Better Not Call Saul: South Florida Litigators Discuss the Accuracy—or Lack Thereof—of AMC's Hit Show
With the fourth season of AMC's "Better Call Saul" barreling toward its climactic conclusion, the Daily Business Review spoke with South Florida attorneys to discuss what the show gets right about practicing law, what it gets wrong, and whether or not Jimmy McGill would last a moment in front of a judge.
September 17, 2018 at 12:56 PM
8 minute read
The televised legal drama is almost as old as the medium itself. From the time of “Perry Mason” in the 1950s through the height of “L.A. Law” in the 1980s and 1990s, and continuing all the way to the “Suits” of today, American audiences have nursed a well-documented and lengthy love affair with fictional litigators. It helps that viewers have had a deep bench to throw their lot in with: Whether they're of the over-the-top Denny Crane variety or cut from the same confident cloth as Alicia Florrick, audiences have had no shortage of compelling, noble and well-rounded practitioners of the law to become attached to.
And then there's Saul Goodman.
First introduced as much-needed comic relief on AMC's dour hit show “Breaking Bad,” Goodman, portrayed by once-cult comedian Bob Odenkirk, is better known for his antics outside of the courtroom than within. Operating as a solo practitioner from an office located in a New Mexico strip mall, Goodman is depicted as a huckster, pumping out obnoxious, Americana-draped advertising (“Better Call Saul!”) to attract down-on-their-luck clients, and using his legal education from the fictional University of American Samoa to launder money for meth-manufacturer and eventual drug kingpin, Walter White.
As one character notes while explaining why anyone would seek Goodman's services: “When the going gets tough, you don't want a criminal lawyer. You want a criminal lawyer.”
Even though Goodman is far from anyone's idea of an idealized attorney, he proved a compelling enough character for AMC to deem him worthy of his own spinoff and prequel, the appropriately named “Better Call Saul,” in 2015.
Far removed from the wanton violence and drug-addled dealings of “Breaking Bad,” thus far “Better Call Saul” has played out in a manner befitting of a Greek tragedy. Rather than checking in with the morally compromised and willfully criminal conduct of Goodman on a week-to-week basis, viewers have instead familiarized themselves with Jimmy McGill, a cash-strapped public defender and eventual elder law practitioner who has yet to adopt the humorous pseudonym or felonious behavior glimpsed in “Breaking Bad.”
Now in its fourth season, “Better Call Saul” has continually defied expectations. Despite being initially anticipated by audiences to be a misadventure-filled romp, “Better Call Saul” has instead revealed itself as one of the most heartbreaking shows on television, with Jimmy's transformation into Saul proving to be unexpectedly tragic, as opposed to comedic.
Perhaps what's most surprising is that several attorneys have referred to “Better Call Saul” as one of the most accurate depictions of the legal profession ever broadcasted.
Although every one of them alternately described the main character's actions as “unethical” or some deviation thereof, the Daily Business Review spoke to three prominent South Florida attorneys who attested that when it comes to the small things—namely, the day-in and day-out routine of being a practicing litigator—the show succeeds in its portrayal of the legal community where other programs have failed.
“I can't really think of another show or movie I've seen that has depicted as it accurately as 'Better Call Saul' in regards to kind of the monotonous, daily life of many attorneys who are reviewing documents until the end of time,” said Kelley Kronenberg partner Joshua T. Higgins, who added that the show “does a really good job of showing the less glamorous parts of being an attorney.”
Higgins, who worked as a prosecutor prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg's Fort Lauderdale office, says the show excels at representing the respective struggles of solo practitioners—as shown via Jimmy's ongoing challenge to attract clients—versus those of large firms as glimpsed through the employees of the Hamlin, Hamlin & McGill (HHM) law firm. This includes Jimmy's love interest, Kim Wexler, as well as his brother-turned-tormenter rival Charles “Chuck” McGill and name partner Howard Hamlin.
“Jimmy's making deals in the bathroom, his office is in the back of a nail salon; obviously it's very heightened for comedic effect, but what I find interesting about it is that it's the reality, in a broader sense, of a lot of solo practitioners in that they have to hustle continually to get clients,” Higgins said. Higgins cited an instance early on in the show when prospective clients, the Kettlemans, opt to go with HHM as counsel over Jimmy.
“They didn't want to go with this no-name, little-guy attorney,” Higgins noted. “I think that's interesting because that is real life, where these solo practitioners have to fight tooth and nail to get clients every day—not all of them are driving around in BMWs.”
Contrasting the wheeling and dealing of Jimmy with the stability of Kim's career as an associate with HHM, Higgins said many of Kim's plotlines—although duller than those of Jimmy—are a truthful depiction of life as an associate at a large law firm, with days spent making phone calls and poring over documents in isolation.
“I thought it was interesting to [contrast] the non-glamorous aspects of being a lawyer as a solo practitioner and as an associate at a big firm, and showing them in a pretty realistic sense,” Higgins said.
In addition to the dichotomy between Jimmy and Kim, the attorneys who spoke with the Daily Business Review expressed fascination with the dynamic between Jimmy and Chuck, with many saying that it's reflective of the reputations enjoyed by small-fry lawyers versus well-respected litigators.
Craig Trocino, director of the Innocence Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, told the Daily Business Review that in some respects, Jimmy and Chuck are stand-ins for the most atavistic archetypes in the legal world.
“To a certain degree Chuck and Jimmy are the angel and the devil of the legal profession; whereas Chuck exults in the perfection of the law, Jimmy bends it to his will.” Trocino said. “You've got the purist of Chuck, who doesn't even regard Jimmy as a lawyer because he didn't go to the right law school. That hierarchy does indeed exist, and it's existed for decades and it persists to this day. And then you have Jimmy who sees it more as a business and a way to make money.”
According to Trocino—who commented that the show's writers are either “lawyers or they've got a terrific consultant for them”—when viewed on a granular level and when “you start driving them toward the middle, they're both essentially right.”
Although Jim Haliczer, co-founder of Haliczer Pettis & Schwamm, possessed mostly praise for the show's accuracy with regard to its procedural elements (at least concerning its noncriminal proceedings) he told the Daily Business Review that one area where the show dropped the ball pertained to Jimmy and Kim's eventual efforts to collaborate and open a practice together.
“I've started a couple of law firms myself and I understand very well what's involved in moving from one place to the next,” Haliczer said, referring to the characters' efforts as having been made on “a wing and a prayer.”
“Their lobby is full of clients for Jimmy every time they show it, so I guess it's working out all right,” Haliczer quipped before quickly adding that one would have to be “insane” to begin working out of a building before establishing “a phone number, or a fax line, an email address or any cabling!”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute read'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': Big Law Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250