Yeah - squat cobbler! Don’t think I ever laughed that hard at anything on TV before or since! 
From the previews, looks like the music store ad is his big break.
That’s possible too- either way it was obvious that something about the woman’s story made him change his mind. I still think he’s hoping to find something out, which I think will involve the second request he had for Nacho.
“All we did was tear down a sick man” doesn’t work for me.
Chuck set Jimmy up, and then was doing his level best to try to end Jimmy’s career, that Jimmy had worked so hard for, for so many years.
Yes, it’s true they humiliated Chuck. But I just don’t buy that she would see it only in those terms and be so affected now. He wasn’t a sick man crying in the corner, he was a rabid bear coming right for them.
A general thought I had about Mike and Hector, not related to this episode:
Shouldn’t Hector have realized that Mike is a professional?
Ordinary members of the public, even ex cops, are not going to be that cool about asking for $50k in the lions’ den, plus fighting Tuco in the first place, in a business that was presumably picked for not having a lot of foot traffic during the day. Also not being intimidated by the henchmen, even kicking their asses…
I think he should have suspected Mike was a professional, and that the whole thing had been a set up.
Or have I misremembered that whole thread?
From Jimmy’s current POV that may be true, but from another level, we know that Chuck may very well have a valid point that Jimmy, the ABQ area, and the world would be better off if Jimmy wasn’t practicing law. It’s pretty hard to argue he’s wrong, too.
I don’t think she’s saying “all we did was tear down a sick man”.
I think she’s saying “It’s a damn shame that to protect you we had to tear down a sick man. I’m starting to wonder if there was another way we could’ve done it.”
Chuck didn’t have to testify. Hamlin tried to talk him out of it. He really did bring all of this upon himself.
IANAL, just going by the info provided by the show. 
But, you could also say that Jimmy and Kim (by omission) didn’t have to lie/misrepresent the truth and could have admitted what they did/knew, and it would have been unnecessary for Jimmy’s mentally ill brother to be publicly humiliated.
He was a rabid bear that Jimmy had poked with a stick and then ‘had to’ defend himself against. Don’t forget that Jimmy broke into Chuck’s house, altered documents, then broke in to put the originals back after Chuck’s hearing, and Kim knows that. While Chuck’s previous actions against Jimmy were unjustified, what he did here is actually strongly justified. She was never comfortable with Jimmy committing multiple felonies to alter the documents, and having to defend him against Chuck’s accusation knowing that the accusation is completely true is not an easy thing for her to swallow. Chuck’s an asshole, but Jimmy is not some innocent bystander, and Kim is helping cover up a major ethical violation that directly benefitted her, and it’s clearly against her principles.
Kim knows that she was on the wrong side morally and ethically, and that she’s staying on the wrong side to protect Jimmy and enrich herself with Mesa Verde. Not only that, but she can’t talk about her issues with anyone because she’d have to confess to things that can land her in jail or disbarred. The fact that Jimmy and Chuck are both provoking and attacking each other doesn’t change that.
This may sound like a technicality, but technicalities are pretty important when it comes to what lawyers deal with. And Kim does not know for a fact that Jimmy did this. She may have strong reason to believe it, she may know it “in her heart”; but she made it clear to him that he should never ever tell her whether it is actually true.
ETA: Point being, she has not actually committed any crime, nor has she violated any ethical rule.
Knowing it only in her heart is enough to explain her gulty feelings even if there’s enough cover for her legal obligations.
Absolutely. I’m just pushing back on the assertion that she is committing a crime or a disbarrable ethical violation. Defense lawyers have clients all the time that they suspect strongly to be guilty of whatever crime it is, and they presumably just warn them not to confess anything to them.
Hubris. That word keeps coming up with Vince Gilligan stories.
Hold on there. Jimmy did not break into Chuck’s house when he changed the documents. He had a key, and he was tending to Chuck, who was out cold. What Jimmy did was unconscionable (as Hamlin says), but Chuck should not have had those documents unsecured at home either. In any event, Jimmy is paying the penalty. What about Chuck? Should he still be practicing law in his condition?
I have to wonder if it won’t be difficult for him and his firm to get business after this. His condition will no doubt be talked about at least in legal circles, and people will probably believe that it was him that made the mistake with the dates or, at the very least, was careless with the documents.
Chuck had been trying to derail Jimmy’s career since the day he passed the bar exam. He blocked him from an entry-level position at HHM (secretly, making Howard the bad guy). He took Sandpiper Crossing from Jimmy by convincing him that he needed the resources at HHM, then again blocked him from a position there (and again secretly, using Howard as the fall guy). When he found out that Kim and Jimmy were setting up an office together, he made an extreme effort to wrest Mesa Verde away from Kim, knowing that she would back out if she didn’t have a big client.
Kim’s big speech to Chuck when he played the tape for her hit the nail on the head: Chuck is responsible for what Jimmy is. He could have mentored Jimmy and helped him with his career instead of blocking him every step of the way. Chuck is the creator of Saul Goodman.
IMHO Chuck is reaping what he has sown.
It’ll be really hard for HHM to keep Chuck around if he can’t get malpractice insurance.
I’m not sure Jimmy went into the insurance agency with the intention of screwing over Chuck. I think the opportunity presented itself, and when he found out that his malpractice premium would go up 150% he realized that Chuck succeeded in putting his law career in jeopardy (from a financial standpoint - can he afford to get his practice started again?). At that point he decided that if he was going to have to pay, Chuck sure as hell would too.
A thought: is malpractice insurance for the individual lawyer or for the firm? Maybe the insurance company pulls HHM’s insurance, since they don’t know how long Chuck has been practicing law with his mental condition?
Like I said upthread, most lawyers are pretty good at compartmentalizing, and dealing w/ things unemotionally. In so many situations, doing what is legally advantageous for your client is not at all the same as what you would think is “right.” And few attorneys would be able to make a living if they let their emotions for opposing parties/witnesses interfere with their zealous advocacy for their client.
If you have to (legally and ethically) “tear down a sick man” to achieve your client’s lawful goals, then that’s what you do.
Of course, in this case, there is the fact that Kim knows Jimmy acted improperly in changing the document. And she might be too emotionally close to Jimmy to be sufficiently objective. There’s a good reason that it might not be the best idea for lawyers to represent friends and relatives in certain situations.
The writer of the episode says you are right.
I wonder if past clients who lost their cases could now successfully sue because they were represented by a mentally defective attorney.