Television

Standard Of Review: ‘Suits’ Undercuts Its Storylines With Ulterior Motives

Why can't any character just do something because it makes sense?

By Harry Graff on August 31, 2017 5:30 pm

Is it an understatement to say that USA legal drama Suits has its ups and downs? For every terrific acting performance, there is a storyline that makes me scratch my head. Unfortunately, these last few weeks, I have been doing a lot of head scratching, particularly because two main storylines have been undercut by characters having ulterior motives (as usual, this column will contain spoilers through last Wednesday’s episode).

The first storyline is Louis Litt’s bad behavior. In the season premiere, Louis is still stewing from his breakup with Tara and thus launches into a diatribe at two associates, including yelling at one fourth year associate named Stephanie that no one would ever want to marry her. Stephanie is later fired from the firm (for different reasons) and recently serves Louis with a sexual harassment suit.

This storyline, on its own, could have been fine. Louis’s behavior was clearly abhorrent and worthy of a lawsuit. The show could have examined the fallout from the lawsuit, including the potential to lose clients and/or employees, and Harvey Specter and Donna Paulsen would have had to contemplate whether or not it is prudent — from both a business perspective and a moral perspective — to keep Louis or whether to jettison him.

But of course, that’s not what happened. Instead, after initially insinuating that another associate should lie under oath in order to support him, Louis sends another associate, Katrina, to ask Stephanie to drop the suit. Stephanie reveals to Katrina that she only filed the suit because her colleagues at her new firm believe that her performance at Pearson Specter Litt was subpar (Stephanie’s new firm sounds like just a wonderful place to work…). And once Louis apologizes to Stephanie and explains why he lashed out at her, Stephanie reveals that the true reason she filed the lawsuit was because she is single and his words hurt her personally. After Louis apologizes, she agrees to withdraw the lawsuit.

Why couldn’t Stephanie have just filed the lawsuit because Louis sexually harassed her? Why does Suits have to undercut itself by making Stephanie have ulterior motives? Stephanie’s motives are not even that compelling, particularly because she is a character who the audience barely knows. Further, it’s a little dicey — dare I say “problematic” — to suggest that some women file sexual harassment lawsuits for ulterior reasons and not because they believe in the merits of the lawsuit.

I have the same criticism for the other main plotline in these last few episodes — Mike Ross’s conflict with Alex Williams. Earlier in the season, Mike agreed to drop a pro bono case against a prison — at Harvey’s behest — because the prison has a business relationship with Alex’s client, a construction company. Mike being Mike, he works the case in secret. After Harvey finds out, Mike once again agrees to let the pro bono clinic handle the case by itself. But at oral argument on the prison’s motion to dismiss (in which the parties mention that discovery has already taken place — sigh), Alex walks into the courtroom in the middle of the argument, and declares that Mike broke the agreement. The judge agrees and dismisses the case on that basis.

I have a few problems with this sequence of events. First, Suits has had an inordinate number of instances in which a character walks into the courtroom in the middle of an argument and starts talking, something that happens approximately never. Second, the judge agrees to dismiss the case with hilarious alacrity. Alex walks in, says that Mike violated the agreement not to work on the case, and the judge immediately dismisses the case without requesting briefing or even seeing the agreement that was allegedly violated.

But more importantly, Suits once again undercuts its own premise by a character having ulterior motives. In this case, the real reason Alex is so focused on getting Mike to drop the suit is that Alex’s client is blackmailing him. This is frustrating because the show could have explored an interesting ethical question — should the firm should drop a meritorious case that is in the public good (and will certainly engender goodwill from the public) solely because it upsets a paying client? There are arguments on both sides, and it wouldn’t have been out of the question for Alex to argue that the client was too important to the firm’s bottom line to alienate.

Also, for the record, this is not the first time Suits has gone to the well of a character acting against Mike or Harvey solely because someone else “has something” on that character. A few seasons ago, I praised the storyline involving Jack Soloff, a partner character seemingly intent on taking over the entire firm. Soloff was a fun antagonist… until the show revealed that he was only attempting a coup because someone else had dirt on him and was pulling the strings.

What’s the point? Why can’t Soloff just be selfish and want the firm to himself? Why can’t Alex just think that a paying client is more important than a pro bono client? Why can’t Stephanie believe that Louis should be held liable for his loathsome comments?

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.