Thursdays 10:00 PM on USA
Suits

37 Comments New Comment Subscribe

Avatar

Thunderstruck - your handle should be DUMBstruck, as in struck dumb, as in stupid. 1/ Your MO is apparently to misquote people and criticize them for something they never said. I never actually said that the show "claimed Mike is a member of the CA Bar or any other Bar for that matter." My point is the exact opposite - the show ignores this problem - in the apparent hope the viewers would not notice it. 2/ You wrote, "each time the subject of his credentials has arisen in the show, the tension is increased ten-fold." But wait a minute - you just admitted that no-one "ever claimed Mike is a member of the CA Bar." So which is it - the show doesn't mention it? or the subject "has arisen in the show"? The simple fact is that the lack of bar admission is NOT mentioned in the show, and that's the only credential I wrote about. And the reasons the show doesn't mention it is - that would stretch the suspension of willful disbelief beyond the stretching point. The writers know that if they admitted up front that Mike lacks a basic credential without which he cannot ever legally practice law, then the show would be exposed for the dumb fraud that it is. It's basically on the level of a Wile E. Coyote cartoon - guy keeps getting blown up to smithereens and then he reappears alive and well in the very next scene. Different analogy (at the risk of going over your smallish brain)- the show is basically about a talking horse. I'm grown up beyond that childish crap - apparently you haven't. 3/ You wrote, "As a lawyer, I'm sure you're aware that no one checks your Bar membership when you enter a courtroom." Well, as a lawyer, I'm aware that 1 percent of a litigator's practice involve "enter[in] a courtroom" - so everything you say about that is irrelevant. 99 percent of a litigator's communications with the Court are written, not oral -- they involve briefs, and pleadings, and letters, and other written filings, and in New York State - where is this show takes place - a lawyer cannot submit a written filing without identifying his or her Bar Admission number next to his signature (Every lawyer is assigned a number). Not can a lawyer file an appearance in any lawsuit without identifying his Bar Admission number. So - Mike cannot now legally file any documents. But "now" is not the real problem. We're led to believe that Mike is being groomed to rise among the ranks to be a superstar lawyer at the firm. That can't be - if he can never legally sign a court filing then the whole trajectory we're supposed to believe he's on is a complete hoax. If your response is that the whole show is about the premise that Mike is engaging in professional identify theft, and fabricating a bar number every time he makes a written submission - well, first, that's all in your mind - the show has never ever shown or referred to any such fabrication- that show, which is purely a figment of your imagination, is a very different show and a very different Mike than the sympathetic Mike embarking on the workable supposedly plausible rising superstar career path legal career that the writers are portraying. The one and only supposed deceit is that the other members of the law firm are being told Mike went to Harvard. That's a very far cry from Mike engaging in the unlawful practice of law by pretending to be admitted to the Bar. This show is a DOG, and all you're bascially doing is running after it and scooping up all the dogshit that's coming out of it.

Avatar

I didn't catch this show while it aired, but have watched the whole season now via Hulu and Amazon instant video. It will be a must for me for the second season. I love Garbriel Macht. I've always liked Gina Torres, from her days with Firefly. As for Donna getting more love vis a vis Jessica, I would imagine more people identify with Donna, who is in a hierachical role that is supposed to be subservient to the more educated lawyers yet routinely supercedes her role and shows she is as smart or smarter than all of them. There's an underdog who kicks ass feel to her; Jessica is in charge, no ifs ands or buts. And she's totally awesome at it, but there is not any built in sympathy for someone who is your boss (besides that she is a woman in a traditional male role I suppose).

As for the ding-a-ling posting all over the place about how unrealistic this show is.....please. It's a TV show. Entertainment. NOT REALITY. I am a physician. I could go into a long diatribe against the unrealistic practices portrayed on EVERY medically-based show that's ever existed on TV...but I'm not idiot enough to think that they are supposed to reflect realty. Neither is this show. It's a premise that creates conflict and puts an interesting spin on what would otherwise be another show about lawyers. And there are some examples in real life that are apropo. The case of William Hamman comes to mind most recently, having been exposed as having no medical degree or license yet having practiced as a cardiologist for years...including receiving grants, etc. for research. People don't always do their due diligence in checking things out. If you act like you belong, you can get away with a lot of things. Thus, the premise for the show. I'm happy to keep watching a well written and well acted, entertaining show!

Avatar

@Edieward

You are a sorry excuse for a lawyer if you cannot see the simple fact that no one has ever claimed Mike is a member of the CA Bar or any other Bar for that matter. In fact, each time the subject of his credentials has arisen in the show, the tension is increased ten-fold.

As a lawyer, I'm sure you're aware that no one checks your Bar membership when you enter a courtroom...particularly when you're known or someone who is known vouches for you.

The fact that you have twisted this part of the show in an effort to discredit it is typical ambulance-chaser. The show has never claimed Mike was practicing law as a member of the Bar. The show has gone out of its way to highlight the lack of Mike's official credentials over-and-over.

You, Edie, are a charlatan and an affront to Harvard Law School, and based on your writing, I gather you are not a graduate of the latter.

Realdiehl

Ditto on the can opener.

@eddieward: I do like to know what's true and what's fabricated for the sake of TV. So thank you (yes I am being sincere). (The following is for laughs) Please don't tell us that James Earl Jones was never a professor at Harvard Law. It would totally ruin the movie, Soul Man for me.

How sexy was Donna when she went into Louis' office? She is the total package: Strong, sexy, intelligent, cunning, observant, persuasive, confident

Good point, bringing up Mike's Grandmother. She was the impetus for Mike's transformation after all.

@Blu: Good question about why Jessica doesn't get as many positive comments as Donna. I never thought about it until now. Even after pondering the question I still don't know why.

My opinion of the First season of Suits is overwhelmingly positive. I'm eagerly looking forward to next season.

"patheticness" should be a word whether it is or isn't.

Blu

Am I th only one cringing at the donna/harvey implications? Dont get me wrong, I love those two when they share screentime, but can there not be platonic relationships anymore? Ive always seen them as almost sibling like, and I liked that because it's easy to toss romantic stuff but something magical to give a family vibe from people who arent family. I never and havent seen sexual tension from either of them, so the thought of them being a pair never crossed my mind. I honestly seen more sexual tension between harvey and jessica..and I still dont ship them either.
My hopes for season 2 are more backstory on the leads. How does harvey go from being a mailboy to senior partner? would love to know his story with jessica and what prompted her to pay his way through law school. when did he meet donna?what happen to his family? more on mike and another appearance from his grandmother. better use of the women and development for them.dropping trevor n jenny.mike doing more and more interaction amongst characters

Blu

I just want to know the deal with the cannopener.

I doubt Trevor will turn Mike in because it puts Harvey at risk and he's smart enough to not have Harvey coming after him. I doubt Jessica would even entertain anything the guy has to say. Other than Trevoe entering the picture I thought the finale was great.Id love to see chi mcbride come back again.Harvey's drive to right a wrong and the almost ovewhelming level of loyalty that Mike,Donna, and Jessica have in regards to him continues to be a highlight and was showcased the best in the finale. I loved that Donna,Jessica, and Rachel were used more. I love Donna and Jessica but they just arent given nearly enough. Jessica continues to get shafted to me, because despite screentime everyone raves about Donna's awesomeness, but Jessica barely gets acknowledged and for whatever reason that bugs me. Donna and Jessica make a formidable team and it was great seeing underused characters share screentime (same with donna and rachel).

Avatar

Just for one moment, could we all please address the 600 pound gorilla in the room? This entire show is based on an impossible premise. The premise I'm talking about is that Mike can practice law just by having passed by the bar exam, and that the only deceit is that he graduated from Harvard. DOH! To practice law you need to be admitted to the bar of the jurisdiction in which you intend to practice. In California, as in every state, to be admitted to the bar, passing the bar exam is NOT ENOUGH. Among other things you need to show proof that you graduated from an accredited law school, and that proof must take the form of a final transcript showing that you graduated and showing three years' worth of grades. So, obviously, Mike is not and cannot be a member of the California bar or the bar of any other state. As such the scams and deceits of the show's characters pales in comparison to the scam that the show's producers and writers are perpetrating on anyone stupid enough to tune in every week. And I should know I'm a lawyer. And, for the record, a graduate of Harvard Law School. (Don't get me started about all the baloney about HLS that the show propagates ....)

Fortyseven

@Snake

My comments about Louis aren't against his effectiveness as a rival but his patheticness (is that a word?). I don't want Louis to win anything against Harvey whereas I'd like to see Harvey lose against another lawyer or the DA.

Avatar

Donna and Harvey need to get together right this instant. Screw the bromance - Donna's witty banter blows Mike's out of the water. Those two are the only reason I'm still watching this show!

Avatar

@ Maka , your right I overlooked the NY exception.
It's still disconcerting that Harvey and Mike haven't sat down to have a real conversation about protecting themselves from criminal prosecution. Especially Harvey who has more to lose.

As for my assumptions.

Rachel is a rich girl who has a great respect for law. Also turned down Mike for some reason , which led me assume away. So a little silly maybe, but preposterous, ouch.

Jessica At the time of my leap which I believe was way back at episode 2-3. I had read that Jessica was the smartest person at the firm. Also if Harvey has an investigator, the firm meaning Jessica has one. So again I assumed away.

I think this show has an exceptional cast.. With some badly written characters. Last night I was waiting for Mike to bite Jenny, when I realized this isn't the CW. Whatever happens in the return I just hope Trevor isn't given a job at the firm . So that he can go after Rachel, that be too much soap.

@ fortyseven Louis has gotten the better of Harvey the last few times. However I agree with you, plus watching these two work together , add Donna , just more fun. The new D.A was also great hopefully this means more jury trials. Plus now I'm watching Pushing Daises again.

This show just needs a great story editor, and some writers.




You are posting as a guest. To post as a user, please Sign In or Register