Posted by wlansden |
Filed under commentary, general
By James Bowden
As I’m sure everyone is aware, yesterday was a significant date in the history of American law. Oh, and ABC premiered a new TV show, too, quite appropriately named “The Deep End.” Interested in detailing how closely the trials and tribulations of the telegenic foursome of new attorneys featured on the new show tracked the actual experience of law firm associates, I assembled a panel of similarly telegenic young lawyers for a viewing of the series premier. Sorry, ABC, but we’ve got a bit of a problem.
There are, of course, the inaccuracies that are the necessities of any drama. First-year associates negotiating directly on behalf of and representing clients alone in court on their second day of practice? Not so much. Billy “Prince of Darkness” Zane “marshalling the partners” to give the boot to a partner whose name happens to be on the firm’s letterhead for (gasp!) supporting pro-bono work? Not likely - Marshalling partners is like herding cats across the Gobi Desert: the real Prince Of Darkness might struggle to marshall four partners to go for coffee, let alone for a casual act of regicide. Celebrating the day’s victories over shots every night at a bar featuring a pool stocked with bikini models? That is a completely false allegation – mostly. And all the bawdy stuff? Our firm is more Emma than Pamela. The dialogue is a little bit less than lawyerly, too. Still, after laughing hysterically about the hiring partner’s confession that he is motivated mostly by a love of “cashmere and corn liquor,” we all admitted that we do, in fact, like cashmere. And then we topped off our glasses of whiskey.
The big problem, however, is that the artistic license that Hollywood has taken portraying the legal profession in “The Deep End” is a license to kill. The conflicts that drive the plot unabashedly operate in complete (and perhaps deliberate) ignorance of the rules of professional responsibility. The part where the managing partner knowingly allows an associate to represent a pro-bono client against an existing client? No. The same managing partner going one giant leap further by ordering that the pro-bono client’s interests be thrown under the bus in favor of the existing [paying] client? Giant, angry, flaming Rule 1.7 no. Legal-malpractice-with-a-side-of-sanctions-and-reputational-suicide-while-your-risk-management-partner-beats-you-to-death-with-a-redwell no.
And therein lies my real issue with the show: by ignoring the existence of the rules of professional responsibility, it falsely portrays the legal profession in a light consistent with that of the legal profession’s most cynical detractors. What makes it worse is that the show seems to play to the idea that there is no consequence to an egregious ethical shortcoming, which is certainly not true. So ABC: I’m going to send you a copy of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Please, please read them and try again.
Currently rated 5.0 by 6 people
- Currently 5/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5