HG: One of the other things that I thought was interesting from reading your blog was that, when you list all the ethics violations that Jimmy has done so far, it was particularly striking to me. Obviously we know that Jimmy ends up as Saul Goodman on Breaking Bad, where he is involved in a massive criminal enterprise, but have you been surprised at how quickly Jimmy has gone into criminal activity? For example, in this past week’s episode, where he enlists Mike to help him steal the money, that is a bit farther than not putting “Attorney Advertising” on something. Were you surprised that they went to that so quickly? That kind of criminal activity?
NH: Obviously it is a television show, so in that sense it did not surprise me, because it has to have intrigue and drama. It’s so funny with his character, because I love his character and I particularly love his character in this show. He has such a good heart. He wants to do the right thing, and he is in a criminal enterprise and this where I get into legal ethics vs. real-life ethics. When I hear people talking about this episode, what they love about it is that Jimmy does this for Kim. You know?
He really has no other reason — if you really sit down and think about it — there is no other reason for him to do it other than for her. He is giving up the money that he had planned to use to build his new law firm. He is giving up even the opportunity to represent the Kettlemans, who he really does not want to represent by this time, but he could because he could just defend them at a trial, or Craig at a trial. He does not have to engage in this whole scheme to get them to take the deal with Kim.
Humans in the Loop: The People Powering Trusted Legal AI
As the use of artificial intelligence permeates legal practice, a critical question confronts every legal professional who uses these tools: Can I trust this?
People really seem to like that about him, that he sacrifices his own ambitions to help her, but he does so in a way that’s so incredibly unethical that it’s mind boggling. He just jumps right into clearly criminal behavior for this person that he really cares about. I feel very torn about it. Yes, there are these sort of mini violations of the rules, like not putting “Attorney Advertising” on the Jello cups, and then there are these really, really big violations that are just so much more serious and very sort of shocking.
HG: As I have written a few times in my columns on Above the Law, I really like the way that Better Call Saul has depicted lawyers. Obviously it is not perfect, but compared to a show like Suits or other shows that are so glitzy and glamorous, I just like Kim’s character, especially because I work at a firm. Do you agree with that? I did notice in your more recent posts that you have been a little critical of the show a couple times for things like, for example, Kim imploring the Kettlemans to take the plea deal. You didn’t really understand why she was so adamant about that, where as you pointed out, criminal lawyers take cases to trial and represent guilty clients all the time and they take it to trial.
NH: Yeah, I read your commentary about Kim and how they portray her and that that’s a more realistic portrayal of some of the grind of being an associate. I was an associate at a big firm for a little while, so I definitely agree with what you were saying about that. Sort of being stuck in the cramped little office with boxes all around you, with this sort of loser case.
HG: Right, it’s a far cry from the giant offices of Suits, where it is so beautiful and there is one tiny computer.
Heading To Legalweek? Come Join Above The Law!
Meet the team in NYC at our Monday night happy hour — 3/9 at 7pm. RSVP required.
NH: Right, exactly and, of course, then she even gets relegated to apparently an even worse location than that, which is pretty amazing.
I definitely agree with that, that they really capture a lot of aspects of being a lawyer and practicing law that I really appreciated. They talk a little bit about that, about how they tried to capture sort of the boring nature of the law in a way that other shows don’t. This was sort of an interesting view, the monotony of being the public defender and going in case after case and drinking cups and cups of coffee, which they captured really well in that montage. I think it is in episode two. I think they do a really good job with that and yeah, I was critical of Kim.
I don’t know if I was too critical, maybe. I had a really strong reaction to her insistence that this was the only option. I think it was the nature of the show that they had to present sort of this binary dilemma, it was either they had to accept the deal or disaster. I think that was the nature of how the show was constructing that narrative, but in reality, and I think we know as lawyers, that it is not that simple. It is almost never that simple.
HG: I do not think I was as distressed by it as you. To me, it was more that she thought, maybe accurately, that the Kettlemans just truly did not understand how terrible the case was. It was not necessarily a binary choice, but it was more that it is a great deal. They are being foolish by not taking it. She was not necessarily saying that she could not get a better deal later or that they couldn’t win at trial, but that given how weak this case is, this is a deal that they might not be able to get later on in the process.
NH: Absolutely. I mean, that is our job as lawyers. We are not just there to persuade our adversaries or the court or the jury, most of our persuasion is with our clients. That grows from trust. The problem with that situation is that she had not developed the trust. Maybe she couldn’t. Maybe that was an impossible task, because they are living in “cloud cuckooland,” as Saul says, but you have to grow that trust with your clients and part of your job is to persuade them and then to accept when you haven’t. When you haven’t built that relationship, the fact that she couldn’t convince them is partly her fault. All lawyers face that, because we often have unrealistic clients and sometimes it is our fault that they are unrealistic, because we oversell ourselves.
Which I am sure Kim probably did, so it is a whole snowball effect. She was in a really bad situation, where she had got this great deal, she couldn’t sell it to her clients. The next step after that is to respect their decision and start preparing for trial. That is what you do. It is life. Every lawyer faces that situation.
HG: Given that the season is almost over soon, have you thought about going back and maybe doing a similar type of thing for Saul’s actions on Breaking Bad, or maybe a different show, like Suits or anything else?
NH: Oh my God, you must be reading my mind. Are you reading my mind? Yeah, I’m almost distressed. How many episodes do we have left? Three?
HG: Three, I think.
NH: Three left. It feels like it went so fast and so those were really the two options that I am thinking about. One is to go back to Breaking Bad. I mean, that is a good option because I think people who are new to the Breaking Bad universe, to Better Call Saul, might now go back and start watching Breaking Bad. It is on Netflix. Everybody can watch it and start talking about those earlier (or later in real time) incidents. That is one option. Then the other option is to pick up with a new show. One suggestion that was made to me is How to Get Away With Murder, which I have been watching.
HG: I actually have not been watching that show, but I have heard mixed things.
NH: The thing about that show is that it is almost like there are too many ethical violations to even know where to start. I am thinking about my options here. I am very interested. What do you think I should do? What do you think would be the best next step?
HG: It has been a while since I have seen those early seasons of Breaking Bad, but I think that people would be interested in reading about Saul’s actions on Breaking Bad. With the caveat that I don’t quite remember if there were so many nuanced issues then, or if he was just money laundering, which is obviously an ethical violation.
NH: Of course. Some of the stuff is so obvious. But then there were a few subtle ones like when he takes a dollar, and says, “Pay me a dollar, now you’re my client. Now I can tell you what to do.”
HG: I remember that.
NH: I thought those presented interesting conflict of interest issues, because who did he really represent? He never gave anyone any kind of advice that he may also represent this other person who may have some different interests than you and you might want to execute this conflict waiver. It would be interesting to go back and look at those episodes and see if there was something to dig into there.
Harry Graff is a litigation associate at a firm, but he spends days wishing that he was writing about film, television, literature, and pop culture instead of writing briefs. If there is a law-related movie, television show, book, or any other form of media that you would like Harry Graff to discuss, he can be reached at [email protected]. Be sure to follow Harry Graff on Twitter at @harrygraff19.