Real Lawyer Reacts to Better Call Saul (Episode 1)

oh no, what are they doing oh no, oh my god, oh no, okay, this is a perfect example that sometimes the evidence speaks for itself. This is horrible and funny. Hello legal eagles. Mr. James Stone, here teaches you how to think like a

lawyer

. Today we will review

episode

1 of Better Call Saul. This is

real

ly exciting for me because I loved Breaking Bad and Saul Goodman's character was particularly good because he gave very good legal advice, of course it was legal advice in the context of a drug. -Psycho treatment but still good legal advice, however, be sure to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE to ensure you never miss a future attorney's reaction, and of course, be sure to leave your comments in the form of objections.

I'll overrule or sustain your objections based on their legal merit, and of course, stick around until the end when I give Better Call Saul Episode 1 a legal

real

ism rating, so without further ado, let's dive in: Better Call Saul Episode 1, it's In the judge I would use this voice, God, that's it. exactly what courtroom bathrooms look like, straight out of the last century, they have those weird push up soap dispensers, just horribly dirty, okay this seems pretty accurate so far and it's a lot of fun because

lawyer

s actually They practice their opening. and closing statements in the bathroom before going to court, which is probably where you'll find most trial lawyers when court is about to start, well, a pep talk was given, oh, being 19 again , it's okay, you can never barge into the room. in the middle of the well, the area between the lawyer's table and the judge, there seems to be a previous relationship here between the judge and Saul Goodman, since the judge sent the bailiff to the bathroom to look for him.

I guess the judge has interacted with Saul many times before, so he's giving him some leeway, but you can't just barge in like that, but it sounds like he may have had prior permission to do so, so we'll keep watching, okay, but If you're honest, I mean. Really honest, you'll remember that you also had an underdeveloped nineteen-year-old brain. Me personally, if I were held accountable for some of the stupid decisions I made when I was 19, oh wow, and I bet if we were in church right now, you'd understand. Big amen, this is really good, what Saul Goodman is doing is seeming nice.

Your credibility is everything when you're in front of the jury, so you want to make it seem like you're a relatable person, you're just another member. of the jury, so he's doing a great job of appearing self-deprecating and forming an emotional connection with this jury in what seems like a so far very good closing argument, which brings us to these three, now these three idiots and I'm sorry. guys, but that's what they are, they did something stupid that is also very good, when you have bad facts, you have to get ahead of them to get ahead of them and show that you are aware of those bad facts, but downplay them and show them.

They are not decisive for his case, so I like what he has done. In reality, he is making his own clients look nice. They are young. They're stupid, like he said. He makes them seem relatable, but also shows that they've made a mistake. trying to get ahead of whatever bad facts there are against their case, so far it's a pretty good fact: no one was hurt, not a soul. It is very important to take this into account. Fact 2. Now the prosecution continues to use this term criminal trespass, mr. Spenalzo, the owner of the property, admitted to us that he keeps most of his business open to the public both day and night, so trespassing on the property is a bit elusive.

Do you think they have done it? Oh man, I really like this too. Keep in mind that it is a test. It can last days and sometimes weeks, so there are hundreds, if not thousands, of facts, dozens of people testifying, a trial is a very complex thing, so what Saul Goodman has done here is remind the jury of two and only two facts, because a trial is really It's really complex and you just want them to focus on two things that are particularly good for your case, so you point out that no one was hurt, which can be important from a legal perspective, since it is one of the elements of any crime they are accused of.

This can be caused by bodily harm, but more importantly it shows on an emotional level that there is no need for the jury to punish these kids because no one was hurt, so it fits emotionally and then the second thing in the one that focuses is on the legal. the breaking and entering requirement is not met if the property owner consents to someone entering his property, then these children cannot be guilty of the crime of breaking and entering, so the focus is on one hand , on the emotional trigger that no one was hurt and also on the legal factor that the criminal trespass element is not met, so of all the things that the jury learned at trial, it focuses on these two highlights which are good for your case and I think it's a very good way to approach your final argument this is what I know these three young men near honors students all clear honors happy erodes on a Saturday night and they're just a little crazy I don't know , they

call

me crazy but I don't think they deserve to have it their bright futures ruined for a momentary minute that will never be repeated poor judgment another good emotion Lemoine you're bigger than that that's really good there are two rhetorical devices that Saul Goodman is using here to great effect effect, the first is that it refers to the dramaturgical, so it is putting the jury on a stage showing them that people are watching and secondly, it is attributing the values ​​that it wants to the jury, it is saying that they are bigger than that, with the hope that they will achieve the attribute that he already attributes to them, so those are two killer persuasive techniques that Saul Goodman has used here oh God, what have they done? oh no, he's just going to show a video, so since this is the closing argument, all the evidence has already arrived, so the prosecutor doesn't have to lay any groundwork, all of that has already been established during the course of the trial and the judge has already approved or denied all the evidence, including God only knows what will be on this videotape.

Oh no, my God, oh no. right this is a perfect example that sometimes the evidence just speaks for itself in latin that's the phrase race si loquitur the thing speaks for itself and frankly sometimes it doesn't require any legal argument it just shows the thing itself and that's bad enough sometimes There's no need to gild the lily or hit the rubble, it's bad enough as it is and if I were the prosecutor in this particular case I probably would have done the same thing, just show the tape, let it speak for itself and let the jury decide that this doesn't need any argument at all this is horrible aunt hilarious what kind of math is that 700 for defense no not accused three defendants 2,100 who by the way negotiate what I did for they go to jail Langer sausage what Does that matter?

So I suppose that in this case Saúl is a public defender, as you know, there are two types of government lawyers, in this context there are the prosecutors who are employed by the state to prosecute alleged crimes and then there are also the public defenders who provide Defense to those who cannot afford it dates back to the 1960s, to a Supreme Court case

call

ed Gideon v. Wainwright which held that under the Sixth Amendment protection from a trial defendants must have an attorney because if not had an attorney, the right to a fair trial would never be upheld because it would be inherently unfair, so under Supreme Court precedent, if you can't afford an attorney, you are now provided with a public defender, that only applies in the criminal context, no. apply in the civil context if you get sued civilly you're basically on your own and that's where lawyers like me, a civil lawyer, come in and we save you the bacon, can you tell me what this twenty six thousand is supposed to be for, that's money for Chuck .

Isn't that what you wanted? A miserable Jesus of 26 grand. You're like Peter Minuit with the Indians. He tosses some beads and shells as you do so. It's just a beginning. There will be more unless he just breaks them. everything ready and why did they do it to me, why not Chuck, so he personally told you that it is his wish to retire from the firm, which would surprise me, it's been almost a year since he set foot here, okay , then one of the reasons why Jimmy may not want to cash this check or his client may not want to cash this check because there is a doctrine in most jurisdictions that says that even if you don't have a written contract, an express contract that It's detailed and has all the terms that you Sometimes you can enter into a contract for your conduct, so I think you're worried about the idea that if you cash this check, you can tacitly agree to the terms of this agreement with this other law firm and, therefore, giving them the deal they want, which is not a deal that Jimmy or his client wants, so I think he's worried about forming a settlement agreement because of his own conduct, but I guess we'll see six hundred and thirty dollars for a drop or two in one day, even at your age, that's It has to hurt, it's true, well, I got you a job that costs two thousand dollars.

It sounds too great for one hit, one hit, and you learn from the best. Well, I probably don't need to tell you how unethical it is for a lawyer to go. paying people to fake an injury and basically defraud some poor victim, but let's talk about some of the nuances here: If they went ahead with this scheme, they would be committing fraud and would be liable for civil and potentially criminal fraud from now on. On top of that, they would not be able to obtain compensation for any injuries they have suffered, of course fraud creates an affirmative defense to the type of accusations they would want to create, but more fundamentally they lack what is called standing in the US .U.S. system in order to move forward with a civil lawsuit, you must have standing, you must prove that you have suffered an injury and when you intentionally engage in this type of conduct, you deny the type of stain that would result in an injury, so Not only will they not be able to get compensation because they have defrauded someone, but they also lack the underlying elements of the civil lawsuit which lack standing and lack actionable damages, so if they ever get caught, this is not a good thing for them. all of them.

Well, that was the first

episode

of Better Call Saul and it did not disappoint. I really look forward to reviewing future episodes of this series. That's great, but now it's time to give Better Call Saul a legal realism rating, so let's think about this. we have realistic depictions of the monotony of life in court, we have some really good arguments trying to appeal to the emotional state of the jury, we have lawyers from big firms who are idiots, we have the unglamorous life of a lawyer who is simply trying to get at the end of the month and we literally have ambulance chasers who throw themselves in front of cars.

Overall, we get a realistic portrayal of many of the parties involved in a lawyer's life that rarely appear on screen with minimal dramatic license, so I'm giving it a

better

call. Saul episode 1 and a - for legal realism, well done, so press that belt to be notified of my next reaction and check out this playlist I put together that includes all of my previous reactions, including my reaction to The Good Wife outfits and many others, so click. on that playlist and I'll see you in court