Don’t Make Me Throw Your Book Across the Room: Top Ten Ways You Can Alienate the 1.1 Million Lawyers Who Are Also Readers

      As an attorney who has practiced law 24 years, I have a hard time watching shows or reading books involving the law. Why? Because so many of them get so much of it wrong. It takes me right out of the story to sit there thinking, “That would never happen.”

      Most lawyers I know can’t read or watch stories about law because the factual errors are too frustrating. Gross misunderstanding of how the justice system works can take away from even the best plot. There are over 1.1 million lawyers in the United States, so alienating us with mistakes that are easily corrected can affect your sales and ratings. While I’m willing to suspend disbelief for a great story, some things tick me off so much that I find it hard to watch or read past the point where the writer commits any of these gaffes:

·         Length of time of court proceedings. There is no case in the world where the client walks in the door and they’re in trial the next day or the next week. Cases take time. At least show that some time passed in the proceeding. Age the characters, have something in their lives change. There are all kinds of things your lawyers do to prepare – depositions, hearings, motions. This gives you lots of opportunity to create interesting moments in your plot.

·         Lawyers switching sides. I really didn’t think this needed to be said until I saw it on a TV show. A lawyer can never change sides in the middle of the case. I don’t care how much the client on the other side begs. I don’t care if the firm the lawyer works for is okay with it. This will never be okay. If the lawyer in your story does this, show the disbarment proceedings in the next chapter.

·         Turning against client or going rogue. The lawyer doesn’t get to accept settlements the client didn’t agree to or secretly work against the client. If you show a lawyer doing this, you’d better have done your work to develop your character as a sleazy lawyer with zero ethics who knows they’re doing wrong.

·         Meeting alone with the judge. There are very few times when a lawyer can meet ex parte with the judge. Ex parte is fancy lawyer talk for without the other side. An emergency injunction is one of those circumstances. But in most cases, if you show the lawyer hopping into the judge’s office alone to talk about the case, you should show the judge’s bailiff escorting them to the door.

·         Meeting alone with a party on the other side. The lawyer can’t meet with a party they know is represented unless that party’s attorney agrees to let the meeting happen. I don’t care what Patty Hewes does on Damages. And you know why it doesn’t bother me on Damages? Because the lawyers did their character development and I know Patty Hewes has no ethics. It’s in character and I believe it.

·         Secret recordings. All states require at least one party to consent to a recording, so a lawyer or a party can never plant a device to record a conversation they’re not part of. Many states require both parties to consent to the recording, so if your lawyer is in one of those states and they hid a tape recorder in a purse, they’ve likely committed a felony. An illegal recording probably won’t be admissible in court.

·         Improper questioning. I see lawyers virtually testifying in TV and movies all the time. If the lawyer is talking about evidence that hasn’t been introduced through some witness on the stand, they’ll be told to cut it out.

·         It’s just circumstantial. All that great forensic evidence you see on CSI? It’s circumstantial. Eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable evidence. I hate it when lawyers and judges go around saying, “oh, but the evidence is just circumstantial.” Circumstantial evidence is reliable as heck. Witnesses are lousy at remembering details, but ballistics rarely lie.

·         Wrong jurisdiction. Showing a federal judge handling foreclosures, a criminal judge handling small claims cases, a divorce judge trying a personal injury case, is all amateur hour. Judges are limited in the types of cases they can hear. Do your homework and show the right judge hearing the right kind of case.

·         Yelling at judges. If a lawyer yells at a judge in court, they’ll land in jail for contempt, or at least get a severe dressing-down. There are all kinds of proceedings that don’t happen in front of judges where you can set the big dramatic scene where the lawyer acts out. If you set it in court, the next scene should be in jail.

            So, do your research, and get it right. Thank you in advance for writing something that 1.1 million lawyers will be happy to read. If I can help even one novelist keep from having their book thrown down in disgust, or one TV writer from having the channel changed, my work is done here.

The Deep End Goes Off The Deep End, Legally Speaking

I watched the latest new legal drama, The Deep End, with the same trepidation that always precedes watching any legal show. I expect liberties to be taken. I understand the need to speed up the action for dramatic purposes. So I didn't expect much. But they have the luscious Billy Zane, so I had to watch.

On the upside, the settings were spot on. They got the big firm atmosphere down. And the way first years are treated at a big law firm wasn't far off from what I hear (having started at a midsize firm myself). The love/hate relationship lawyers have with legal practice was right. The characters were fun and likable. The emphasis on the bottom line at all costs was not contrary to what I know of some big firms.

The beginning wasn't bad, and I began to relax. Then they started doing things that really get my hackles up. Stuff so wrong, that so would never happen, that it took me right out of the story. Here's what they did, and how they could have fixed it easily.

Never, ever, have a lawyer work against their client. This irks me about as much as showing a lawyer switching sides midstream. One show lost me permanently with that big of a clunker. The big plot line in the pilot was a first year handling a pro bono case who was instructed by the big kahuna partner to work against his client. Why not have someone outside the firm pressure the kid? Or have the firm pressure him to drop the case because it's too expensive? If a lawyer works against the interest of the client, he will lose his license.

The lawyer can't meet with the judge alone. So the kid goes to the judge with a case he found and convinces the judge to enter an order reversing the case. Huh? Ex parte with the judge? Where was opposing counsel? Where was the court reporter? The writers weren't trying to save money by not casting opposing counsel - he shows up later. How hard would it have been to write the scene with opposing counsel present? It was a huge groaner that should never have happened.

Don't call an informal meeting a deposition. The lawyer says he's going to take a child's deposition. Number one, the child would probably have a guardian ad litem - someone the court appointed to represent his best interests. Number two, there would be a court reporter and the lawyer would be asking questions of the child. Number three, the child was six, so good luck deposing him. And where was opposing counsel? Doi. A real forehead-smacking moment. The lawyer probably could convince his client, the mom, to let him meet with the child. So why the heck did the writers call it a deposition? Using terminology incorrectly shows that the writer doesn't care enough to get it right.

The lawyer can't meet with the opposing party without opposing counsel's permission. So when grandma went to the big kahuna partner and told him he needed to get the firm to tank the case or she'd make sure the firm lost the business of all the companies on whose boards she served, the partner should have politely told the receptionist he couldn't meet with her. The conversation couldn't have taken place. If the conversation is key, why not have her approach him at a public event? Or have her come with her lawyer to meet him and make the threat? It was ridiculous.

Will I watch again? I really don't know. I usually give shows a second chance. First shows are tough, since you have to do all the character building. But, c'mon. Is it that hard to take the time to write the pilot so lawyers don't throw their remotes at the screen. I know one lawyer couple who are fellow TV watchers who said they will never watch again. I'll probably watch just to look at Billy Zane again. But a few more clunkers and I'll be gone too.

Get a legal consultant guys, before the 1.1 million lawyers in the country, many of whom would love to watch a good legal drama, write you off for good.