Real Lawyer Reacts to L.A. Law, Boston Legal, Rick & Morty, and Ally McBeal

Real Lawyer Reacts to L.A. Law, Boston Legal, Rick & Morty, and Ally McBeal

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


– Perhaps we could reach as high as 57.5. – With all due respect, Mr. Brackman, this is not a negotiation. – It’s definitely a negotiation. (bright music) Hey, Legal Eagles, D. James Stone here teaching you how to think like a lawyer so you can crush law school. I knew from a very early age
that I wanted to be a lawyer. And not just any lawyer, a trial lawyer. And I learned that by
watching lawyers on TV. Now having been a trial
attorney for over 10 years now, I see that some shows are
more realistic than others, so I thought I’d take some time to review some of the
most famous legal scenes from TV history. The first scene comes
from the show Ally McBeal. – Well, as I said, her arm brushed mine. And when she brushes an arm,
it’s with sexual intent. – Objection.
– Just tell us what happened after she brushed your arm, sir. – So, that’s actually a
really good objection, the kind of objection you
would see in most trials. The witness here is testifying to things that he has no
personal knowledge of, which is specifically what
the mental impressions are of another person. You can’t testify as to what
another person is thinking. So, the objection that’s
being made was correct, and the judge was right to sustain it. They didn’t actually say, objection, lack of personal
knowledge or speculation, but the judge understood
that and made the right call. – When I looked at her there was, I was feeling a little chemistry. She, uh, then brought her
hand to my, uh, my, uh– – So that’s a good
recovery by this witness. The judge sustained the objection to essentially speculation, and the witness then
proceeds to talk about only those things that
he personally observed. And he testifies to two things, one as to his internal state of mind, which he’s allowed to testify to. And he also testifies as to physical acts that he actually watched, he was a percipient witness to. An expert can opine about things that are outside of
their personal knowledge, but a lay witness like most witnesses can only testify to the
things that they have seen, or heard, or personally witnessed. So, that’s what this
witness is doing here. – Groin area. She began to fondle me
a little, and I, well– (screams) – So, sometimes there
are outbursts in court. That’s not particularly unusual. I think the screeching that
the attorney has done here is a little bit unusual, and is really bad for his client. So, he would be better served
by keeping his mouth shut and not screeching in a way that prejudices his client. Potentially, that’s a
prejudicial act to his client, which sometimes you can’t control things, and things happen. But being professional in court
is a very important thing. You don’t wanna lose credibility in front of the judge or the jury. And while that particular
yelp was probably unrealistic, what is actually more
realistic about this show compared to most is that the lawyers are not running around the well of the court, the area between the
judge and counsel table like they own the place. It appears that the attorney
who is asking questions is right in front of counsel table. And usually if you’re
conducting an examination, you’re not gonna be right
up against the witness, you’re not gonna be pacing
up and down the well. You’re gonna be either at counsel table or you’re gonna be behind it, and here it appears that the attorney is just in front of counsel table, which is usually allowed. You have to ask permission of the judge if you are going to enter the well. But they’re not doing
something that’s crazy like running around, yelling, like you’ll see in a lot
of procedural dramas. So, that part is actually realistic, the yelp is probably not so realistic. The next scene is from Boston Legal. – Routinely go to church on Sundays and ceremoniously eat the body
of Christ, drink his blood. “He who eats my flesh and
drinks my blood abides in me, “and I in him,” Jesus said that. – How dare you. – What? Who have I offended now? – How dare you take a
holy sacrament literally? – Is that not done? – You have equated it with
a vile and despicable act. – Okay, so here a couple
things are going on. It appears that the attorney
is giving a closing argument about a client who has conducted an act of cannibalism, and he is defending that by saying that there are other religious orders that conduct an act that
is similar to cannibalism. The judge here has done essentially the worst thing you can do as a judge which is to opine personally
against another attorney. So, he’s taken offense at something that the attorney has said. He is not making a legal argument, he is simply just issuing
his own personal thoughts about what is or is not allowable according to the scripture. That’s the worst thing
that a judge can do. A judge is supposed to be impartial, and if you have lost your impartiality, and it’s clear to the jury that you are no longer impartial, then it’s your duty as a judge probably to declare a mistrial, and potentially there could be some professional responsibility actions taken against the judge, because he’s shown that
he cannot be impartial. The next step that I would
do if I was an attorney is move to dismiss the
judge for being prejudiced, and I would use the record of the court to show this lack of impartiality. Potentially that’s the plan
that this attorney has done is to show that the judge
is not being impartial and trying to get some
favor from the jury. But a long-standing judge, as it appears this judge would be, would never make these sort of statements, and if they did they could
be removed from the office. – I apologize, Your Honor. I certainly don’t mean
to indict Holy Communion. But let’s not carry on with the idea that the
notion of cannibalism offends the sanctity of life. It has roots not only in sacraments, not to be taken literally,
but also Greek mythology. It’s still glorified in certain sections of both the South and I believe Malibu. And I might add, it’s not illegal. – So, the lawyer here is
making an impassioned plea, which you’re allowed to do to the jury, but in so doing it sounds
like he’s bringing in a lot of facts and figures that almost certainly did
not come out in trial. And it’s really important for the jury only to use facts that came out in trial to base their decision. And all of these statistics, it’s possible that the lawyer brought them in through a
process called judicial notice, which is that sometimes
there are statistics that are so incontrovertible
that the court will just allow them to
be brought into court without showing an underlying basis. For example, if you were going to say that a certain date occurred on a certain day, like a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, you could show that on a calendar, and that fact would be so incontrovertible that you’re allowed to bring that in. These statistics about cannibalism and about the notion of who and who is not cared for by the government, that seems like a pretty far stretch, and it would be improper
for him to cloud the record with these extrinsic facts
that did not come out. The next scene comes from L.A. Law. – UCLA, Harvard Law. – Ooh, UCLA. – Editor of the Law Review. Ames Competition, Best Oralist. – So, the Ames Competition
is a real life competition at Harvard Law that is for a moot court. And they’re saying that this person won Best Oralist at the
moot court competition. Moot court is where attorneys pretend to be appellate
attorneys, not trial attorneys, and they handle a fake
appellate court case in front of a panel of judges. And the Ames moot court
competition is very famous. They are so famous, in fact, that they often get Supreme Court judges to judge the competitors. So, that’s a fun real life
fact that they threw in there. – [Leland] Oh my, I’m
impressed, Mr. Rawlins. – Thank you, sir. – An attorney could often
be impressed by that resume. He went to UCLA for
undergrad, Harvard Law School, won the moot court competition, and he’s now interviewing
for a job in Los Angeles. That’s not a bad resume to bring in there. – Tell us a bit about yourself. – Well, let’s see, my
mother’s an attorney, my father’s a professor of
economics as UC Riverside. I’ve clerked for the past few summers at Felder, Ivy, McCoy. As a matter of fact, they
offered me a permanent position, but under the heading less is more, I think that a small prestigious firm such as McKenzie, Brackman could be more responsive
to my personal needs, or at least Bill Howard– – That’s really interesting. So, that is a very realistic way of going about getting
a job in law school. This seems to be a recent graduate from Harvard Law School. He said he clerked for a
few years at a law firm. I don’t think the law firm is real, but often the way you get a
job in law school is you clerk, it’s called a summer
associateship with a law firm, and if you do a good
job in your 2L summer, then they will often offer
you a job upon graduation. And what this young man
is saying he’s doing is he doesn’t wanna work for
this big prestigious law firm. Instead he wants to come out and interview with this boutique law firm, because it suits his whatever it is that he’s looking for in Los Angeles. So, so far a pretty realistic reason for this young man to apply for a job at this law
firm, so far so good. – At least Bill Howard thinks so. – Bill Howard as in Howard Enterprises? – Yes, sir. He’s been a close, personal
friend of my family for years. – Oh boy. I don’t think it’s particularly realistic to drop names in the interview. That might go unsaid, but to bring it up and to boast about your family connections in the middle of the interview, that’s not good form. It happens, it probably happens
more often than it should. People are probably better served by getting in through
merit than connections. But, you know, sometimes
family connections matter. It’s a part of the world. – Thank you. – What would you be looking
for in the way of compensation? – 72.5, and I wouldn’t be opposed to your designating a percentage of that as a signing bonus. – Excuse me, but we’ve been
starting our associates pretty much commensurate
with the going rate, which as I’m sure you’re aware, is considerably lower. – I understand, sir, but I’ve already been
offered 71 with Horton, Gold. – So much for your
doctrine of less is more. – Sometimes more is more. – This is really interesting. It’s not often that junior associates bargain so hard for their salary. But what he’s saying is that the firm that he was a summer associate
at, and he clerked there, has already given him a
job offer, which is normal. He spent his summer there, and they gave him an
offer upon graduation. He’s trying to leverage that to get a better salary at this law firm. And most law firms do actually adhere to sort of a standard rate. This is in the early
’90s or the late ’80s, and they’re talking about
salaries of $70,000 or more. That seems about right for the time. These days, graduates
from prestigious law firms going into the top notch law firms are likely to get a salary of between 160,000 and $190,000 per year, and there’s sort of a standard
scale that is applied. And most law firms say
that they are lockstep so you don’t have any bargaining power. They pay all first year
associates X amount, between 160 and 190, and he’s trying to do
his best to get even more out of this firm. So, good for him, I wish it was possible
for more law students to bargain more, but sadly most law firms are lockstep, and not a lot of bargaining power there. – Well, perhaps we could
reach as high as 57.5. – With all due respect, Mr. Brackman, this is not a negotiation. – It’s definitely a negotiation. – Gentlemen, it’s been a
genuine honor and a pleasure. Thank you very much. – He’s a winner. I want him to be our winner. – I strongly disagree. – I’m pulling rank, Douglas. – What are you gonna do when his salary becomes common knowledge among the other associates. – We’ll see that it doesn’t. – Ooh, that’s true. Because law firms ostensibly pay first year associates all the same, if it became public knowledge that one associate was paid significantly more than the rest, that would cause some dissent. The next clip comes from Boston Legal. – Value of human life, it’s a bugger. My friend Jerry Spence tells a story of this paperboy delivering his papers on his morning route one day. He throws the paper through the window, shatters the glass, blinds a woman. What’s the value of that? Paperboy decides to give the woman his profits for the week, not very much considering she was blinded. Now here we have a loss of
life, an avoidable loss. Not merely an accident, one
they could have prevented. I think the paperboy had the right idea. At the end of this trial, I’m gonna get up. I’m gonna ask the
defendant to pay my client one week’s profit. Let’s make that a day’s profit. Let’s not get greedy, here. We may not be able to put a
price Mary Finnerty’s life, but you can at least pay her family the profits for the day they killed her. – So, there’s a couple
things going on here, which are pretty interesting. Number one is that there are almost always two phases to major personal injury cases. Sometimes they are tried together, sometimes they are tried separately, and there are reasons for that. And the two things that you
have to show is liability, which means that the defendant is responsible for the
injuries of the plaintiff, but then separate from that is, how much compensation should
the defendant pay the plaintiff if they are liable. And those are often called
liability versus compensation. So, here the attorney is pretty confident, or perhaps they’ve already
established liability, and so they’re simply going to the damages portion of the trial. And what he’s hinting at
is how do you compensate a plaintiff for the injury
that they have received. And in the law there are
two ways of going about it. One is pure compensation for the injury, so however much you’re injured, you’re gonna get a monetary sum that is equal to that amount. But if the defendant’s actions are so egregious that
they warrant punishment, it’s rare in civil cases, but sometimes you’re allowed what are called punitive damages. And that’s what William
Shatner here is hinting at. He’s saying that as a punitive measure, the defendant should
be required to disgorge a single day’s profit for the
injuries that they caused. And I don’t know what
law is being broken here that would allow him to
get punitive damages. Punitive damages are somewhat rare. They usually require some
sort of egregious conduct. But if you are allowed punitive damages, sometimes they’re set by law and sometimes they are
just simply a fraction that’s set by the judge or the jury of the worth of the defendant, or sometimes even the profit
that they would have received in a day, or a month, or a year. The punitive damages should be large enough to punish the defendant. So, if you’re dealing with
a really wealthy defendant, then it needs to be large
enough to punish them for them. Because sometimes if you have what would seem like a large amount, if you’re dealing with a
multi-billion dollar corporation, it doesn’t really punish them in a way that they’re
going to take notice. So, that’s what William
Shatner’s going after here. A day’s profit to really make them feel the pain that they
inflicted on the plaintiff here. – What could be more fair than that? – What could be more fair? So fair. – My client’s profit’s are not relevant. The number of stores they
have is not relevant. How dare you go into that? And how dare you not shut him down? – So, whether or not the
defendant’s profits are relevant would be decided long
before they get to trial. There would be motions that would lay the foundation for why a corporation’s profits are
relevant to punitive damage. There would be a slew of pretrial motions to decide whether or not the profits and the punitive damages of a company are relevant to the case or not. If indeed there has
been no motion for that and there has been no back and forth between the attorneys and the judge, then it would’ve been incredibly improper for William Shatner to bring
that up in front of the jury. Potentially even leading to a mistrial. But what TV shows often get wrong is the mountain of paperwork
that happens before trial. All of these decisions,
all these legal questions, are settled long before you get to court. They would not have a sidebar
like what’s going on here to decide, in the middle of trial, whether he’s allowed to
make these arguments or not. That’s totally unrealistic. – May I go off the record briefly? – Go right ahead. – Thank you, this is not
for your ears, by the way. You stupid bastard, cases rarely turn on what’s legally relevant. What you have to be concerned with here is if All Shop makes $160 million of pure profit a day, a day, a jury will get wind of those numbers. – In which case we’ll appeal. – Great, and do you think you’ll be the lawyers to handle that appeal? When your client gets whacked
with a $50 million judgment? You’re an ass, you’re
an ass, you’re an ass. – So, a couple things going on here. He’s basically admitted that the profits of the
defendant are not relevant, not something you want to do if you are trying to get those profits in front of the jury. Probably not a good idea
to admit to the judge that they’re not relevant, because the judge has a duty to make sure that no irrelevant evidence
comes before the jury. William Shatner does hint at something that is often the case, which is that the same
lawyers that tried the case are rarely the ones to take the appeal. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. There are specialists
who handle the appeal. But the opposing attorney
is absolutely right, that if he brings in
these prejudicial facts against the will of the court, then he has a dead winner on
appeal, or at least he should. Now, whether they’re gonna
wanna go through the cost of going through another
trial again after the appeal, that’s a bigger question, but it sounds like a big company. And they may want to go
through all that again on the idea that the plaintiff’s attorneys won’t wanna go through
the trial one more time, and potentially lose. So, some of that is realistic, but this whole monologue
in front of the judge, that is not gonna happen. The next clip comes from Rick and Morty. – [Narrator] You are about
to enter the courtroom of Judge Morty Durham, Jr. The people are real, the cases are real, the rulings are final. This is his courtroom. This is Judge Morty. 60-year-old inmate Rick Allen is being accused of committing murder of a fellow inmate at
Georgia Penitentiary. Mr. Allen claims that he is being setup, and that his lawyer is
requesting sexual favors in exchange for proper legal advice. – Okay, (clears throat) okay, Mr. Allen. – Right. – I believe that, I
believe that your case is, was going to be going to
trial not this Monday, but the following Monday. Do you understand that? – Yes. – Okay, I tell you, if you
need to tell me something, I want, I’ll let you come
up here to the podium so you can speak into the microphone. – So my understanding is that this clip is actually a real life transcript that happened in a criminal proceeding, that the makers of Rick and Morty then set to the voices of Rick
and Morty and animated it. And it really sounds like
some of the crazy stuff that can happen in criminal proceedings. What’s happening here is not uncommon. Often the defendant will not be happy with his publicly appointed attorney, and he or she will request that that attorney be either substituted, or that the defendant is allowed to just handle things on their own. And that’s a thing that happens, it’s called representing yourself pro se, when you represent yourself. And there’s an old adage that anyone who represents themself
has a fool for a client. And the judges don’t like it. You’re not, generally,
gonna do a very good job, even if you’ve been
trained as an attorney, which most people have not. But judges hate it because
it slows things down, they really have to hold the hands of the defendants who
represent themselves. And it can really just muck things up, which I’m guessing is what happens here. – You have a right to an attorney. – This lawyer has– – You don’t have a right
to a specific attorney. – This lawyer has made
sexual advances on me. He’s misrepresenting my case. He told me if, if I wanted
him to do a good job, I had to let him give me oral sex. He’s had doctors– – Oh boy. So, defendants will say
a lot of crazy things to try and get their way, and I’m guessing the attorney
did not make sexual advances. I’m thinking that this guy is just saying whatever he can to
get a different attorney. – He’s had doctors at Central
State Hospital put a– – He’s had doctors at
Central State Hospital? – Put a false diagnosis on me. – Okay, I don’t, you know, I know Mr. Wyatt pretty well, and I don’t think he has the ability to make doctors at
Central State do anything. – Well, they did it and he’s the one that had me sent down there. – Well, you know, they may have done it, but I don’t think that he
had anything to do with it. – Alright, well, he won’t
give me the discovery. There’s things in the discovery, he’s supposed to give me the incident, and told me that it was the discovery. – Okay. – They’re alternating
documents that I’ve read. – If you want– – Alright, so here there’s a ring of truth in what the defendant is saying. The prosecution has an obligation to disclose all of their
evidence to the defendant, and that includes documentary evidence, that includes what witnesses
they’re going to call against that person at trial. Gone are the days where
either the prosecution or the defense could
ambush the other side. You have to disclose all
of that ahead of time, and so what this defendant is claiming is that he didn’t receive
some of that evidence, and that he wants it. And if that is indeed the case, it’s probably not the case
because this guy sounds crazy, if there is something
that has been withheld the prosecution needs to
turn that over to him. Alright, so those are some of
my favorite legal TV shows. I can see some of those
situations happening in real life, but others would get
the attorneys disbarred and probably get the judges
thrown off the bench. If you enjoyed this video and would like to see
more Lawyer Reacts videos, or hear about my law school experience, click on this short playlist
that I’ve put together. It includes my reaction
to some of the most famous legal scenes in the movies. And please subscribe so you don’t miss out on the next video. Otherwise, I’ll see you in the next one. (upbeat music)

100 thoughts on “Real Lawyer Reacts to L.A. Law, Boston Legal, Rick & Morty, and Ally McBeal

  • LegalEagle Post author

    Check out the new Lawyer Reacts video where I take on Suits, Law & Order, and L.A. Law https://goo.gl/iaBZAL

  • philosopher IQ Post author

    Do a react to the movie find me guilty

  • John Filmore Post author

    Lawyers definitely get disbarred, how many cases have judges ever been actually removed from the bench? 1 time out of 1 million ignored censures for judicial misconduct?
    Enough of them get censured but it seems like the most egregious conflicts of interest and prejudicial conduct result in a an endless stream of censures that any recipient judge has the option to thumb their nose at with zero consequences. Even the state attorney general serves at the pleasure of the governor and cant touch a sitting judge unless the appointee state governor wants the magistrate removed.
    Does anyone have statistics on the number of censured judges, state or federal, who have been removed from the bench in the history of the US? Or are US Justices in actual practice typically untouchable while in office?

  • showbizroxs Post author

    14:19 That clip is from The Practice, not Boston Legal

  • AFinleyProductions Post author

    If you understand the UCMJ you gotta do this for JAG

  • Lorenzo Cabason Post author

    The Rick and Morty bit was cut too short. 🙁

  • Jay15951 Post author

    You should do an episode on judge judy

  • Craig Ross Post author

    Typically to make the numbers add up accountancy, law firms and the like need employees to bill more than twice what they earn. So $160,000 might mean (say) $350,000 in billed hours. So even if you worked 250 days a year that's (I think) $1400 a day. That means working a ten hour day at $140 an hour, and sticking someone on a timesheet for every hour. I'd guess a charge-out rate of $280 an hour and five billed hours a day is more realistic.

  • Craig Ross Post author

    Party litigants in court: people representing themselves. It's killing the British courts. Reductions in legal aid mean more party litigants, and longer hearings. They pay district judges – low level courts – over $130,000 a year, but it's no more expensive than magistrates (citizen judges) because the process is so much quicker.

  • s.p.FOX Post author

    only here for Rick and Morty

  • Crim Zen Post author

    Shame the Rick and Morty bit was fanmade. It's well done, and it should have been on TV.

  • Unfavourably Post author

    "It would be improper…"
    Mate, have you met Alan Shore?!

  • Stephen Scanlan Post author

    Please do some Havey Birdman attorney at law episodes!!! perfect for you guys

  • Professor Peculiar Post author

    Rick and morty 21:25 you’re welcome

  • agala jeremiah Post author

    Nice suit, pretty sure he is wearing just boxers from the waist down, Spider-Man tommy hill finger boxers

  • chuck grable Post author

    Objection: the Rick and Morty was a parody of a parody

  • mr bojangles Post author

    do JAG sometime, sure it deals with the UCMJ but still

  • fochey Post author

    Suggestions:

    Lincoln Lawyer
    Goliath (Season 1)
    The Judge

  • eric veneto Post author

    Dunno about Bochco, but I believe Kelley was a lawyer at one time.

  • Leah Cannon Post author

    OBJECTION! Can you do the Goliath series with Billy Bob Throton and Leverage Season 1 episode 11 or season 2 episode 9? 🙂

  • Elektro LUDIKITS Post author

    Alan Shore is probably my favorite fictional lawyer ever…

  • midgetmann1984 Post author

    Objection! I am not studying law nor do i plan to be a representative of anyone, ever. Still love these breakdowns of the legal side of TV

  • jrw Post author

    A STARTING salary of 160-190K? I wonder if 98% of those who aspire to become lawyers do it for the money and not for the "calling" of ensuring everyone gets a fair trial…

  • Kevin Ransom Post author

    Objection! The Rick and Morty scene is not referring to the prosecution not giving all information that they have to the defense, but to the defense attorney not allowing Rick to review the discovery.

  • Mike Carey Post author

    Check out the Ally McBeal episode where the little kid wants to sue God for giving him cancer….

  • Elisa Soto Post author

    You should review a full episode of Boston legal, not just a clip. Such a good show!!!

  • Jeff Borowiak Post author

    Two Boston Legal clips!

  • A. Lampman Post author

    Hey uhh, objection: the Rick and Morty segment was initially only roughly animated (still frames) by the actual Rick and Morty folks, the finished animation in this video was created by Canadian animator and youtuber "tiarawhy". It's a fan animation. Just sayin', credit where it's due.

  • Tigerlone wolf Post author

    do you watch Bull? if so then you should react to an episode of it owo

  • Sad Rick Post author

    In the audience is an alien from futurma

  • Fuq Yousa Post author

    the "boston legal" scene comes from the practice

  • Ninjabear Press Post author

    Lawyer jokes: Lawyers don't think they're funny, and no one lese thinks they're jokes.

  • Nina Thiemann Post author

    I would like to see Real Lawyer reacts to Ally McBeal 🙈

  • Isaiah Welch Post author

    Just saying…you showed Rick and Morty. That show is designed to be entertainment, and for them to spoof Judge Judy is outright hilarious.

  • Celso deJesus II Post author

    Timestamp for Rick and Morty?

  • Craig Quinn Post author

    Objection shatner should of objected to the other lawyer and said of course all the stores profits are relevant and submitted the relevant information and documentation to evidence

  • GetPaidWithKyle Post author

    Hey legal eagle can you please react to the practice season 8 episode 18 and give a grade for realism..thanks!

  • Skeeter Knott Post author

    Objection! How are you not gonna go through the whole Rick and Morty clip? Talking about oh he sounds crazy I bet he got the whole discovery. Did you watch the whole clip? The judge didn't even know it was a murder trial and the defendent didn't get shit on discovery. They railroaded that poor man.

  • PonyoNoodles Post author

    15:04 the camera thinks the window and books are more interesting… 🙁

  • James Endicott Post author

    This is definitely not the Rick and Morty scene I was expecting. Though, I can't imagine that the hearing at the Council of Ricks on the guilt of Morty and Summer has enough basis in reality that it could be covered.

  • admthrawnuru Post author

    You stopped the Rick and Morty clip before it got good! Do the whole thing, please.

  • Daggdag Post author

    Objection; Rick was sayibg that his own attorney was refusing to share evidence with him, not the prosecution. I'm sure there is a rule that says a defendant has the right to the evidence, but there is a major difference between his own attorney not telling him thijngs and the prosecution doing it.

  • Erik Martin Post author

    I would love to see you review Trial and Error with Michael Richards.

  • David Mitchell Post author

    Judge Clark Brown was always saying things were outrageous or shocking. He did it all the time.

  • TJ Acree Post author

    Objection! Why would a judge not want a lawyer to represent himself? I get that they don't want to have procedure class during court but why not a lawyer?

  • Vinny Raptor Post author

    This is a great idea for a channel. Why haven't I heard of this before? Oh well, I dig it.

  • Planet Sidewinder: React Post author

    Love your channel and learning things about the legal system. When I see something that Boston Legal's title is included in, I skip to that part, and go watch something else after that scene is over. You should do a medley of scenes from Boston Legal, it would be such a switch-up and it's amazingly funny. Or, just react to an episode… either way, Alan Shore is a spectacular character played by an awesome actor!

  • Chris Connett Post author

    Objection, in re L.A. Law: Pay secrecy is disallowed by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.

  • Jesus Lárez Post author

    Only this guy can be serious about Rick and Morty, love it

  • Nancy O'Malley Post author

    Objection-the lawyer screeched because he was being molested by his client at that moment

  • Paola Setien Post author

    objection wouldnt the judge at the end of the epsidoe be in trouble? (the rick and morty case)

  • lolmao500 Post author

    Punitive damages are rare cause americans are owned like slaves to the corporations

  • TheHovster7 Post author

    Have you ever reacted to Ted from Scrubs?

  • Scott Markus Post author

    Darn – that was it for the Rick & Morty clip? I would've loved your take on the judge's actions as he gets roped into the insanity (and any personal relatable anecdotes you have). Love the channel!

  • Paradox Less Post author

    You know what they say. A man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer. And that fool is Grif.

  • Rob Berra Post author

    The "yelp," as you put it, is the result of a mental disorder, IIRC.

  • Michael Byrne Post author

    Objection- Incorrect Spelling. "Lititgate"

  • Iafiv Iv Post author

    The awkward moment when you realise that Ally McBeal actually gets a stamp of approval when it comes to trial procedures.

  • Mittens FastPaw Post author

    I wish you were right but man. These days we have judges letting people off because they were "good boys" or from "good families" for rape. I really do not trust the justice system at all.

  • peter Post author

    Man, james spader's voice is just so smooth.

  • oolala fuega Post author

    You should do the Tim and eric thing where Tim is on trial for some ecig deaths at a music festival

  • Ben And TL Post author

    Rick and Morty a legal TV show🤣

    (*I realize he was most likely referring to the actual shows about the legal system, but since Rick and Morty was part of this video… Context is key here*)

  • Cw W Post author

    Allen in Boston Legal is just the most amazing attorney when he gives a closing argument. He gives the kind of speech that can convince anyone on anything.

  • Diego Cev Post author

    Please react to Fracture (2007 film)
    with Anthony Hopkins

  • King 595 Post author

    I need you to cut out the middleman here. Cant we just get a video of you in actual action?

  • lynluu Post author

    Please do Lincoln Lawyer!

  • Christopher Ryan Post author

    I have a comment on this. I very rarely care, but I searched Google for Ally McBeal and found this video. Did you create a fake Judge Judy parody video? Oh god(sic), I hope that's the case. In any case, the "law books" aside you are blurry and next next to you.

  • Christopher Ryan Post author

    I've thought it would be somewhat interesting to match on LinkedIn.
    There are a few things… but seriously, technical writing is a job.
    And this video, well… not on target.
    Your video is
    What makes me think
    Does this guy want to be a writer… or a lawyer.

  • Abendschein Post author

    The Rick and Morty bit was amazing, and got better when I found out it was a real transcript.

  • Dee Post author

    Am I wrong for wanting to see the legal eagle laugh more? Cause I got a good laugh out of Rick & Morty lol

  • Paul Thomas Post author

    Unless Blair Underwood is a supervisor (and he almost certainly isn't, as a first-year associate), taking any action to prevent him from making his salary known would be very, very illegal. There aren't many hard and fast rules in labor law but that's one of them: workers are free to discuss salary amongst themselves.

    (This is not to say that the firm wouldn't do it; law firms violate labor laws all the time, probably on the assumption that they can always litigate their way out of trouble. This is a bad assumption, by the way: see adage about lawyers who represent themselves.)

  • Czech Mate Post author

    I wish I had the hair to be an attorney.

  • Lucifina Nightinger Post author

    I seen what that woman was doing. XD

    The woman next to the guy who yelped was trying to get sexual with him causing the following reaction.

  • Lady J. Post author

    god I love boston legal

  • Pavel Adamek Post author

    When I ask an applicant "tell me something about YOURSELF" and they start by listing the professions of their parents, they are already almost gone.

  • David Dashìng Post author

    Objection-

    If i got ran over by a person that poor and they cant pay are harldy. They just get jail time ONLY?

  • Azreal231916 Post author

    In the bit about Cannibalism the attorney was James Spader

  • Daniel Schmidt Post author

    Are side bars unrealistic? What would a side bar realistically be used for?

  • Kan Kan Post author

    Ojalá supiera inglés :''^[

  • LCwavesAtYa Post author

    Dude, you should like, do a react video for the Tim Heidecker Trials

  • Army Mickey Post author

    Can you do “Die Hard” and “Lethal Weapon” franchises please? I’m convinced, for most of the movies, there would be serious legal ramifications should they be real.

  • Army Mickey Post author

    5:43 quickest way to piss off a Justice. 😂

  • Ninja Kitty Post author

    Tv lawyers

  • Kelly Arthur Post author

    The judge has done something he should never do: committed a reversible error & handed the win to the attorney making his closing, I'd say.

    Objection, your honor. I've seen "L.A. Law", & this guy doesn't need to boast or name-drop; I get the sense it just came up in passing, & he's being truthful. (You may be right on the "dropping", & I don't disagree on bad form, if true.)

  • MovieEveryDay Post author

    21:27 Rick and Morty

  • ShmayToday Post author

    Rick and Morty 21:25

  • 09mrmarshall Post author

    When commenting on judges and impartiality, it’s important to remember that you’re living in a bubble compared to people in areas such as Alabama where a state Supreme Court judge can be punished twice by SCOTUD and still have a chance of winning re-election.

  • Frank Post author

    Please do "The People vs OJ" .

  • Kevin Quattro Post author

    You need to do an entire series on Boston Legal. 🙂

  • Mark Hager Post author

    Can you do a breakdown of the judge dredd movie?

  • Jai Parwani Post author

    Objection biased judge(the blood sucking lawyer).

  • Samm Post author

    Not being American, every time you say "duty," I think "doody." Then I laugh.

  • TheDiggster13 Post author

    Please do run away jury!

  • Aaron Theil Post author

    Please do a breakdown of the full rick and Morty clip

  • Yuzuru A Post author

    Boston legal not only clearly didn´t follow the law, the closing arguments were insulting for the inteligence of the viewer, and the writer only had the same weapon of "insert stupid statistics here". I was not surprised that the chosen scene had a statistic, because almost every case that I saw did.

  • Hork Porkler Post author

    Laaaaaaame

  • Rebecca K Williams Post author

    You should do "The Practice"

  • Johnson Artchive Post author

    Please do a video for the Office. Maybe in the style of your Dark Knight video

  • John Polishimpossible2say Post author

    Noooo finish the Rick and Morty clip I was dying to see your reaction!

  • Kailash Harsha Post author

    Admit it. We're all here for the Rick and Morty clip.

Leave a Reply

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