (car horns honking) (taxi honks)
(tires screech) (dramatic music) Eh, you should really shower up after you murdered someone. The blood is a dead giveaway. – Ellen, I think you’ll find
our offer more than fair for someone just out of law school. We’d like to bring you in
as the junior associate. Five years guaranteed, – Okay.
– with a start salary of… – Holy (bleep). (laughs) – So it is very common
to get job offers right out of law school. That is one of the primary
functions of law school is to connect aspiring lawyers with big firms who will
make offers like these. A couple things to note here. Number one, nobody gets
a five-year guarantee out of law school. There’s just no way to know who’s going to be a good lawyer and who’s not, so there’s really never such a thing as a guaranteed employment
contract with a big law firm. But that kind of reaction
to the salary offer is somewhat realistic because
New York really sets the bar when it comes to associate salary. Right now, in New York at a big firm, you can make anywhere
between 160 and $190,000 per year straight out of law school (cash register chimes)
if you go to one of the biggest firms. I don’t know if this is
one of those big firms. It looks very ornate. But there are some monster salaries that are being offered to
students right out of law school. – Ms. Hughes, the verdict’s coming in. – It’s your last chance
to get off cheap, 150. – 50, Patty, tops. – Reggie Dwayne Thomas. – Who the hell’s that? – A second grader and a Mets fan. You know him as patient 61. As his immune system is being decimated, Reggie asked me for two things. – 75, Patty. – That his team make the playoffs and that someone punish the
company that made him sick. – All right, (bleep) 150. That’s it, we’re done. – Ah, the good old
courthouse steps negotiation. While this is clearly a dramatization, there are some kernels of truth here because, contrary to popular belief, very few cases actually go to trial. And those that do go to trial, very few of them actually
end up going to verdict because parties are risk averse. And while tens of millions of dollars might seem like a huge
amount, and it is, obviously, to a large corporation, the
downside could be even worse. For example, a good friend
of mine just litigated a case against Monsanto and won $300 million. So if you’re up against a 300 million or a billion-dollar verdict
that could bankrupt the company, it’s better to just take your lumps, get the certainty of not
having hundreds of millions of dollars against you by
the jury, and just move on, which I think is what’s happening here. – I am here because of Arthur Frobisher. 5,000 of his employees
lost their life savings as a result of his actions. – Alleged actions. He was found not guilty
at a criminal trial. – As is often the case,
there are different burdens of proof depending on
what court you’re in. If you have a criminal prosecution, then you have the highest
burden in all of law, which is you must prove your case as the state beyond a reasonable doubt. The members of the jury cannot have a single reasonable
doubt in order to convict. However, what often happens is that, even if you are acquitted
in a criminal court, you can be brought to
trial in a civil court where the burden of proof is much lower. You can get damages. – Oh boy, I usually only get this excited when they say the title
of a movie in the movie. – Even if a defendant is
acquitted in criminal court, then you can still sue that person for civil damages, IE money
damages, in civil court where the burden of proof
is much, much lower. You just have to show a
preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if you
had both sides on a scale, which side is just slightly
more persuasive than the other? So I think what’s going to happen here is that there will be a civil
lawsuit against Mr. Frobisher for civil damages, money damages, where he might have to discourage some of the profits that he
made or pay civil damages to his employees if he
did something wrong. So I guess we’ll see. – I need you to understand this. We are engaging in a battle with a man who will stop at nothing
to preserve his fortune. High stakes litigation is
a long and painful process. – That is true.
– Frobisher will destroy us in the press, he will
attack us personally, he will try to turn our lives upside down so that we’ll want to settle. Meanwhile, his attorneys will spin him as the good guy, the
aggrieved innocent victim. So we have to be patient,
and we have to stay strong. But most of all, we have
to all stick together. If we do that, we’ll win. – There is some truth to that. Litigation can take literally years. I’ve been on cases that took
five years to get to trial and took another few years
to deal with the appeals. Litigation takes a long
time, it takes a huge amount of resources, and it’s one of the reasons that people settle all the time, is because it’s so resource intensive that it can take years
before you get compensation when you’re clearly an aggrieved party. It’s a real problem. – Ellen, Uncle Pete. Uncle Pete’s been with
Patty longer than any of us. He’s really the one who
runs everything around here. – [Pete] Good to meet you. – Nice to meet you. It’s, uh, it’s dry cleaning. We’ve been working on
the Frobisher case 24/7. Some of our associates haven’t
been able to go home yet. – That’s true. Big firms actually do
offer dry cleaning services to keep their associates
in the office longer. (door creaks open)
(dance music in background) (door creaks shut) – Well, if it isn’t the maid of honor. – What? (laughs) This is totally insane to suggest that a partner in a major firm is going to come down to someone’s wedding to interview them because
they rejected them for a job interview. They’re gonna get hundreds
of rejections a year. That’s just the way
that these things work. There’s no such thing as this firm that everybody has to work
for right out of law school or while you’re in law school. This is this trope that exists in TV that just doesn’t exist in reality. There are hundreds of
great firms out there. There are even lots of
firms that parallel a sort of Gloria Allred thing
that’s going on over here. There’s no reason why
any one in particular would need to work for
one particular attorney. It doesn’t work that way. (Blondie’s “Heart of Glass” playing) – Ms. Hewes. Is there any way I could still interview? – I think it would be
a waste of time, Ellen. You’re hired. (scoffs) – From 1:00 PM to three,
he lunches with a few of his Fortune 500 pals,
lobster bisque, Kobe beef. – But his broker is nowhere to be found. From 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM, Frobisher’s at the spa getting a full body treatment. – For three hours? What was he getting waxed? (zipper unzips) – 6:00 PM, Frobisher flies home in his private jet, arrives at
Teterboro Airport at 9:00 PM. He’s home safe and sound by 10. – So somehow Frobisher and
his broker communicated down in Florida, but no
one saw them together. – So this seems like the kind of issue that would be determined in discovery. You would get access to all of his emails, his phone records. So if there is any communication going on, they would probably have that information. They wouldn’t need to do any kind of private investigation
work to track it down, which is dramatic for TV
but is not the kind of thing that actually happens very
much in actual litigation. I guess we’ll see. – Good news, I was able
to push this through. (pleasant piano playing) – (gasps) My liquor license! Ah, excellent, thank you. – Oh God, don’t even get me started about liquor licenses
in New York, it’s crazy. – But Larry, Patty Hewes. She’s not the answer. I mean, she’s an egomaniac
and she’s gonna lose. You know why? – No, sir. – Because I didn’t do it. I’m-I’m a very rich man. I make no apologies for that. But I’m also an innocent
man, and I want to come to some reasonable solution to this. – If Mr. Frobisher was an attorney here, this whole meeting would be
completely inappropriate. If you know that someone
is represented by counsel, as another attorney you cannot reach out to the party directly, you
have to go through counsel. But there is no rule that
prohibits two clients themselves from talking things out, even when there’s litigation pending. That being said, it’s a
really, really bad idea because the lawyers are there
to act as intermediaries, and they are there to hash
things out dispassionately, whereas when you get the clients
together talking things out it never goes right. And I’m guessing that things
are not gonna go right in this episode either. – I think that you and I
together could end this. And we’ll, and we’ll be discreet,
and we’ll take care of you when this is all settled, but– (groans)
all I’m asking for – Not good. – is a number that you think is fair. – Yeah, that’s one of the reasons you don’t have clients meet
individually amongst each other, especially here where this guy seems to be representing a class
or a whole group of people who have been wronged by this company. You can’t conspire with a defendant and then screw over all the other members of the class for your own personal gain. This is exactly why you
want lawyers in the room, to prevent any kind of shenanigans, because lawyers know
they can get disbarred for this kind of nonsense. – Frobisher’s net worth is upwards of two and a half billion dollars. (crowd groans) Now 100 million sounds like
a lot of money, and it is. But it’s less than 5% of
what this man is worth. (chuckles softly) I think we have a strong case. – It doesn’t matter how
much the defendant is worth. It matters how much you’re going to get as a result of the litigation. I don’t know the specifics of this case, but Glenn Close here may
be doing a big disservice to all of those class members
because when you’re thinking about a potential recovery,
there are a couple of things you need to take into account, not just the top line number. Number one, no recovery is certain. Let’s say that there is a 10% chance that you’re going to win
everything that you think you do. Well, if you think you’re entitled to a billion dollars,
then a 10% chance means that’s worth about $100 million. On top of that, there’s
the time value of money. Say you get a full recovery,
but it takes you five to 10 years to get that. Well, a lot of people would rather have a smaller amount right now. That’s the net present
value of the recovery. And then on top of that, there
are all the attorney’s fees and court costs that it’s going to take to litigate this thing to the end. So those are some of the reasons why you might take a
smaller amount up front with the certainty of getting it than to have to deal
with years of litigation and potentially never
being able to recover if the defendant is judgment
proof and goes bankrupt. So you gotta take those
things into consideration. – I’d like to take it to a jury and let them decide what Mr.
Arthur Frobisher owes you. – Yeah, I’ll bet you would, but that might not be in their interest. (crowd laughs) – Look at her. Normally she turns this shit down. She hates awards. – Then why is she here? – For the PR. – [Patty] The legal system
has just become another tool– – Both cases, you get
your clients 100 million, you’re a hero. But if Frobisher gets off that easy, the whole legal world
will know she tanked it. – That is not true at all. – Tom here is a vegan. – Only for health reasons. – Health reasons,
(laughs) right. (chuckles) – That’s weird. – I read an interview once
with a Nobel Prize winner, a physicist genius, married six times. He said, “Don’t have kids. “Ruins your ambition, keeps you from “what you want in life.” He said to have wives instead. You can leave wives. You can’t leave your own kids. – What is she signing? (laughs) Why does she need to sign 100
different pieces of paper? (laughs) – You know what I like about you? – No. – There’s always something going on. – What’s redeemable about her character? How would you know that? She’s done nothing! – And you don’t fall for (bleep). – Okay, I guess. (slow, dramatic music) She seems like a blank slate
that everyone just projects what they want onto her. – Patty Hewes has a new associate. – So what? I thought they voted to
accept the settlement. – Eh, I haven’t gotten the call yet. And I’m worried. – The new associate’s been
talking to Katie Connor. – [Frobisher] Who? – Our chef. – Ray, whatever it takes, fix this. (slow, dramatic music) – Uh oh, witness tampering. Don’t witness tamper! – Saffron?
(eerie music) – David, if I don’t
tell Patty about Katie, the clients lose the case. – I’m not sure that you
could be totally objective about this, Ellen. – What is that supposed to mean? – That you’ll score points with Patty. – I would never do anything to hurt Katie. (head thuds against floor)
(intensifying dramatic music) – Then just keep her out of this! (laughs)
(Katie groans in pain) – (chuckles) What? Yep, sorry Saffron. But how would that even get
her to testify or not testify? What are they trying to accomplish here? (Katie screams) (laughs) Quiet, oh my God. All right, so if you were a lawyer and you paid someone to kill
a potential witness’s dog, that is certainly a disbarrable offense. I really don’t even think that that would help keep that witness quiet. She doesn’t know anything here. What are these people doing? – You know what this means. They’re gonna keep coming after her, personally, legally, in
whatever way they can. – Take it to the judge! There will be sanctions! – Ellen,
(soft bar piano playing) I don’t take this for granted. I know how hard it is for you. – Well, if Katie can help the case, then we’re doing the right thing. – Are you? – I’ll do everything in
my power to protect her. – [Ellen] Good. – (laughs softly) Lawyers don’t
really have that much power to protect people. They’re not the police or the FBI. That’s kind of a hollow promise. If this had happened in one of my cases, I immediately would have
taken this information to the judge. I would’ve asked for the police or the FBI to start investigating it. This is a serious crime when
you have witness tampered and you’ve killed someone’s dog. Never mess with someone’s dog. This is a serious problem
that should result in sanctions against the defendant, if not more criminal charges
against the defendant or his attorneys. This is not a small thing. This is clearly something that deserves its own investigation, and you shouldn’t just
sweep it under the rug and just continue the litigation
as if nothing has happened. (dramatic music) – Maybe one of these days
I’ll stop being impressed. Ellen figures out why you hired her, and you still get her
to deliver the witness. – (scoffs) You don’t need
to deliver a witness. – Are you interviewing
for a new associate? – No, I like Ellen. I think she’s gonna
have a brilliant future. – Oh, come on. Okay, so they killed the dog to force Ellen’s friend to testify. But if they knew anything
about litigation, all they would have to
do is to issue a subpoena against the friend and
then depose the friend, regardless of whether
she wanted to or not. It’s so stupid to try
and reverse blackmail or reverse witness tamper… (sighs) It doesn’t even sound like she was really on the fence in the first place. There are mechanisms to
do this in litigation. You deal with witnesses who don’t want to testify all the time. Ugh! (laughs) These people are terrible
lawyers, terrible lawyers. (dramatic music) (dog tags jingle) Yeah, souvenir for the dog
you murdered for no reason. (light, jaunty music) Okay, so now it’s time
to give the first episode of Damages a grade for legal realism. (gavel bangs three times) Oh boy, it started out strong, but it really took a
nosedive there at the end. It started out with some
really good negotiations, some interesting interplay
between defendants and a class of representatives, realistic negotiations and back and forth. But then it took a nosedive
and turned into a soap opera with witness tampering for no reason, ignoring the rules of civil procedure. They could’ve gotten everything
that they wanted just through normal channels in litigation, but they don’t really
seem to be great lawyers. So, all in all, I’m
giving the first episode of Damages a C plus. Patty Hewes and Ellen Parsons
failed at being good lawyers. Learning to think like a lawyer really means learning
a broad range of topics and always learning new skills. For example, I always wanted to know how to buy good wine
that I’ll actually like, so I started taking this
course on wine tasting by Gary Vaynerchuk on Skillshare. I hate having to guess my
way through a wine list when, really, all I want is a
good wine to go with dinner. So I’m finally learning the fundamentals of tasting, selecting,
and shopping for wine. Skillshare is an online learning community that has over 20,000
classes on everything, like cuisine, design,
technology, you name it. If you’ve ever wanted to learn something, odds are they have a class. The free premium membership
gives you unlimited access to must-know topics so you
can improve your skills and learn new things. And you’ll get two free
months of Skillshare when you click on the link below. It’s a special offer
just for Legal Eagles. So get the link, get two free months, and start learning today. So until next time, I’ll see you in court.

100 thoughts on “Real Lawyer Reacts to Damages (Episode 1)

  • xiaofei zhang Post author

    could you do a video on Matlock? (hahahahaha)

  • MrMundo3d Post author

    Objection: witness can be delivered by UPS

  • Mallory Lauve Post author

    legal eagle can review House of Cards

  • notsae66 Post author

    "You should really shower after you've murdered someone; the blood is a dead give away." Being said by an actual lawyer in a deadpan tone had me hysterical! Is that the kind of advice you'd give a client? "Make sure you don't have any obvious signs that you're guilty on you."? Hahahaha! Delightful!

  • sjfletch123 Post author

    No shit you never mess with someones dog
    You ever seen John Wick??

  • Daniel Gwozdz Post author

    Objection: New York really SETS THE BAR….

  • mr matt Post author

    Objection we don't understand what you are talking about

  • Tô Diệp Khanh Post author

    man, Damages is the shit back then.

  • XAS 47 Post author

    O wow I got an add for an attorney

  • T Duke Perry Post author

    I got two suggestions based on the fact that you mentioned how long a case could take. There's Bleak House, which is a Charles Dickens story, but the BBC put out an adaptation back in 2005 which you could check out. Then there's Murder One, but in order to get a proper look you'll probably need to look at a bit more than the first episode.

  • Atreadis Post author

    Imagine if you accidentally kill John Wick's dog… Oh boy…

  • ProdigySim Post author

    Damages is a horror show with lawyers in it.

  • Amanda Green Post author

    Please review law and order. PS Love these videos.

  • itsthat thing Post author how to get away murder s4 ep 13 please

  • Adam Kowaleski Post author

    OBJECTION call John Wick, he will settle this.

  • Cristero Warrior Post author

    Objection! Monsanto is a great company and GMOs are fine(yes I inferred too much)

  • Phil Nye Post author

    I listen to your videos when I drive (safe I know)

  • Emily Lembke Post author

    Oh im so happy to hear Monsanto paid up

  • Moonbeam 87 Post author

    Objection that was not Kobe Beef.

  • Moonbeam 87 Post author

    Was will be Gandaharian.

  • Matty C. Post author

    Isn't that what happened to O.J. Simpson? Found not-guilty criminally, but liable in civil court?

  • Pink Diamond Post author

    Ok that Segway into the sponsor was so smooth good job

  • Gregory Bogosian Post author

    13:40 Objection! Now you are just riffing. The main character being a blank slate has nothing to do with the show's accuracy to the law.

  • Elafi Milo Post author

    That's Sam from Cheers!

  • rpgroome Post author

    Come on! Killing a witness’s dog is standard first year law school material!

  • Ryan Jeanes Post author

    Please analyze the trial in Idiocracy.

  • tembrook Post author

    Legally Blonde

  • Caleb Manning Post author

    Was that strange vegan comment ever explained?

  • April Powell Post author

    Objection! Do Bull next

  • subito zx Post author

    Can you review an episode of Goliath, the Billy Bob Thornton Amazon show? It’s the best lawyer show since Franklin & Bash

  • rejvaik Post author

    You need to do My Cousin Vinny

  • Iejir Isk Post author

    Problem with sanctions. Same as a restraining order. A paper shield that doesnt do anything until after the fact

  • Emiscary1 Post author

    You oughtta give Deuce Bigalow a look.

  • Hanan Alshammari Post author

    React to daredevil

  • Cassie Smith Post author

    Objection! I'm not a lawyer and I'm just here to laugh.

  • katarina swint Post author

    Gone girl should be the next movie you should review

  • masterstormist Post author

    I really enjoyed the brief economic interlude about ⅔ of the way through

  • Han Lockhart Post author

    13:28 I don`t understand why this was bleeped… I can`t figure out the curse word, if it was that, but I`m English, maybe it`s some US term. What did she say?

  • Hermaia Moira Post author

    Oh hey, I didn't know Hetty Park was in this show! looks up IMDB
    2 episodes: "Female Associate"

  • JennFlProfile Updated Post author


  • Ian G Post author

    I was working while playing this video in the background. When he said "quiet" while the girl was screaming her lungs out, I thought LegalEagle was being so cold-blooded, and that really shocked me.

  • Walter Ackermann Post author

    Objection: They say that the sick kid they're talking about on the court house steps is a Mets fan. As a Mets fan, I can assure you…the kid knows they probably didn't make the playoffs

  • Marquis Nickerson Post author

    Objection: Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean beyond all doubt. Just Beyond the doubt of reasonable person, like you and I. It’s higher than by the Preponderance of the Evidence, but does not require all doubt.

  • brandonakin87 Post author

    OBJECTION dead giveaway was too awful a pun

  • Anna George Post author

    #highschooler #DogsKnowBest

  • DreamBelief Post author

    And my government (Australia) is desperately trying to get Monsanto embedded in some of the most sensitive areas of our country. Aren't they wonderful? God it's depressing.

  • Subtotal Aljar Post author

    Now I’m interested in New York liquor license.

  • Amit Jakoby Post author

    10:45 Objection: Just because he has a net worth of 2.5 billion dollars doesn't mean he has the liquidity to pay such a settlement

  • Thales87 G Post author

    Jeez, i need to find a girl whos a lawyer!

  • Aaron Post author

    Oops. You said Monsanto…The cleaners have been dispatched.

  • Calvin Wang Post author

    Could you react to better call saul’s jimmy’s trial with chuck as witness

  • Emily Post author

    Objection! Real lawyer reacts to Bull

  • Kyle Wright Post author

    Objection! C+ is a passing grade, there is no strong argument for this being good, let alone passable

  • meatguyf Post author

    Uncle Jack sounds like a better lawyer than the Damages bunch.

  • Edward Ellis Post author

    would it be out of the question for you to do a British legal show? I ask this because there's a show called Kavanagh qc

  • An Vi Post author

    what tropes should there be?

  • Fahim Zahir Post author

    "She seems like a blank slate that everyone just projects onto her." It might be an insult, it could be a compliment. We won't know until we go to court!

  • Andres Villarreal Post author

    Objection: A soap opera cannot get even a C+ for accuracy in the depiction of the legal profession. Granted, I have seen two seasons, so I know that the motivation behind everything here is passion, not legal concerns. But it will soon be clear that this first episode is all about showing how passionate Glenn Close's character is, and how she will instill fear in everybody, more than getting legal principles into action. And there is a different reason for her wanting Rose Byrne's character in the firm. She even ends surprised at her skill, and might end up wishing she was less of a lawyer.

  • Justin Manser Post author

    You look like my old drummer. Do you play?

  • Jerry Gundecker Post author

    Matlock always got it right, didn't he?

  • Jerry Gundecker Post author

    I haven't looked up all of your videos, but I hope you have or will, bring up the movie, "The Verdict", with Paul Newman.
    I really enjoyed that film. I wouldn't be surprised if you did too.

  • Adam Post author

    Blank slate… XD

  • Brian Seiler Post author

    You should hit a David E Kelley show in greater depth. I know he wrote for LA Law and Boston Legal was his show, but I have no idea how much was Kelley and how much was Bochco on the former and the latter vacillated wildly between comedy and drama. Given that the guy actually got his JD and theoretically practiced at a law firm for a while before graduating to screenwriting you could probably expect a little bit better of him. The Practice is probably the one he did that was the most serious.

    Your buddy, however, is a bad person who should feel bad. I know that this doesn't matter once you get to court, but there's absolutely zero scientific reason to believe that glyphosate causes cancer. He didn't win so much as he exploited the fact that people don't know how to science. And you can tell him I said that. I'm no fan of multinational corporations (I honestly don't care about them one way or another), but they were firmly in the right on this one and anybody involved with perpetuating the myth that a biologically inert substance that can actually feed people and save lives causes substantial harm to human beings should have to recite the names of at least ten people who have starved to death in the developing world because of the kind of fear mongering this case preyed on and reified before he goes to sleep every night.

  • Trent Arnold Post author

    Do Primal Fear!

  • Tom Chavez Post author

    Please do "Find Me Guilty"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Leif Eriksson Post author

    I enjoy your videos very much. Will you review "A Civil Action"? When I saw it many years ago, I found it very interesting (maybe I am wrong). Thank you, and keep up the good work.

  • Irisheddy Post author

    what is a hostile witness

  • Nahuel Martínez Post author

    Well, the only problem with reviewing or reacting or whatever, to an episode of Damages is that the series develops throughout the entire season, so you don't get the whole picture. As the season evolves, the reasons why Patty decides to do things that way becomes more clearer. Also, I'd like to point out that some of the illegal/wrong things that you mention here, the point of them being written into the story is to have the characters get away with them, or pay the price for it, depending on the storyline. So, while I get that the legal analysis would be "witness tampering is illegal and no lawyer in their right mind would do it", the idea of having something like that in the show is to simply exemplify just how despicable each side can be that they do that.

    I guess my point would be that yeah, despite the more real it is, the better, you do have to put some drama and fiction into it for it to be exciting to watch. And also, there are people who just don't care that it's illegal and do it anyway, and think they can get away with it.

  • abraynor84 Post author

    They also get taxed up the a** in New York City and the cost of living is like receiving 40 percent of ones pay.

  • Chanel C Gill Post author

    can you do SVU???

  • Vítězslav Ureš Post author

    Of course killing a witness's dog is nonsense!

    That is why I use horse head for intimidation.
    It does reduce potential victims like a lot though.

  • shortiisweet99 Post author

    PLEASE DO JUDGING AMY! that show made me want to be a judge but I actually ended up liking the field of SW more. But judging Amy is the best show ever!

  • Stalin Post author

    I wonder if he edits his own videos. I'm guessing probably not.

  • Stalin Post author

    The editing in this show is kind of disgusting, I feel sick.

  • Craig Quinn Post author

    Objection over class amount division of funds among the class will result in less monetary values 100mill may result in only 10k per class member

  • SkyriderRJM Post author

    You missed a PRIME opportunity when pointing out the folly of messing with someone’s dog!

  • Joshua Goldman Post author

    Objection: Trying to sanction opposing counsel does not mean the court will entertain your argument and/or complaint. Pursuant to rule 3.3 lack of candor to the tribunal is rarely enforced as the court can rarely verify the voracity of the above mentioned claim.

    EDIT: You sound like you like to file motions for sanctions. They are good to have on record though. So there's that.

  • Benjamin 23 Post author

    you should do Star Trek The Next Generation THE DRUMHEAD

  • Benjamin 23 Post author

    Philadelphia would be a good one

  • Jonathan Fraser Post author

    Objection: never mess with someone's dog was a perfect time for a John wick reference.

  • Vito Wash Post author

    6:40 Objection!!! Glenn Close is "Not Going To Be Ignored."

  • Yvette Clarke Post author

    Don't you have to prove they killed the dog to "take it to the judge".

  • jackson sphereS Post author

    You gotta review THE JUDGE Robert Downey and Robert Duvall. Would love your take. Basically the dad is a judge and Downey is the lawyer. Tons of trial stuff

  • Gopnic Otaku Post author

    I think I wanna become a lawyer now.

  • cookie Master Post author

    John Wick time

  • William Howell Post author

    In the ten or so videos I've watched on this channel, this is the first one where he made a comment exclusively about the film making itself
    "There's nothing redeemable about her character"

  • Александр Михайлов Post author

    you know what they say, someone kills a dog – better call Keanu

  • Mittens FastPaw Post author

    The way you segway into advertisements man! Haha!

  • Tronagar Post author

    To your friend who sued monsanto for 300 million: ROCK ON!!!

  • Zela Morre Post author

    That part about the salary just depressed me. I had a 4.0 throughout college. My business law professor said I should take up law. But I read up about how so many lawyers can't get hired and just got my master's degree instead. Turns out I should've just moved to New York. Silly, young me.

  • Julian Rivas Post author

    Review “The People v. Larry Flynn

  • Camilo Iribarren Post author

    OBJECTION: Review two legal series and give your ruling on legal realism: 1) Franklin & Bash 2) Bull

  • Shawntay Spears Post author

    You should watch prison break, it’s a good show!

  • tina w. Post author

    You should do
    Drop Dead Diva!

  • Eline Linda ZagovaWinterSong Post author

    And it was never about 2 women they are liars…

  • Phantom Warrior Post author

    im so glad to not be a lawyer. im a civil engineer and i work hard to make sure im out of the office in 8h most days. the 8h/5day work week is antiquated as it is.

  • Timothy Hucks Post author

    Objection! Though Glenn Close telling Rose Byrne that she's "always got something going on" may seem laughably cartoonish, there is no reason to believe that the character is being genuine here. So rather than Byrne being a "blank slate," it's more that Close is (as you put it in your Better Call Saul video), ascribing the values she wants to manipulate Rose's character into rising to.

  • askarsfan2011 Post author

    "These people are terrible lawyers. Terrible Lawyers!"

    Objection! Repetitious.

  • Brian waring Post author

    Objection! Argumentative.. Why haven't you done Roman J. Israel, esq. yet?

  • Looking In With Victor B Post author

    Objection? Fragmented information…

    The dog is still dead… So the opposing lawyer is found guilty, sanctioned and disbarred… Will the victim still have to press charges if they want any settlement?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *