Series one of BBC’s Silks is airing on PBS tonight. Who else is watching? 
We always DVR Mystery and watch later. Really looking forward to it. Was it good?
I had started a thread simultaneously. This is what I posted only moments ago.
I gather it’s been on British TV for a couple of years already.
The New York Times review compares it a little to The Good Wife, unfavorably. The most interesting thing is the unfamiliar British courtroom setting and not just the wigs and costumes (which I like, as I’m in favor of dressing for the occasion). The courtroom seems close and a bit cramped, unlike the theatrical, auditorium-like configuration of American courtrooms. There seem to be lots of levels and barriers and railings. The procedures seemed more informal than American tv/movie courtroom scenes-- someone shouted out from the audience with no consequences. It was interesting.
The way the barristers are assigned their cases seems reminiscent of the navy series *JAG *where any member of the pool of lawyers could be assigned to either side of the case, as opposed to other courtroom shows where the defendant selects his/her representative. In the case of Law & Order, almost always a very snarky defense attorney who specializes in defense.
As with so many new series, there’s not one likable character in the whole bunch. No one to root for or even care much about. The main character, Martha Costello, is a soul sister of Maggie on The Newsroom– stressed, brittle (as the NYTimes review aptly puts it), rushing from place to place (usually carrying bulky heavy items), and emoting in clipped, rude sound bites. That is one m-f cutthroat firm she works for! Sniping at each other, undermining each other, withholding information from each other. And Martha seems to get her cases assigned the day before the trial-- how is she supposed to do justice to the case?
Something else I didn’t get: Martha’s pupil steals $2,000 worth of lawyer attire from a shop and no one comes after him?
The milieu is new and interesting, and it’s only three episodes. Anyone catch it last night?
I saw it. Basically a solid drama, but not a great one. The office politics did make it a little more interesting that the usual courtroom show.
I did love the fact that the head of chambers came back from a meeting with Rumpole. 
I thought he was just kidding/being cute with that remark.
Watched; what a silly mess. A bad Good Wife with Maggie from the Newsroom as the lead is a pretty spot on. The rape trial seemed insulting in its poor writing and portrayal of false choices. Moving on.
One note: jeez, does Natalie Dormer get around, or what? Game of Thrones, Elementary and this. She’s locked up the sweet-looking-but-with-a-smirk-which-shows-she’s-really-a-manipulative-player roles, hasn’t she? She does a good job with them, but wow.
Olivia Benson would have FREAKED OUT at the way that rape case was handled. Where was the rape victim’s defense representation? The courtroom work in general seemed sloppy to me. Imprecise. Fuzzy around the edges.
I didn’t understand the whole thing with that Rush guy showing up again and the female pupil getting him off on bail… was she or was she not instructed to do that by her boss?
The name of the drama is SILK.
Remember the medal that was stolen from the Normandie invasion veteran
and was then mailed to barrister Martha Costello? I think Rush’s
barrister had more than one reason to make this robber hand over the medal.
Firstly, it was to show Costello that Rush was guilty as sin. Secondly, to trick
Costello into returning the medal to the old veteran. Then she would have been
guilty of receiving stolen property.
This was confusing: Costello was Rush’s barrister. Do you mean his solicitor?
I’d really like a complete explanation of the British legal system.
Does a defendant not get to choose who represents them? Who pays? Are they all sort of like Public Defenders and District Attorneys? How does a **barrister **differ from a solicitor? What’s so special about being Queens Council? I mean, I know it’s some sort of an honor and takes experience and great references to get, but how does that affect the job?
Not being glib, really, just an ignorant American. I’ve watched legal procedurals, crime dramas, I’ve even served jury duty, but know next to nothing about the British system.
Okay. I’m an American viewer who’s been watching this show since it came out in 2011. In fact, it’s one of my favourite programmes. I’ve imported the DVDs and watched and re-watched and done research on both the series and British legal system and am saying these things because it’s apparent that certain things need clarification. Note that I’m not going to criticize anyone’s opinion, as I respect everyone’s, I’m just going to go over some things that people seem to be confused about.
First off, the series is SIX episodes. PBS just took two episodes at a time and smashed them together. This means bits of episode two were cut. The first being a conversation Clive has pre-con with the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) solicitor and later on, a REALLY important scene where Martha and Clive converse after the first part of the rape trial. It helps with defining some of their characters and we get a cute little interlude with the pupils that explains their splitting of the unused. Lastly, a part of the trial was cut out where Annie talked about seeing a friend and talking with her the day after.
Secondly, personally, I didn’t feel as if the trial was sloppy-then again I’m no law expert and it doesn’t help that an important part was cut out. And to answer the question about Annie’s representation, that was supposed to be Clive. His job as the prosecutor was to give evidence against Alan Bradley to support her claim in hopes the evidence would be enough to back it up and outweigh Martha’s defense. Apparently, rape trials are often handled the way shown here, with it all made out to be the victim’s fault, because they’re quite hard to deal with anyway, as it’s a lot of “he said, she said.”
Now, on Gary Rush. In the first episode he was found not guilty and let free. One can infer his appearance in the second means he got busted for something again. Now, Billy (who is not Niamh’s boss, but senior clerk, his job is to keep track of and distribute briefs and watch the development of the barristers’ careers) told Niamh to “not waste a bail application” because, with all of his previous convictions, there was no way Rush could have gotten bail and Niamh couldn’t have known she’d get bail based upon this. However, when Niamh went to get his previous, it had been mixed up with someone else’s, so there were NO previous convictions to speak of as far as those at Old Street (where the application was made) knew. It was said that she didn’t have to tell them they messed up, she just couldn’t lie about it if asked, so, with that in mind, she went ahead and made the application anyway despite Billy’s orders. Make sense?
On Natalie Dormer as Niamh Cranitch. I’ll admit, she’s my favourite actress and can do no wrong in my mind, BUT I also know that, from studying her character, Niamh isn’t manipulative. She’s truly genuine and just wants to do her job well. She’s got a major flaw in that she’s hung up on the fact that her father’s a judge and is trying to break from under that shadow and prove she’s more than just “Judge Cranitch’s daughter.” She also has judgment issues, as seen by her sleeping with Clive. (See this article in which Natalie talks about playing Niamh: http://www.digitalspy.com/british-tv/tubetalk/a304408/qa-natalie-dormer-chats-silk.html) Basically, she’s young and confused and just trying to figure things out with no Also, isn’t good that Natalie’s finally breaking out? Personally, I think it’s about time. She’s been acting since 2005, it’s about time she got some recognition for her talent.
Lastly, the idea of the medal was NOT meant to trick Martha into giving it up nor was it some scheme by the solicitor to get Rush to give it up. It was Rush’s weird/creepy way of showing apperception and affection, because it’s obvious he has a thing for Martha, since she got him off. It was more so used to show the audience that he was guilty (like we didn’t already know) rather than Martha, because it was obvious she knew as well, but just because he was guilty didn’t mean he hadn’t been set up had the opposite been true.
And to the question about explaining the British legal system, unfortunately I can’t exactly do it justice. I know enough to give it a basic clarification, but now a whole, in-depth one. The only thing I could say would be to do the research I did, admittedly, for clarification and fanfiction (which, contrary to popular belief, is not all crap.)
Anyway, I hope that this helps with some of your questions and clears things up a bit. I’m happy to answer any other questions about the series anyone may have.
If I’m not mistaken, solicitors are basically backroom lawyers who handle things like contracts, taxes, and so on. Barristers are lawyers who actually argue cases in open court. The term comes from being “called to the bar” (the physical barrier set up in the courtroom), which is what literally used to happen when one became a qualified advocate or prosecutor.
LostButterfly, your info really helps. So they left stuff out, eh? I think that’s why it seemed sloppy to me. I did get that Gary Rush sent the medal to Martha, but I thought he was taunting her, saying, “See? I am guilty- I fooled you.”
LB, I think you are now General Counsel to this thread. 
I don’t see any comparison whatsoever to “The Good Wife”, so not sure why that was even mentioned in the reviews or comments.
It was an OK show - will continue to watch - but do they really only get a matter of hours to read through all of those briefs and then “wing it” in court?
I will admit the wigs seem sort of silly - ill-fitting and not particularly attractive, but I realize it is simply tradition and probably no sillier than other traditions we have here.
I was not aware that the British system of law and courts is so very similar to our system - a version of Miranda rights, the jury and methods of prosecution. Learn something new every day, I guess.
Will continue to watch…the show certainly zips along, unlike some other British shows that do tend to move a tad slowly.
I think just the fact that there’s a law firm involved, as opposed to strictly a police procedural with trial (like L&O).
That part also boggled my mind.
Mods, could you correct the thread title to “Silk,” which is the name of the program. Little stuff like that bothers me.
Yes, they certainly can. Of course, if you’re not used to appointing a lawyer and not used to paying for one, then you might just go with who’s recommended.
Your first legal contact and primary representative in any legal case, criminal or otherwise, will be your solicitor. If you’re on legal aid (ie the state pays the legals bills because you can’t afford it), or you don’t know a solicitor then the police will probably call up a ‘duty’ solicitor, in the first instance. You could stick with them, or find your own, if the case proceeds.
Your solicitor will normally find you a barrister if your case needs to go to court, which is what is happening in Silk - the barristers are getting handed cases by solicitors. Of course, you could go and find your own barrister, but who would you know to appoint?
Depends. You can get legal aid if you can’t afford to pay yourself. Or many home insurance policies include legal fees, even for things non-property related cases - my girlfriend used home insurance to appoint top solicitors to an employment case. Or if you’re rich and want the Best Barrister in Britain, then you can find your own and pay him yourself.
No, barristers are self employed freelancers, who can often do both prosecution and defence cases, although some specialise in one or the other. But they aren’t ‘district attorneys’, employed by the court. Barristers work as part of a ‘Chambers’, kind of a co operative of freelancers. Solicitors tend to work for law firms, like lawyers in the US do. Barristers are either appointed by solicitors acting on behalf of the defendant, or by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is the organisation that decides who to prosecute.
A barrister is the guy in a wig and a black cloak who speaks for you in crown court - a solicitor cannot do this. A solicitor does all the rest of any legal stuff - they will handle the initial work for you in a criminal case, or represent you in any other legal matters (divorce, moving house, suing someone etc). A solicitor is your first and main contact in any legal matter.
You can charge a lot more money. You get appointed to more prestigious cases. In a chambers set up, you get to pick and choose which cases you want, rather than having to take on whatever the clerk gives you. QC’s are recognised experts in certain fields of law, so it’s a bit like being a consultant in a field of medicine. They can be appointed to head up government enquiries, they are always the lead lawyer in a team for a specific case, they get to wear a fancier outfit in court (funnily enough, made of silk)
When the Queen dies, QC’s become KCs (Kings Counsel)
[/QUOTE]
Excellent explanation, SanVito. Thank you!
Agreed - thanks SV! So, what do you think of the show?
ETA: wait, THAT’s how you spell the name of Natalie Dormer’s character “Neeve”? Niamh? I just comfortable with Siobhan being pronounced “Shevaun” 
:dubious:
Are they both Irish things? Isn’t the model Campbell’s name spelled “Neve”? :dubious: