Sure, it was a comedy, but how many people believe that Jim Carrey's compulsively lying lawyer was not that far from the truth?
A comment from reader Penn on my post about “The Good Wife’s” recent misrepresentation of legal ethics standards got me thinking, and what it got me thinking was that I was too easy on the show.
Penn asked why I waste my time watching programs that raise my blood pressure, and there are two answers. The first is what I wrote back: it’s not a bad show; in the past it has been a very good one, even from the legal ethics perspective. I have used several scenarios from episodes in seminars.
The second answer, which I didn’t mention in my response to Penn, is the more important one, however. Good show or not, millions of Americans get their information about the legal profession from the portrayal of lawyers and law on TV and in movies. From these fictional sources, they think they know that most lawyers are liars, that they allow their clients to lie, that they put witnesses on the stand who they know will lie under oath. The public thinks that lawyers abuse the law, don’t earn their fees, don’t give a damn about their clients (unless they are sleeping with them), switch sides routinely and confuse juries to release serial killers on more victims.
Lawyer, they are told, use criminally dishonest investigators, and have sex like rabbits with adversaries, clients, expert witnesses and judges. (Thank you, Steven Bochco!) Lawyers learn that a juror is trying to get millions to swing a verdict, and do nothing about it ( “Runaway Jury”); lawyer spouses litigate against each other, letting their domestic troubles influence how they represent their clients (“Adams Rib”) ; they reject millions in settlement offers without asking their clients (“A Civil Action”); they lie to get evidence and plant spies on the opposing legal teams (“The Verdict”); they let clients that they don’t like get convicted and hire thugs to beat them up (“Cape Fear”); they suborn perjury (“Anatomy of a Murder”) and they destroy evidence (“Michael Clayton.”) None of this happens often in real life, and some of it never happens, but lawyers being ethical and doing their jobs diligently and well, as the vast majority of lawyers do, isn’t dramatic enough, so non-lawyers see far more negative representations of the legal profession than positive ones.
As a direct consequence, the public thinks that outrageously unethical conduct is tolerated rather than reviled, common rather than rare, and more or less part of the job. A detailed list of the aspects of practice that are routinely distorted, even a concise version, would run many pages and thousands of words.
Now, I’m a fan of drama of all kinds. TV shows are not seminars on the legal system, nor should they be. Still, the misrepresentations of the profession and its standards of conduct do real harm to respect for the rule of law and the legal system, and sometimes leads people to hold their own lawyers to ridiculously low standards. I once had a conversation with a cabbie whose lawyer had forced her to accept a settlement that gave her nothing; the lawyer had accepted the deal and only told the client about it afterwards. “What?” I said. “He can’t do that! He has an absolute obligation to let you make that decision!” “I didn’t know that, ” she said. “On TV, I thought the lawyers always decide.”
On TV, they often do. In real life, it is automatic grounds for suspension, at very least.
For many years, I have argued that legal associations should organize truth squads to challenge the misconceptions about lawyers nourished by the entertainment media. Most lawyers just shrug and laugh in response. Few of them watch legal-themed shows and movies, because it drives them crazy, and as a result I don’t think they know the extent to which the profession is distorted, or suspect the damage the distortions do. As irresponsible as it is for shows like “The Good Wife” to outright misstate the ethical obligations of the profession it purports to be about, it is equally irresponsible for lawyers to make no effort to combat the resulting misconceptions.
I expected better of “The Good Wife,” however. Creator Robert King is smart and talented (he has occasionally weighed in on “Ethics Alarms”) and I refuse to believe that he and his writers can’t devise compelling stories using the ethics rules as they actually exist, instead of fake principles that help undermine public faith in the law. It seems like laziness to me. It is fine to show bad lawyers, but showing the supposedly good ones governed by unethical professional standards is intolerable.
Ethics Alarms 
Understood. As a long-time member of the health care profession, I could argue even more urgent caveats concerning the dangers, physical and psychological as well as ethical, of medical fiction. Starting with 1932 radio’s Family Doctor (a god-like being presaging the likes of Drs. Gillespie and Marcus Welby — and I can’t believe I just noticed the name was “well-be”) through no less than 74 different television series, some of which are among the most enduring dramas of the medium, the idea of truth-in-fiction is conspicuously absent. The result is a population in the United States of people who believe they are getting a dose of medical “reality” when instead, (if I can take your words slightly out of context) “the misrepresentations of the profession and its standards of conduct do real harm.”
I could in fact argue that the most unethical character ever on television is not a lawyer nor a designated criminal, but one Gregory House.
That said, my concern was that of all the fronts on which you battle, the one of popular media is the most futile, not just because it is so amorphous (one series dropped, two new ones take its place, each one twistier than the last), but because it is inherently unethical. While the watchdogs are busy barking at, for instance, sex and violence (without understanding what constitutes either one or where they place in the scheme of things), the programmers are busy taking notes. Sooner than later, the loudest growl, howl and whine will turn up in the next round of pilots.
In theatrical terms, I guess a good example would be handling death: from the offstage demise of a character in Athenian drama, described poetically by a chanting chorus to the autopsy of a hideously dismembered, eviscerated, charred corpse in the CSI morgue. “Respect for the dead” is still given lip service in the latter. But to the eye and the ear (and the brain) the result is far different. The former, at its best, evoked — and still does evoke — those cathartic Aristotelian emotions that make up tragedy; the latter is a “reality” that leads to indifference, disrespect and — when the writers are really good — the desire for more and greater shocks.
When you ask for “better” scripts based on all the true-life fascinating legal activity you know about, Jack — as I would, concerning nurses and doctors, clinics and hospitals, inpatients and out — you are assuming a non-zombified audience, one that doesn’t want, doesn’t expect, that crazy S-and-V twist in every show. You are assuming thoughtful ad execs who would pay for them. Nah. If “The Good Wife” has had ethical moments, be thankful. And If you figure out a way to keep your blood pressure down without lowering your standards, do tell.
p.s. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether you are hypo- or hyper- or otherwise tensive, and it’s certainly none of my business. I get your point about taking the (any?) opportunity to make your ethical points. I’m glad that you do it. It was my own blood pressure I was concerned about. That’s why I got rid of the tv three years ago.
p.p.s. On the other hand, your Truth Squad would make a terrific series. Tell Robert King.
On the other hand, your cabbie’s lawyer did do that and did get away with it. They faced no repercussions at all. They also probably do that routinely and have never had to face any consequences.
I have never liked the fact that the legal and medical professions are supposed to self-police each other. They have a vested interest in looking the other way at misconduct. I know you feel differently, Jack, and you vigorously pursue such matters but I don’t think many do (which is very sad). I have seen too much questionable behavior done without any repercussions.
Here are some of the questionable legal conduct I have seen in just the last few months in my area:
A divorce attorney that told a client that she could get $2000/month in alimony, $1500/month in child support, and 100% of childcare of the wife’s choosing from her husband and could keep the husband from ever being allowed to see the children if she would just pay her $15,000. Alimony is not court ordered in this state (it can be offered voluntarily) and child support an day care depend on a well-known formula (and those figures were twice what the court formula states). This attorney does this regularly, to the extent that judges don’t even talk to her in the courtroom at times (they only talk to the husband’s attorney). This attorney only takes female clients.
A city attorney that refused to turn over plans to a county review board because they claimed that the board only has the power to review and approved planned developments. Since the plans won’t be finalized until after the development is complete, the board has no authority to approve the project until it is compete and the attorney refused to give them any information on the development.
The court allowed an attorney to act as the legal representative for all indigent minor defendants in the city. It turns out, he had been sexually abusing the clients. Despite complaints and allegations made by the minors and their parents over decades, he was allowed to continue representing the kids because he was the only one who would do it for free.
I know you would be appalled if you saw these things happen, Jack, but I do see them happen and very little corrective action is taken. For a really bad case a few years ago, I tried to file a complaint with the state bar association, but I could find no way to do so. I was told that only attorneys can file such complaints. I was also told by an attorney that anyone who files such a complaint might as well close their practice because the repercussions from other attorneys and judges would make it impossible for them to effectively practice law anymore. Most attorneys may indeed be very ethical (and I know a lot who fall in that category), but there are some that aren’t and they seem to have the system rigged pretty well in their favor.