Good point. A fact that HHM decided to conceal from its clients. Man many rich clients. Maybe Jimmy inadvertently takes down the whole HHM empire.
After all the efforts that HHM has taken to try to prevent Jimmy from using the McGill name, wouldn’t it be poetic justice if he changed his name to avoid being tainted by HHM’s downfall?
Yup, that’s what I’ve been thinking. Even cooler if he hired Hamlin to work in his mailroom someday.
I know nothing (good) about lawyerin’, but isn’t the bar thingy a state thing? Couldn’t Jimmy just go to Phoenix and set up shop? Lots of old people there.
Maybe he could but we know he doesn’t.
No, she clearly knows it. She clearly and obviously knew that Jimmy did it back when it happened, and when she told him not to tell her it was clearly so that she could honestly say that he never told her. If she didn’t know that he did it, why did she hit him several times in the car? If she really thought it could be a delusion of Chuck’s, she’d have no motive to do that. No one can prove that she knows it without being able to replay the episodes like we can, but that doesn’t change what she knows. I have no idea why you think ‘knows in her heart’ doesn’t mean that she knows it, the phrase includes the word ‘knows’. And in the first episode of this season, he told her straight up that Chuck has him on tape confessing to editing the documents, without throwing in disclaimers.
Soliciting false testimony from a client is an ethical offense and a crime, she did that with Jimmy. She’s probably also supposed to disclose the crime that led sabotaging the competition for her account, that she knows happened. No one else can prove that she knows, but that isn’t relevant to her ethical breach or her conscience.
Yeah, I got the timing of the changed lock wrong, for some reason I thought Chuck had changed the locks in the middle of the switch and Jimmy had to break in to put back the originals. Whether Jimmy is paying the penalty, and whether Chuck should be practicing law, and whether he should have had the documents unsecured at a location where someone not on HHM’s confidentiality agreement can get to them are all irrelevant to the question of whether Chuck was a rabid bear coming towards innocent bystander Jimmy. Chuck’s response to Jimmy altering his documents was not just a rabid bear attacking for no reason, it was a bear responding to being poked in the eye with a stick.
This, BTW, is one of the things I really, really like about this show. I find the Chuck and Jimmy dysfunctional relationship that started with Jimmy causing trouble, then Chuck bailing Jimmy out, then Chuck wronging Jimmy but now involves both of them poking at each other completely realistic, and more believable than a lot of TV rivalries. I was dating someone recently who had a former friend that she had this exact kind of rivalry with. Every couple of weeks one or the other of them would post something or say something that would get back to the other that would provoke anger, then they’d go back and forth indirectly for a bit, then go quiet (maybe deleting the posts). She told me that she wanted it all to jut be over, but she would keep on stirring up the hornets nest, and her best friend encouraged and reveled in it too. It’s a lot like the Jimmy-Chuck thing - at this point neither one of them has remotely clean hands, and that’s extremely true to life.
I can’t speak for the legal licensing boards in each state, but for medical licensure, get suspended or revoked in one state, and that info is spread to the licensing boards of all other states. And the states do take notice of that. Docs can no longer hop from one state to another to keep working. Haven’t been able to in at least 3 decades.
Hubris. That’s what you’ll find to be the running theme in much of Vince Gilligan’s work. Hubris… which also translates to the inability to forgive and move on. Got to get that last word.
Three problems: One, if he’s on probation he probably can’t leave New Mexico without violating his probation, that’s a pretty common requirement because he’ll have to keep talking to a state official. The other is that the Arizona bar association may deny his application because of the suspension directly, or because he’s got a suspended sentence for a felony. It’s not impossible to be suspended in one state but practice in another, but it’s pretty likely. The third is that learning the Arizona specific law information, taking the Bar and any other tests and background checks for Arizona, and setting up shop in Arizona will take time and money, probably several months, and Jimmy is pretty near broke at this point.
The problem I have with this theory is that Jimmy showed up without his policy number, even though he’s been calling them for days about the issue. He’s generally competent with his paperwork, for example they made a point of him having his card with him for community service, so that oversight seems odd. And it’s a good setup to get the woman to pull up “McGill”, see the “C” name first, and give him a chance to let her know that he’s her brother. If it wasn’t for that I would see it as a spur of the moment, thing but for someone who’s usually thorough on legal paperwork to completely forget when it’s obvious he’d need it is a bit odd. Especially since (IIRC) he usually introduces himself as “Jimmy McGill”, not “McGill, Jimmy”.
I know the writers and Bob Odenkirk say they intended the scene such that Jimmy had a real bout of emotion, then decided to use it to screw Chuck over on the spot, but the lack of a policy number is a big sticking point for me. OTOH, it’s certainly possible that he consciously didn’t have a plan, but his subconscious led him to leave the policy number at home and set up the fatal blow to Chuck.
I’m pretty sure Hamlin will land on his feet from this. HHM may go down in flames, but I think he’ll let Chuck do the ‘Captain goes down with his ship’ routine if it’s needed.
ISTM that he did not know or expect his brother to also have the same insurance company. That he was unprepared can easily be forgiven by the way he’s been practically (*?) living out of his car while running between his community service, advertising business and misc. errands.
*Has he been staying with Kim the whole time since leaving Davis & Main, including now? He doesn’t have the office at the nail salon still, does he?
Shit, even Kim has made it a habit to spend the night at the office. Taking a five minute car nap in the parking lot right before a meeting? Ouch… would that even help anybody?
Gets the adrenaline flowing for a short time anyway, much like an epipen. Not a good long term strategy, however.
I thought about that a split second after I hit “post”. :smack:
“Yeah, remember that little ‘Breaking Bad’ show?”
I suppose but he really didn’t really need some trick to bring up his brother. I actually thought he was just going to flat out say that this wasn’t just cause to raise his rates because it was just a family squabble.
Very short naps do actually help if you are seriously sleep deprived. It is longer ones, surprisingly, that will mess you up for a while after you wake up.
I’m going to stop you right there because you still don’t seem to have gotten what I was saying. I said she may “know it in her heart”. By that I meant that she as a person may be overwhelmingly convinced that it is true. But she as a member of the bar doesn’t know it in a legal sense. She does not, as far as I can recall, have any additional evidence that others do not have, which she is suppressing. (Even in bed, when she was essentially warning Jimmy to cover his tracks, she spoke in elliptical terms that, even if they were recorded, were not proof of anything.)
In a legal sense, what you are saying she “knows” and what I was calling “knows it in her heart” is still just “very strongly suspecting” it is true. And that’s no different, again, from having a client charged with rape who comes across as a misogynistic dirtbag and someone you would bet your life savings on being guilty. You still don’t know for a metaphysical fact that his crazy, unlikely, impossible to verify or disprove alibi is false, and your job is to try to convince the jury that there is a reasonable doubt.
So if you are going to claim that she is guilty of a cover-up or some other kind of legal malfeasance, you’re going to have to point to specifics and not just say that you feel certain that inside her mind she knows he did it. Because I don’t disagree with that, but I don’t agree that that constitutes any kind of crime or formal breach of ethical standards. As I understand it, she can’t even be asked on the stand whether she believes it to be true. “Objection, Your Honor–calls for speculation.” “Withdrawn.”
I get what you’re saying, I simply don’t agree with your concept that while she knows it’s true, she doesn’t bar-know it’s true. She knows Jimmy did it, she knows that since she knows he did it she shouldn’t be profiting from it or encouraging him to testify that he didn’t do it. Period, end of story.
She knows it as a person, and only people can be members of the bar. So obviously if you know something as a person, you know it as a member of the bar too, as there are no non-people in the bar. The fact that she uses twisty language that she could easily deny later doesn’t somehow mean that she doesn’t know what Jimmy did. Again, you seem to be confusing ‘no one can prove Kim knows…’ with ‘Kim doesn’t know’. I am not making the assertion that anyone on the show can prove that Kim knows Jimmy did it, I am speaking solely about her knowledge.
Cite, please. You’ve made up an arbitrary distinction that doesn’t exist in actual law as far as I know.
Here’s a cite for my main point, that she couldn’t even be questioned in court on whether she believed Jimmy did what Chuck alleges he did:
So although, again, IANAL, I feel pretty safe in saying that you are wrong to say that she is guilty of “soliciting false testimony”, by which I assume you mean the crime of suborning perjury:
And you yourself even admitted that you are “not making the assertion that anyone on the show can prove that Kim knows Jimmy did it”. Therefore she cannot possibly be convicted of this crime.
And I would further disagree with your assertion that “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.” What I’m saying is that she would actually have to *lie *to say anything that would land her in jail or get her disbarred. What does she know that is not in the public record? She is not concealing any knowledge or evidence. She is simply not stating to others her *opinion *that Jimmy did the things Chuck accused him of doing.
And even if she did state that opinion now, it would not make her representation of him in the hearing any kind of crime or ethical violation. As she is not an expert witness, her opinion has no relevance here, anywhere–and it is certainly not a “thought crime” for her to think Jimmy did it, yet proceed based on the actual evidence that everyone has.
All this would be completely different if she saw Jimmy working on the fraudulent papers, or was involved in bribing the copy shop guy, etc. But her hands are in fact clean, legally speaking (her conscience is another matter). This kind of thing, I understand, makes people think lawyers are weaselly; but I would argue that we can’t actually have fair trials and the presumption of innocence if defense lawyers can’t present the best looking case for their clients even if they believe them with every fiber of their being to be guilty.
Kim does not know. She strongly suspects, she thinks, she believes is true, and her strongly held best guess belief is, we know, correct, but she does not know. That’s not an arbitrary distinction. It’s not splitting hairs.
And she can honestly move forward as a person who does not know.
But that doesn’t mean she can’t feel bad about the consequences of so doing.