Ackk! Not an attempt to junior mod, but I’ll just make a desperate plea for no more definition wars ;).
The differences between attacking and acting like a scumbucket is negligible here as far as I’m concerned. Some think Jimmy had some reasonable justification for his actions, others really don’t. I think that is a comfortable place to let things lie. Plenty of room for agree-to-disagree there.
Or, it could golike it did with aunt who lived in Ontario. There was a small lump found on her breast and her physician said we’ll see if it is any bigger at your next annual. She got started treatments the next Monday, in Rochester, New York
Because the actual amount for them is much bigger and the have lots of revenue coming in constantly so it’s not a big deal for them. For Irene and company, this is a one time thing.
Yes, I think at least some of the people assuming the lawyers interest is different than the clients are falling for Jimmy’s irrelevant point that the plaintiffs get fewer extra $'s than the law firms if a future settlement is higher. They get the same % more.
So the lawyers’ and Irene’s (under the idea only she decides directly for all plaintiffs) views should be the same if lawyers and Irene use the same implicit discount rate for a dollar a year from now (or whatever term) v a dollar today. Taking the previous example of a $13.6k today v $16k in a year, that’s 18%. The only person who it’s clear sees (and should see, based on what we know of his situation) borrowing at 18% as a slam dunk is Jimmy. It’s not clear that should be attractive to Irene. OK she’s elderly, but as I said elderly people sometimes have an optimistic view of their life expectancy and health, it’s not a life changing amount of money for her necessarily, she might have well loved heirs she’d like to leave it too anyway, etc. Maybe she applies a high discount rate for some reason, like a high personal aversion to a risk like the offer being pulled. But maybe not. It’s not clearer IMO she would apply a higher implicit discount rate than the lawyers.
And OTOH it’s suggested HMM can’t even borrow $6mil to buy out Chuck and cover it with a fairly short period of normal cash flow, at a reasonable interest rate. So not clear their implicit discount rate is so low either. I say as no expert on the law firm business but just general rough idea based on apparent big Hq and staff, Chuck’s statement they couldn’t afford it, Howard’s non push back, and considering they could borrow the $6mil (it doesn’t have to be sitting around). Although, the writers might not have been thinking of that. And it’s not to say Howard should pay Chuck, but the show seems to say they perhaps can’t.
It’s the potential for 18%. This is not a sure thing.
We are probably all overthinking this (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and I doubt that the writers are thinking about those details.
Bottom like is that Irene is not being a good steward of the case. She isn’t even looking at the paperwork to make a decision. The law firm isn’t doing a reasonable job of explaining it to her. I think that taking the money now is the better option. I’d do it and I am 53 years old. I am a big believer that money now is better than money later and it has served me well.
Given that, I think that Jimmy is forcing the correct option although he stands to benefit much more that they all do. Clearly, he is doing it in a very shitty way but he can’t do it in a non-shitty way without violating his probation.
I do think the writers are failing to do some of the math on the buyout etc.
Corry El, you are right that the potential percentage increase is technically the same. But mightn’t the marginal return (after deducting their sunk costs) be greater for HHM as long as they don’t go to trial?
Oh Jimmy was full blown Saul here and the rationalizations run thin. Neither money now or less certain 1.18X money later is a slam dunk obvious “right” choice. The decision depends on the relative value of the money now and the tolerance for risk to each individual. Jimmy has a high relative value of the money now but being old does not automatically mean they do. The only consideration Jimmy has is his relative value of money now.
The only potential rationalization would be that maybe Irene was not doing her job of understanding the offer, communicating it to the others, and eliciting their feedback. But as she trusted Jimmy, she trusted the nice lady of HHM to give good advice. And the only straight-up way to deal with that was also the simplest and would be to directly advise Irene about the importance of her responsibility to the others and that maybe she should ask the others what they want, right off. I do not think that would count as legal advice. It’s ethical advice.
The point of course is that Jimmy at this point no longer even considers thinking about how to do things straight up. That’s trusting people and trusting people is for marks. Getting people to trust you and taking advantage of it, that’s the way, and it’s what his father never knew. The only person he has any trust for now is Kim and we know that that is not going to end well.
Good summary. He is definitely about half Saul and half Jimmy at this point, which is about right since I’m guessing this series is about halfway through.
What does any of that have to do with a present value calculation? Other revenue is completely irrelevant. Whether it’s a one time thing or not is irrelevant. Even the absolute amount is irrelevant! All that matters for a present value calculation is the interest rate you assume and how far in the future the payment is, then you just plug in the future money and see if it’s worth more or less than the present money. You’ll get the same result if you’re comparing $13.6 million now and $16 million later or $13600 now and $16000 later, because it ends up being a simple multiplier.
Or maybe the law firm is doing a great job explaining it to her, but their job explaining it to her led to a conclusion that Jimmy doesn’t like. There’s zero evidence in the show that FM isn’t doing a reasonable job of explaining it to her, and we do know that they’ve sent what’s arguably the most blandly proper lawyer on the entire series to explain it to her. The only evidence that Irene is not being a good steward is that Jimmy says so, and we know both that Jimmy is perfectly willing to lie for personal gain and that he stands to gain from this lie.
I’m a firm believer that if you have a complex legal document to deal with, you hire a lawyer to figure out what it means, because a layman simply doesn’t have the background to interpret legal language, especially in the context of a large, complicated lawsuit. So I see nothing wrong with her relying on lawyers to handle the actual legal documents.
Lots of people have beliefs that aren’t based on objective fact, but just personal feeling. (I certainly would rather have $10,000 in a year than $500 now, for example, and I think most people would, even if it’s not your belief). It’s fine to make a choice for yourself based on an irrational but firmly held belief, but it doesn’t justify telling other people that they have to make the choice you would. One of the problems I have with Jimmy’s actions is that he is saying that the Sandpiper residents aren’t allowed to actually make their own choice, and you seem to be saying the same thing, that they’re obligated to choose your way or it’s fine to do anything to get them to change their mind. Violating someone’s trust and fucking up their life is simply NOT the correct choice, even if you think everyone should value money now over money later.
We know that she is putting the letters in a shoe box and not really looking at them because she told us.
In my case I made a year’s salary on stock options in 1997. The people who held their shares ended up with nothing eleven months later.
Not a single person thinks that Jimmy’s methods were in any way appropriate.
They over there sayin’* that Kim is struggling with guilt because she didn’t earn the Mesa Verde account fairly, that she only got the job because Jimmy falsified Chuck’s documents.
Hey, didn’t she work hard to bring that account to HHM? Remember all those post-it notes stuck on windows? Her old law school friend Paige was thoroughly impressed with Kim’s work …but then Chuck threw doubt on her ability to handle such a large account, so HHM gave it to Chuck. That’s what pissed Jimmy off, that’s the reason he sabotaged Chuck’s documents.
Every shady thing Jimmy has done - since the HHM mailroom days anyway - can be directly connected to his love for Kim …trying to help her, trying to gain her respect, trying to be her partner. Remember how he cried and kicked the door of that empty office suite when she turned him down? And now Jimmy is losing what he wants most … Kim.
I was saying the rift between Irene and her friends could be fixed, not between her and Jimmy. I have no idea how you got the wrong impression there.
The reason I need anywhere near 18% on a super risky investment is because it’s not a sure thing. If it’s a sure thing, I can except a return something like that on a 1 yr T-bill (ballpark of 2% back in 2003). Now one might immediately respond ‘they aren’t thinking of it in that kind of financial tech way’, but it’s just a framework to explain the way people must think of a decision like this, if logically. They must assess risk and expected (not necessarily certain) return compared to alternatives. And it’s just not obvious you want to turn down an investment with an 18% estimated expected return. It depends on your risk aversion, which in turn depends in this case on stuff like desperately needing the money now (Jimmy) v perhaps not (Irene or the lawyers).
Again it’s not about whether the characters get out calculators and estimate actual % returns, the principal of approaching it logically is still the same. However as to the writers like I said one possible plot gap is suggesting HHM can’t come up with $6mil. A firm as big and swanky as they present HMM should be able to borrow that much at a rate likely much less than the expected return from bargaining up a settlement offer over months. So maybe the writers are telling us HMM is actually in financial trouble, or maybe the writers were just incorrectly thinking it was plausible to say HMM couldn’t come up with that much if they didn’t have it as unencumbered cash.
It seems she’s lax, but that’s not the direct ethical responsibility of the lawyers.
The central question is whether it’s ‘unethical’ if the lawyers don’t apply information and persuasion that results in Irene taking the money now, because it’s not obvious she should do that with perfectly balanced information. I don’t see how it’s ‘unethical’ not to steer a mentally competent adult on a decision they are supposed to make for themselves.
I would not take it now, and patiently waiting for returns on my money where available has served me well. Note, I am not saying as you seem to be that my outlook is right for Irene. I’m saying there isn’t a single right answer in general, and we don’t really know Irene’s situation enough to say if there is for her specifically.
So it’s not clear IMO Jimmy is forcing the ‘right’ decision for others, just that he desperately needs the money, and is acting unethically to get it. He could be acting in Irene’s best interest that she can’t see, but that’s incidental even if so.
Well, Irene is supposed to be thinking about all the claimants. Is it not reasonable to assume that a few of those seniors who have been ripped off are as desperate for money as Jimmy?
So what you were saying is that you think that Irene should pay most or all of her settlement amount to fix the damage that Jimmy did, and that’s a reasonable solution? I got the wrong impression because I assumed your solution at least had Jimmy doing the repairing, the idea that the situation can get made right by the primary victim paying a lot money of money is so far from reasonable that I didn’t contemplate the possibility that it was what you were suggesting. And my question as to how it can be ‘smoothed over’ if the stress from Jimmy’s manipulations kills Irene before any of this rapproachment takes place still stands.
I could be wrong, but I thought he was saying once everyone got their checks the hostility might abate as the root of the dispute would be gone. Which might be true for some, might not for others. Some people are forgive and forget types, others are not and her friends thought Irene was shafting them. Even after they got their payments they might not decide to bury the hatchet.
And Irene dies isolated, alone and quite possibly sooner than she should due to stress.
Note that the only actual evidence that she’s lax are Jimmy’s self-serving claims that she is lax. The fact that she’s not wasting time reading and trying to interpret legal documents as a layman and is instead relying on hired experts to do so is not being lax, it’s being sensible. I’ve signed non-competes that to a layman look awful but a lawyer told me were not actually enforceable (I’d probably make money if someone tried to enforce it), and never had a problem with them. I certainly didn’t spend weeks doing the kind of precedent checking and general research that I’d need to actually interpret all of the paperwork involved in buying and selling a house, I paid a lawyer to make sure that the contracts did what I wanted them to do and didn’t have any nasty surprises.
Yes, Jimmy is acting entirely in his own interest, if he happens to line up with anyone else’s interest it’s chance, not his goodwill.
It is not reasonable to assume that ALL or even most of the seniors are desperate for money, much less as desperate as Jimmy. And it’s certainly not reasonable to base the decision for ALL of the plaintiffs on some tiny-to-nonexistent minority, the decision should take everyone into account. And it’s even less reasonable to base the decision on Jimmy’s misleading explanations and manipulations.
And really, if some of the claimants do need the money, it’s their responsibility to communicate it to the class representative at some point, it’s not reasonable to expect her to mind read. Especially when the wronged people are people she sees every day who never thought to mention their immediate need for money at any point before Jimmy’s scheme. The fact that they were all fine with the settlement until Jimmy started manipulating them and lying to them says a lot.
I thought the show made pretty clear that the other clients were not aware of the terms of the settlement offer, or even that there was an offer.
The class clearly includes individuals from a number of Sandpiper locations. Is Irene the class representative for all of them? Does a class representative have any responsibility to keep the other members of the class informed? The show is certainly implying that the decision to settle is completely Irene’s. Is she somehow prohibited from seeking input from the other class members? It seems inconceivable to me that she would keep the status of the case secret from people she hangs with every day.
Not that this justifies Jimmy’s actions. Just pointing out that no character in the BB/BCS world is black or white - just varying shades of grey. Except Uncle Jack - he was pretty freaking black…
Directly advising Irene (my bolding) would be soliciting and involving himself in an active legal case that he would have no business doing *even if he weren’t currently disbarred. *
Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not he should have manipulated Irene at all, but once he decided to do it, he did it exactly the way he had to do it so that he couldn’t get in any trouble for what he actually did and said. It was all set up to look incidental and if Irene just tells the truth about their encounters, then Jimmy can’t be shown to have done anything wrong. He did it the way it had to done if he was going to do it at all.
Had he approached her straight up with any advice, and she informed anyone of that fact, his goose would be cooked. He knows that Howard, Chuck, and even the good folks at Davis & Main will automatically suspect him of interference and be all over him legally if he leaves an opening.