Many of us like to watch a good TV show, play, movie or other drama about the law. Over the past several years, I have noticed that most of these have absolutely glaring inaccuracies about the legal issues discussed in the show.
It used to be that each show or movie had technical advisers to make sure they got things right. Either they don’t use them anymore or the standards have gotten lax. We thought it would be entertaining to periodically comment upon some of the more glaring errors as they occur.
The Good Wife is one of the best dramas on TV. It has a wonderful cast led by Julianna Margulies and Chris Noth with several excellent supporting players. Unfortunately, the writers can’t get the law right.
Michael J. Fox guest starred a few weeks ago and gave an extraordinary performance. However, the episode focused on a law firm that settled a class action with no court approval, nor any of the niceties of how a class action works, for an amount that turned out to be tens of millions of dollars less than the defense had authority for. This did not make our heroes look very good.
In terms of veracity, the Dec. 14 episode was even more galling. The firm was fighting to save a possibly innocent man from execution. The Seventh Circuit Clerk phoned our protagonist, the second-year associate portrayed by Margulies, at her home asking for an addendum to the brief she filed the night before. This prompted the firm and Legal Aid to scramble to present a new argument or produce new evidence to convince the judges to stay the execution.
With hours to go, they mobilized forces to get an expert witness to recant his testimony, which was a significant factor in the jury convicting the defendant. So far, so good. There also was a sub-issue of the institution running out of the correct barbiturate with which to start the lethal injection process.
Drama heightened, BUT then we have our protagonist sitting on her bed at home with her chief investigator (whose murky past is still a mystery) drinking beer and dishing about her love life. This was with six hours to go before the execution, when every other lawyer in the firm was working his/her butt off.
The Seventh Circuit Judge (one of three on the panel) later phones Margulies’ character, looking for her to say that the defendant is innocent. He asks if she has spoken to the expert who changed his testimony. She had not but, at the urging of the investigator, she lies to the judge and says that she had. Will she be brought before the Grievance Commission in future episodes for this infraction -don’t bet on it.
This is a great drama. Week in and week out there is fine acting and with intriguing storylines – many “ripped from the headlines.” But why, oh why, can’t they bother to get the law right? It would make for even more compelling stories.
Posted by Andrew Radding, who frequently analyzes white collar criminal issues for broadcast and print media.
It used to be that each show or movie had technical advisers to make sure they got things right. Either they don’t use them anymore or the standards have gotten lax. We thought it would be entertaining to periodically comment upon some of the more glaring errors as they occur.
The Good Wife is one of the best dramas on TV. It has a wonderful cast led by Julianna Margulies and Chris Noth with several excellent supporting players. Unfortunately, the writers can’t get the law right.
Michael J. Fox guest starred a few weeks ago and gave an extraordinary performance. However, the episode focused on a law firm that settled a class action with no court approval, nor any of the niceties of how a class action works, for an amount that turned out to be tens of millions of dollars less than the defense had authority for. This did not make our heroes look very good.
In terms of veracity, the Dec. 14 episode was even more galling. The firm was fighting to save a possibly innocent man from execution. The Seventh Circuit Clerk phoned our protagonist, the second-year associate portrayed by Margulies, at her home asking for an addendum to the brief she filed the night before. This prompted the firm and Legal Aid to scramble to present a new argument or produce new evidence to convince the judges to stay the execution.
With hours to go, they mobilized forces to get an expert witness to recant his testimony, which was a significant factor in the jury convicting the defendant. So far, so good. There also was a sub-issue of the institution running out of the correct barbiturate with which to start the lethal injection process.
Drama heightened, BUT then we have our protagonist sitting on her bed at home with her chief investigator (whose murky past is still a mystery) drinking beer and dishing about her love life. This was with six hours to go before the execution, when every other lawyer in the firm was working his/her butt off.
The Seventh Circuit Judge (one of three on the panel) later phones Margulies’ character, looking for her to say that the defendant is innocent. He asks if she has spoken to the expert who changed his testimony. She had not but, at the urging of the investigator, she lies to the judge and says that she had. Will she be brought before the Grievance Commission in future episodes for this infraction -don’t bet on it.
This is a great drama. Week in and week out there is fine acting and with intriguing storylines – many “ripped from the headlines.” But why, oh why, can’t they bother to get the law right? It would make for even more compelling stories.
Posted by Andrew Radding, who frequently analyzes white collar criminal issues for broadcast and print media.
