Crap, I didn’t even realize that was from years later :smack:
Thanks for posting this.
To Chuck’s thinking, he gets disbarred either way so he may as well take the deal. If he is convicted, he will have to explain himself to the ethics board, most of whom are Chuck’s cronies. It’s either lose your license or have a felony on your record and still lose your license.
Jimmy and Kim have decided that the law license is paramount. The only way for him to keep it is to go for the long shot and not get convicted at trail. He doesn’t care about his record if he doesn’t get to practice law.
And even if Chuck was not related to Jimmy, as a lawyer he and the prosecutor should know that and not offer such a deal. For Jimmy, he faces losing his livelihood either way. He is unlikely to face much prison time, if any, so for him going to trial and maybe getting off is the only reasonable outcome.
Its a family dispute and once it’s clear (as Chuck makes clear) that he was not violent or abusive, the prosecution most likely would either drop it or basically accept any deal Jimmy offers. In the real world, they don’t have time to arbiter every family dispute.
Prior to all of this, he confessed to fraud and there’s a tape (or, was a tape…). That’s probably a big deal, especially for a lawyer.
Based on his setting it up so Ernie would “accidentally” hear the tape, I’m suspecting that Chuck has his own history of shady/unethical/illegal tactics, and that he pushed for the plea deal because he’s afraid he might be exposed if he has to testify in court.
Did you miss the scene where the “tough but fair” prosecutor visited Chuck at his home? Because she said the opposite.
ETA: Oh wait, you’re just talking “real world” case?
I didn’t wig to it, either. I thought somehow the shoes were a signal to the truckers to stop there and hide their guns, and when the previous pair fell, Mike took it upon himself to replace them, with a drug load.
Of course on further reflection, that makes no sense at all.
The lady Advocate asked him whether he was threatening to hurt him, or abusive. Chuck said no and seemed almost upset at the question. In real life, the very next question would be “why are you pressing charges”. Cause, it’s hard to see them sticking otherwise. He is his brother, who has been to the house many times, and Chuck never forbade him from coming or asked him to leave. Property damage is the other thing, but that typically prosecutors drop if the accused is willing to offer compensation.
Plus, both Howard and the PI have to testify, and Howard at least will face some pretty tough questioning in XX, specifically why was he was there, the claim he disliked Jimmy and just how crazy Chuck is.
The case is pretty weak. And Chuck and Howard should know it, Howard at least no only does not have a vendetta against Jimmy, he has been shown to actually seemed to like him.
Still not sure if you’re taking about how it will work out in the show or how it would work in the real world, but Chuck made those extenuating circumstances pretty clear to her and he was actually quite honest about Jimmy’s actions and intent. She made it clear to him that she “held officers of the court to a higher standard” and would NOT be taking it easy on Jimmy. She would not accept a plea to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor and expressed concern that Chuck might soften his stance in the future proceedings.
(Too late for) ETA: They were very much on the same page and she probably very much liked Chuck’s “compromise” of going after Jimmy’s ability to practice law instead of a criminal conviction.
I very much doubt that Chuck has any history of shady or unethical tactics in his background.
There still is a tape. Just because Jimmy broke the cassette doesn’t mean the tape is destroyed - just spool the tape back up and put it into an empty cassette. However, the tape still has questionable value (acknowledged separately by Howard and Kim and certainly known by Chuck) - the whole point was to use it as bait in Chuck’s trap.
My guess is that Jimmy somehow induces catatonia in Chuck again, and this time Jimmy agrees to have Chuck committed.
ETA: And IMHO Chuck has it coming…
Yes, lawyerly tactics ( like his screw job on Kim over Mesa Verde ), but not technically shady or unethical in any legal sense. He’s a shark, but prides himself on being an aboveboard one.
Chuck objects to Jimmy being a lawyer, and conspired with Hamlin/HHM not to hire Jimmy as a lawyer after he had passed the bar.
“You are not a real lawyer! University of American Samoa for Christ’s sake? An online course? What a joke! I worked my ass off to get where I am! And you take these short cuts and suddenly you’re my peer?! You do what I do because you’re funny and you can make people laugh?! I’ve committed my life to this! You don’t slide into it like a cheap pair of slippers and then reap all the rewards!”
-Chuck McGill.
Chuck objects to Jimmy becoming Chuck’s peer in the court system. Chuck wants to punish Jimmy for lots of stuff but this time he wants to punish Jimmy, and anyone else (Ernesto) who were involved with, or covered up, the Mesa Verde’s address change during the New Mexico Banking Board hearing.
Chuck may originally have wanted to send Jimmy to jail (for his own good), and have him disbarred. During their conversation curbside, Jimmy reminded Chuck that Chuck would now die alone. That may be why Chuck later suggested a plea deal that involved no jail time, but did include a confession to a felony. That confession would lead to Jimmy’s disbarrment and make it difficult, if not impossible, for someone named Jimmy McGill to join the bar in any/many other states. Jimmy would no longer be Chucks peer.
If Jimmy accepts the deal, he’ll lose his law license. If Jimmy fights the charges in court and loses, he loses his law license. If Jimmy beats the charges, he keeps his license. Plus, Chuck’s chances of surviving a long, drawn out legal case, especially in a public and electrified court house and court room, is poor. However, this is a crimminal case. It’s the state v. Jimmy. Chuck’s attendance is not mandatory.
I think you are the one who is not clear on the issues. If a character on TV claims to be a scientist and then says that Newtons Fiest law of motion is that pressure is directly proportional to volume you would be unable to suspend disbelief and wonder if there is something being foreshadowed. That is the case here. Extenuating circumstances? What Chuck said basically made it an unwinnable case. Which makes me think that there is something else here, but frankly I don’t see what it could be.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
However, this is a crimminal case. It’s the state v. Jimmy. Chuck’s attendance is not mandatory.
[/QUOTE]
Chuck is the complainaint. He has to testify.
I knew the majority of that, what I don’t fully get is why he would lose his license, or rather why it seems no matter what he would lose it. What Jimmie did is bad, but to me doesn’t seem like it would be enough to lose the ability to practice law. Is a felony an outright loss? I know it’s a show, but it seems that IRL there might be a chance of losing it, but then he might not as well.
Just seems strange to me that lawyers would have to be so careful to not do anything wrong at all.
Becuase under New Mexico Legal ethics rules an Attorney against who a funidng of committing a felony has ben recorded can be debared and per the current rules a summary suspension leading to disbarment is indeed the appropriate sanction
He would have to go to the review board which decides to censure, suspend or revoke the license. The Board is stuffed with Chuck’s cronies.
Not to “not do anything wrong at all”, but specifically to avoid being convicted for a felony. I think you’re failing to appreciate how serious a felony conviction is. Even if you do very little prison time or none at all, you have to report on every job application that you are a felon (think about that: it’s also a noun: a “felon” is what you *are * as a person for the rest of your life), and the employer has every right to refuse to hire you solely for that reason (and many do). In some states (including, famously, Florida and Virginia) having a felony conviction on your record means you lose the right to vote for the rest of your life!
So it does seem comprehensible to me that felons would be disbarred. The legal profession already struggles with people having an image of lawyers as shady, so it is in their interest to draw a line and say that if you are a felon, you can’t be a lawyer any more.
His name is “Jimmy.” Not “Jimmie.” Not really understanding the constant misspelling. (Is “Jimmie” really a common spelling?)