Why do bad things happen to good lawyers? Before he was Saul Goodman he was Jimmy McGill -- but he was always a great lawyer. Today we’re going to review Better Call Saul. Stay until the end for my Legal Realism Grade!
I loved Breaking Bad. And Saul Goodman was one of my favorite characters. Despite being down on his luck and faking his own name, he somehow always managed to give good legal advice to certain meth dealers in Albuquerque. Not surprisingly I REALLY enjoyed this show. Are there other episodes that are particularly good? Would you like me to react to another one? Let me know in the comments!
★ GET TIED! If you’re looking for skinny ties, pocket squares, or tie bars (like the ones I wear) check out Ties.com. Huge selection and great prices: https://go.magik.ly/ml/ftki/
★ SUIT UP! Even if you're not a lawyer, you can still DRESS LIKE A LAWYER. All of my suits are from BlackLapel (I've used them exclusively for over five years). Their custom suits are amazing, yet still ridiculously affordable. HIGHLY recommended: https://go.magik.ly/ml/f78n/
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous. Today I'm taking a break from teaching law students how to kick ass in law school to take on lawyers in the movies and on TV. While all legal movies and shows take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth.
This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reaction" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!
Props to Dr. Mike's Real Doctor Reacts (https://goo.gl/qF6Hza) and Wired's Technique Critique (https://goo.gl/C8dz2U) for the inspiration.
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (SDNY 2017) Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
★ Got law school questions? Ask in the comments!
★ Say hi on Facebook: ➜ https://www.facebook.com/legaleaglereacts
★ Tweet at us on Twitter @LegalEagleDJ
Someone else suggested this as well and I agree... Please, please do 12 Angry Men. How is that not done already? That’s like going to your first English Lit class in college and Shakespeare doesn’t come up.
I'm so excited to see that you made this video on Better Call Saul! My mom and I have been watching since last year, and suffice to say we are both addicted to the show. Have you seen the episode when Mesa Verde starts? It would be super to hear your thoughts on it, if you think it would be worth your time. :)
Also, have you ever watched Rake? I think you'd get a kick out of Cleaver Greene!
Credibility is everything in front of a jury. Amen to that! The one case I was ever actually selected for the jury I remember plain as day the number of buttons missing from the plaintiff attorney's suit. They were left upper cufflink, middle suit jacket, third one down from the collar on his shirt. He didn't win his case. Of course, that might also have something to do with the fact he got his client to testify under oath that she was riding in a car with a person who was not licensed to drive and made the client fear for her life when this person was behind the wheel.
Not a good argument for trying to sue an old man who allegedly rear ended the vehicle you were in.
Lawyer: Ted, do you believe you have a soul?
Ted: What did you think I would do at this moment When you're standing before me With tears in your eyes? That answer your question?
Other Lawyer: Objection. Your Honor.
American system, so different to the UK, does prosecution get the final speech in the American system? In the UK it is the defence that have the final say, since the prosecution have the opening speech (no opening speech for defence either).
Objection - I can't really see what's happening on the Saul Goodman show, and we don't need a tiny image of that and a huge one of you just staring. Should be your face smaller in the corner and mostly the video. Also the lines of the books around the video are not a plus and take away from the screening image.
Objection! The authority to sustain or overrule any motion is held solely by the presiding judge.
Legal Realism Grade: Guilty, on the charge of Criminal Impersonation of a Public Servant for knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting himself as a sitting judge.
Upon review, the appellate court has overturned this judgment, and the case has been dismissed after a 3-judge panel ruled (2-1) that YouTube comments lack legal standing. In his dissenting written opinion, Judge Fakename - the first fictional being appointed to the bench in modern history - points to the ambiguous nature of Internet Jurisdiction, as well as the pressing need for legislative action to formally define and codify what he refers to as "Self-Referential Meta-Adjudication," such as this comment itself.
+Carlos I've been to public court so many times watching and let me tell you most of it in criminal law is basic repetitive steps a monkey can follow. The judge for four hours repeated the same 3 minute statements of oath so many times .. it was like it was on repeat.
I object! A minus, really? I know the video is shot, edited, and uploaded, but based on your review, this should easily be an A, if not a perfect A plus. Referring to the final comments you make at the end of the video, you highlighted the mundane realities of court life and additionally praised parts of the legal process that don’t usually get much camera time. Aside from the ambulance chasing scene with the skater twins, there was no real criticism in any of the legal depictions.
New fan to the channel and I am really enjoying it. My vote for the next Saul episode would have to be, season three, episode nine, “chicanery.” Very entertaining and educational videos, please keep them coming.
Is it true that traffic/transportation offenses are civil?
If so, that would tell you how much a fraud and a criminal enterprise your masters really are. They lack standing, yet nobody challenges this to the people that have guns and cages. Rule by fear and brainwashing.
Objection: the legal advice offered to the couple in Cafe Loyola is spot on and another facet of the lawyer's job (actively going after clients who will be needing legal counsel in the near future due to whatever circumstances) which is rarely shown. ...
well, I guess if you're a trial lawyer this is of interest. It might come as a surprise to many that most lawyers rarely set foot in a courtroom for anything other than a brief hearing. I work in probate and the vast majority of our "arguments" are simply the petitions we file that get a yay or nay from a judge.
For that video where the three kids have sex with a head... was that evidence was new evidence during closing or was it presented during trial?
If it is new evidence during closing then would it be appropriate to declare a mistrial because the prosecution brought in new evidence during closing or I would object to the video and request to the judge to disregard the video.
Hey LegalEagle. I just discovered your channel and am loving it.
I don't know if you read comments on old posts but I figured I would give it a shot anyways.
I had two questions.
In regards to the skaters taking a fall for money you say they would get in serious trouble if they were caught and not receive compensation for their injuries.
My question is would they ever realistically be caught in the real world?
I assume they are just going for low settlements which would in the end be much cheaper for the defendant than lawyer fees from an excessively long legal battle.
My second question is about the video scene.
It seems like really ingenious ordering to show the video last.
It is your strongest piece of evidence and would give you control through the arguments part (which seemingly Saul won although the prosecution side wasn't shown very much).
However showing it last imprints the imagery shown when all final decisions are made and doesn't allow the defendants to chip away at a first impression created by showing it early.
So my question is generally speaking what is your opinion of this?
It seems like a classic courtroom drama "bombshell".
How realistic is this? If it is realistic is this a good tactic?
I notice you turn your head to your left, exposing the small bald area on your beard. You seem to do it out of habit or even preference. Im wondering if you use it as a distraction in court. Keep flashing it at people so that's all they can focus on. Like some kind of psychological tactic. Kinda like that one lawyer in Ally McBeal who would use subtle distractions to win cases. Like he would know where the floor creeks and would step on it in opportune times during trial. That sort of thing. Im not trying to be funny. Im genuinely curious.
Задайте и вы свой вопрос, это бесплатно!
Адвокат по телефону получит предварительную информацию от вас, после чего может в спокойной обстановке восполнить возможные пробелы и проанализировать
правовые нормы. Он оценит все факты и сможет подготовить развернутую консультацию для вас. По этой причине адвокат является вашим сторонником в
разрешении возникших проблем. Вы сбережете свои средства, обратившись за телефонной консультацией.
Таким образом, обращаясь по телефону к услугам адвоката, вы получаете возможность решить возникшие проблемы с минимальными финансовыми и временными
затратами. В некоторых случаях в дальнейших очных консультациях не возникает необходимости. По этой причине помощь адвоката, оказываемая по телефону,
Несомненно, сложность разрешения семейных неурядиц обусловлено тем, что между супругами, как правило, нет соглашения, брачного контракта и они предъявляют друг другу различные требования, как материального так и морального характера. Как показывает наша практика, прийти в такой ситуации к обоюдному решении семейного спора очень сложно и, порой, без вмешательства адвоката по семейным делам,— невозможно.
Доверяя решение своего семейного дела (спора) конкретному специалисту, нужно понимать, что не каждый юрист в Украине может предоставить профессиональную помощь в сфере семейного права. Нужно, как минимум, проверить отзывы о нём именно по семейный делам, а как максимум - убедиться в получении юридического образования и адвокатского свидетельства.
Обращаясь к нам, Вы можете быть уверены, что будете работать с компетентными специалистами именно в области семейного права. При первому требованию, мы предоставим красные дипломы о высшем юридическом образовании ведущих высших учебных заведений, адвокатское свидетельство и ссылки на Клиентов, их рекомендации, а также сможете пообщаться с ними в телефонном режиме или при личной встречи. Мы гарантирует качество своих услуг!
и других законов,
сделает анализ практики судов по спорным ситуациям. Наши консультации по телефону и без регистрации пояснят нормы закона и порядок действий
для решения спора.
Заблуждением является мнение, что семейный адвокат оказывает помощь только при возникновении проблемы. Надежный специалист ориентирован на долгосрочное сотрудничество и заинтересован в благополучии клиента. Поэтому он превращается в эффективного советника, способного оказать квалифицированную юридическую помощь по самым разным вопросам и предостеречь от необдуманных действий.