# Suits - S5 Thread *spoilers*



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Doesn't seem to be enough interest obviously in an episode by episode thread, so I'll do a season thread.

I've always liked this series and the dynamics among the characters, but this season has really started out to be a soap opera. Between the Harvey / Donna angst and the marriage of Mike and Rachel, there's little time for any legal stuff. I still enjoy Louis and Harvey getting at one another, but even that's a bit stupid at times. In E2, Louis exposes Harvey's salary based on contingency which is totally rediculous. The Louis/Harvey love hate relationship, which used to change episode to episode now changes scene to scene. So to me, the series is no longer all that interesting. But of course there's Donna (and to a lesser extent Rachel) which might be enough to keep me around for awhile.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I think I'm done. I just don't like most of these people


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

All the drama of Donna going to work for Louis without any good explanation seems an obvious ploy by the writers to try to shake things up, but it has failed miserably. The only reason I can think of for Donna to do such a thing is that she wants to see if she and Harvey might have a chance at a relationship outside of work. But neither she nor Harvey have even hinted at that for being a possible reason why Donna made the move. The whole situation just makes no sense.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I find it weird that Donna can just quit Harvey and go to work for Louis. Doesn't she have a boss, an office manager? And even if she's the boss of all secretaries, she still has to report to somebody other than Harvey.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I find it weird that Donna can just quit Harvey and go to work for Louis. Doesn't she have a boss, an office manager? And even if she's the boss of all secretaries, she still has to report to somebody other than Harvey.


From how I understand it, it's an unusual situation. Harvey brought her with him when he joined the firm, so maybe that gave her autonomy outside of the normal secretarial pool (is that still PC?). She is also being paid partially by Harvey as well (another reason why she might be 50% his employee). So I suppose it's possible that she answers only to the managing partner.

That said, yeah, it's a bit weird, but it's TV. I just thought she's working for Louis for spite, or to get Harvey to commit to her, either as his assistant or (probably) romantically. They spend at least one episode last season explaining the whole Harvey / Donna dynamic.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

This season is annoying me. It's just too much Donna-drama. 

Now we've introduced a power struggle with a partner we've never heard of before, with of course Louis doing something stupid and getting blackmailed into remaining in the middle of it.

Zane and Mike working together is an interesting dynamic. If there's a shake-up this season that I like, this is it.

We do seem to have abandoned all plot lines around Mike not being a real lawyer though. It seemed like the trend in previous seasons was more and more people finding out, progressing toward eventual doom. Nobody seems to be worried about it anymore.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Nothing left but pretty people to look at. But done in such a way that it caused my wife to comment on the tight dresses during one long shot that seemed to focus on Rachel's behind for a loong time. I didn't mind but I sure get her point.

Love Mike showing off his great memory (pick a page, any page) and therefore winning the legal argument. Really? And why does every TV law firm get to face a devious and deadly insurance company, killers of millions? Haven't we gotten rid of all them by now?

Is the '...partner we've never heard of before...' played by the same guy as the one on the Last Ship? Looks like him but where did his hair go? 

Harvey and his basketball friends, his new secretary helping to solve his panic attacks... Bah, it's all just too much.

But the two ladies on their way to the charity event sure did look pretty.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

smbaker said:


> > This season is annoying me. It's just too much Donna-drama.
> 
> 
> Yep, it's like I said, soap opera like. I don't mind some of that, but when it's the primary focus, I tend to lose interest.
> ...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

efilippi said:


> Nothing left but pretty people to look at. But done in such a way that it caused my wife to comment on the tight dresses during one long shot that seemed to focus on Rachel's behind for a loong time. I didn't mind but I sure get her point.


[misogynistic comment]Well, to me, that's the only asset Rachel has left. At the beginning of the series I thought she rivaled Donna in hotness, but I'm not sure what happened, but she's just not that anymore.[/misogynistic comment]


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> [misogynistic comment]Well, to me, that's the only asset Rachel has left. At the beginning of the series I thought she rivaled Donna in hotness, but I'm not sure what happened, but she's just not that anymore.[/misogynistic comment]


I blame the makeup dept. She looks like a clown this year.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

smbaker said:


> We do seem to have abandoned all plot lines around Mike not being a real lawyer though. It seemed like the trend in previous seasons was more and more people finding out, progressing toward eventual doom. Nobody seems to be worried about it anymore.


I hope we've abandoned it but I have a feeling Soloff or Zane will revive that played out drama.

Louis is an idiot. I would like to have seen some growth in his character but he's still a cartoon.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

All the stuff with Donna this season is ridiculous. From what we know of her from the first four seasons of this show, she'd never leave Harvey's desk and go work for Louis. So none of this stuff rings true at all. And they're clearly setting it up for there to be some big reconciliation where she goes back to Harvey, but then that's just going to make her look even worse after all the assurances she's given Louis that she won't do that. 

The whole bit with the partners redoing the compensation formula to get rid of contingency pay makes no sense. If the firm is billing the client on an hourly basis, then the attorney should be paid hourly. But if the client is paying a percentage of a deal or a percentage of a verdict/settlement, then what happens if it only took 10-20 hours to generate a $1 million fee for the firm? Does that mean Harvey would only get his hourly amount and the remainder goes to the firm's general fund?


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I agree.

Donna would have never left Harvey. Period.

Suits had a formula that worked in season 1 and now they can't seem to come up with anything other than that formula including...



smbaker said:


> Now we've introduced a power struggle with a partner we've never heard of before


That is their big bad - there is always someone internally that the 3 of them have conflict with. Yawn.

Well - at least they aren't still rehashing Mike didn't go to Harvard...


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> smbaker said:
> 
> 
> > One of my pet peeves with the series in general. The plotline of Mike not being legit ONLY seems to rear it's head when it's convenient to the plotline, instead of what it should be, the MAJOR plotline.
> ...


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Personally, I'm enjoying this season at least as much as previous seasons.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm enjoying the fact that most of the conflict this season is new and not the continued rehashing of whether someone is going to find out Mike's secret. However, the Jack Soloff stuff is just cartoonishly stupid, and Jessica should have fired him long ago.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm enjoying the fact that most of the conflict this season is new and not the continued rehashing of whether someone is going to find out Mike's secret. However, the Jack Soloff stuff is just cartoonishly stupid, and Jessica should have fired him long ago.


Can Jessica just fire a partner, or does there need to be a partner vote?


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Can Jessica just fire a partner, or does there need to be a partner vote?


Senior partners are voted in and have to put up $x - the same amount the other senior partners contributed. In order to get rid of a senior partner the other sr partners would have to vote to return the contribution (unless the partner is fired "for cause" - as defined in the partnership agreement). Bottom line no - Jessica could not unilaterally fire a senior partner - though her recommendation to do so would go a long way.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I binged on seasons 1-4 (thanks Prime) recently and now have caught up to the current episode... 

I think the show has a bad habit of letting some conflict story arcs linger on too long. The Soloff thing is the current offender. It's like they're afraid to pump out a few "mystery of the week" episodes that aren't interwoven into some bloated story arc.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Did a man with a beard once kick the producer's dog?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

wprager said:


> Did a man with a beard once kick the producer's dog?


I think Canadians have a different sense of humor from Chicagoans. At least this one.

What?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

efilippi said:


> I think Canadians have a different sense of humor from Chicagoans. At least this one.
> 
> What?


I think he meant that there are an awful lot of villains in this series with facial hair.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Forget Soloff, Louis should have been fired about 17 times already.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I'm really beginning to wonder why I am still watching as I watched the last 2 episodes.

While the idea of Harvey having panic attacks is interesting - it is also very out of character. The ploy of him going to a therapist seems like a pretty predictable dramatic device when writers don't know what else to do. :down:


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Question: Do you guys think all the office interiors with the NYC backgrounds is real or do you think they are on a set someplace?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> Question: Do you guys think all the office interiors with the NYC backgrounds is real or do you think they are on a set someplace?


They shoot the show in Toronto. I'd be very surprised if they actually rented out a floor of a high-rise rather than building that set on a soundstage. I'm not sure how they get the NYC exteriors out the windows. Probably CGI.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Well they have to do SOME exteriors in Manhattan because I've recognized some of the locations. Although maybe that was in the earlier seasons and they've stopped?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> Well they have to do SOME exteriors in Manhattan because I've recognized some of the locations. Although maybe that was in the earlier seasons and they've stopped?


I think I read that they schedule a couple days of shooting per season in Manhattan for exteriors. But I also know that they could shoot a lot of that stuff on the streets of Toronto and just digitally insert a few NYC landmarks into the skyline.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> I think he meant that there are an awful lot of villains in this series with facial hair.


You're both right. Canadians *are* different.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm enjoying the fact that most of the conflict this season is new and not the continued rehashing of whether someone is going to find out Mike's secret. However, the Jack Soloff stuff is just cartoonishly stupid, and Jessica should have fired him long ago.


The biggest problem I have with Soloff is that he has completely come out of nowhere and not he's a power player? It's like they created the character just for this purpose. I guess they had to do it that way because unlike a show like The Good Wife, we've never seen any other senior partners besides Jessica, Hartman, Louis and Harvey. Well, maybe we did when Jessica and Hartman were fighting for control of the firm? Was Soloff there then?

Also from last week's. The whole thing with Donna trying to book The Plaza for Mike's wedding was pretty dumb and I doubt it would ever work in real life. If the point of that was for her to prove to the new secretary that she had stones, they could have done it much better.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> The whole thing with Donna trying to book The Plaza for Mike's wedding was pretty dumb and I doubt it would ever work in real life. If the point of that was for her to prove to the new secretary that she had stones, they could have done it much better.


I think a lot of fiances would be willing to change the wedding venue to keep their fiancee from finding out that they had been unfaithful.

Although I agree that Donna's impersonation of a French wedding planner was silly.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> The biggest problem I have with Soloff is that he has completely come out of nowhere and not he's a power player? It's like they created the character just for this purpose. I guess they had to do it that way because unlike a show like The Good Wife, we've never seen any other senior partners besides Jessica, Hartman, Louis and Harvey. Well, maybe we did when Jessica and Hartman were fighting for control of the firm? Was Soloff there then?
> 
> Also from last week's. The whole thing with Donna trying to book The Plaza for Mike's wedding was pretty dumb and I doubt it would ever work in real life. If the point of that was for her to prove to the new secretary that she had stones, they could have done it much better.


Every once in a while we'll see all the senior partners together in a conference room but then Jessica goes back to doing whatever she feels like doing.

I thought what Donna did was despicable. The writers threw the husband's affair in to make her unscrupulous maneuverings seem more palatable. Maybe my mind blanked out at that particular moment but how would she even know the husband was having an affair?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I thought what Donna did was despicable. The writers threw the husband's affair in to make her unscrupulous maneuverings seem more palatable. Maybe my mind blanked out at that particular moment but how would she even know the husband was having an affair?


Because she's Donna. 

But really, she called the Plaza and the event planner spilled the name of the couple getting married on that date. Then I'm sure she did some research into the guy and that's what she found out. It's not really that far fetched.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Because she's Donna.
> 
> But really, she called the Plaza and the event planner spilled the name of the couple getting married on that date. Then I'm sure she did some research into the guy and that's what she found out. It's not really that far fetched.


The far fetched part was that she somehow figured out that some random guy she'd never even heard of before was having an affair. What'd she do, hack the Ashley Madison website? I know it's just tv but the "because she's Donna" explanation falls short for me this time.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

cheesesteak said:


> The far fetched part was that she somehow figured out that some random guy she'd never even heard of before was having an affair. What'd she do, hack the Ashley Madison website? I know it's just tv but the "because she's Donna" explanation falls short for me this time.


I imagine she somehow got access to his emails or credit card statements (social engineering? friend who hacked in for her?) and figured it out from that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Once she had the guy's name, it would be easy for her to hire a PI to track him. Of all the far-fetched stuff on this show, that one didn't register with me at all.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I imagine she somehow got access to his emails or credit card statements (social engineering? friend who hacked in for her?) and figured it out from that.


And you're going to go THAT far to secure a wedding location? I get that she had her heart set on The Plaza, but seriously, that was absurd. I guess there are people who might go that far (Harvey might) but I always thought Donna has scruples.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Oh great. We're back to Mike doesn't have a law degree.

I wish the Mike character would just die and end that entire thread.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I haven't seen the most recent episode yet, but you had to know that was coming when they introduced the Jack Soloff character. Everyone in the firm that is a regular on the show knows about Mike is cool with him, so of course as soon as they introduce a new member of the firm, they're going to have the threat of that person finding out about Mike's background.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> I haven't seen the most recent episode yet, but you had to know that was coming when they introduced the Jack Soloff character. Everyone in the firm that is a regular on the show knows about Mike is cool with him, so of course as soon as they introduce a new member of the firm, they're going to have the threat of that person finding out about Mike's background.


It's not Soloff... yet.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

zordude said:


> Oh great. We're back to Mike doesn't have a law degree.
> 
> I wish the Mike character would just die and end that entire thread.


I haven't always been a fan of it, but I liked that plot line in this episode. I'm not sure how realistic that resolution was, though. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the lawyer for the other side would be in violation of something if she knowingly signed Rachel's amended documents. I saw some mentions on Twitter about Mike spoiling Game of Thrones. I don't watch that show, so it was lost on me - did anyone else catch it, and was it spoiler-worthy?


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

mcb08 said:


> I haven't always been a fan of it, but I liked that plot line in this episode. I'm not sure how realistic that resolution was, though. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the lawyer for the other side would be in violation of something if she knowingly signed Rachel's amended documents. I saw some mentions on Twitter about Mike spoiling Game of Thrones. I don't watch that show, so it was lost on me - did anyone else catch it, and was it spoiler-worthy?


 What Mike referred to was indeed spoiler worthy, but since the GoT season ended a couple months ago, I can't see it as a spoiler.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Flop said:


> What Mike referred to was indeed spoiler worthy, but since the GoT season ended a couple months ago, I can't see it as a spoiler.


You must be new here. There are some who insist you should spoiler talk about the pilot of Friends. This is a DVR forum, you know.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I can't remember his name right now but did Jessica's former partner that she forced out know about Mike's unlawyer-ness? I'm just trying to figure out what he wants Soloff to do.

How long has Mike been at the firm? Long enough for him to say he went to Harvard Law and be believed as long as nobody checked?

I'm still wondering when Harvey's going to sleep with his therapist.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> I can't remember his name right now but did Jessica's former partner that she forced out know about Mike's unlawyer-ness? I'm just trying to figure out what he wants Soloff to do.
> 
> How long has Mike been at the firm? Long enough for him to say he went to Harvard Law and be believed as long as nobody checked?
> *
> I'm still wondering when Harvey's going to sleep with his therapist.*


This


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I can't remember his name right now but did Jessica's former partner that she forced out know about Mike's unlawyer-ness? I'm just trying to figure out what he wants Soloff to do.


Daniel Hardman, and no, I'm almost positive he doesn't know. Jessica forced him out by threatening to reveal criminal actions that he did, and if he had known about Mike, he'd have definitely used that as leverage back against her.



cheesesteak said:


> How long has Mike been at the firm? Long enough for him to say he went to Harvard Law and be believed as long as nobody checked?


I don't think we know for sure how long it's been in years since the show started. Probably only three years or so. Certainly that's lightning fast for a new associate to make partner at a big firm (usually takes 7-10 years). If Mike was a bike messenger up until shortly before meeting Harvey and that's when he knew this other girl, then he's barely had enough time to even go to law school, let alone graduate, start working at Pearson, and impress people enough to make partner. She'd know it was impossible.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

The writers need to end this latest Hardman arc with the guy getting hit by a bus. What's going on makes no sense, including Forstman spending infinite sums of money to punish Harvey.

Add on the nonsense about the wedding and this last episode was nothing but lazy rehashed crap.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Oy. Bring in 3 characters from previous seasons with no explanation of who they are, and add a plot line that requires some background knowledge, and make it more confusing by splicing together two scenes. 

Eventually the Mike secret has to come out. There's no way it can't. Glad to see Rachel and Mike having to deal with the ramifications of it, actually.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> Oy. Bring in 3 characters from previous seasons with no explanation of who they are, and add a plot line that requires some background knowledge, and make it more confusing by splicing together two scenes.
> 
> Eventually the Mike secret has to come out. There's no way it can't. Glad to see Rachel and Mike having to deal with the ramifications of it, actually.


Who were the three characters from previous seasons that were brought in without any explanation? Obviously Hardman is back, but I'd hardly call his return "without explanation." They've been talking about him for the last couple episodes and Soloff met with him in the previous episode. Who were the other two that were confusing?

What was the plot line that required background knowledge and was made more confusing by splicing scenes?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Who were the three characters from previous seasons that were brought in without any explanation? Obviously Hardman is back, but I'd hardly call his return "without explanation." They've been talking about him for the last couple episodes and Soloff met with him in the previous episode. Who were the other two that were confusing?
> 
> What was the plot line that required background knowledge and was made more confusing by splicing scenes?


Maybe he means Forstmann and the two money guys who helped take the car company private?

Mike's secret and all the machinations to keep it secret are the second worst part of this show. The first worst is Louis still being employed there after his seemingly weekly screw ups.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I would say one was Mikes old roomate. That was just more "in your face" Mike your secret will come out, plot line, which we didn't need.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> I would say one was Mikes old roomate. That was just more "in your face" Mike your secret will come out, plot line, which we didn't need.


Forgot about him.

I think I'll bail on the show's next half season. I have no desire to wallow through the Mike/Rachel wedding drama. I'm tired of Soloff and Hardman. I'm also tired of the infighting and back stabbing among the partners.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

I was thinking the guy in prison and the two guys they went to for money, that we hadn't seen this season. The roommate I was cool with.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I thought I watched all of this week's episode, but I must have fallen asleep partway through, because I don't remember most of the stuff you guys are talking about. Time to go fix that.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

And frankly, I'm tired of guys always buttoning/unbuttoning their jackets. Must wear them out. Throw the darn thing over a chair, put it on when you leave!


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

efilippi said:


> And frankly, I'm tired of guys always buttoning/unbuttoning their jackets. Must wear them out. Throw the darn thing over a chair, put it on when you leave!


But the name of the show is Suits, not Shirts & Ties.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

efilippi said:


> And frankly, I'm tired of guys always buttoning/unbuttoning their jackets. Must wear them out. Throw the darn thing over a chair, put it on when you leave!


Do they ever wear them more than once? It's like Donna and dresses.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

efilippi said:


> And frankly, I'm tired of guys always buttoning/unbuttoning their jackets. Must wear them out. Throw the darn thing over a chair, put it on when you leave!


While I agree that it's silly the men leave their suit jackets on while in the office, as long as they are leaving them on, then buttoning/unbuttoning is proper. It's supposed to be buttoned when you're standing and unbuttoned when you sit.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I know that it's "proper" but I still think it's stupid. Just me.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

I don't get why don't they have Mike go back and get his law degree at Harvard. Take a few months or years off, then go back to Harvard to get his degree so you don't have to anymore of these issues.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I would assume unless he were to change his identity it's too late.

I have kindof become interested again - on a soap opera level - but I agree
Really? Hartman again? This show cannot think of anything new.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Enrique said:


> I don't get why don't they have Mike go back and get his law degree at Harvard. Take a few months or years off, then go back to Harvard to get his degree so you don't have to anymore of these issues.


Because it's a television show


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Enrique said:


> I don't get why don't they have Mike go back and get his law degree at Harvard. Take a few months or years off, then go back to Harvard to get his degree so you don't have to anymore of these issues.


But then if somebody were to do a background check, wouldn't they still see that when he really graduated was after he started "practicing"?

And if he were to try and go to Harvard, wouldn't Harvard admissions easily stumble on the fact that he's already practicing, and claiming he already has a Harvard degree?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Has there been an episode where Jessica didn't wear a skin tight dress?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

ElJay said:


> The writers need to end this latest Hardman arc with the guy getting hit by a bus. What's going on makes no sense, including Forstman spending infinite sums of money to punish Harvey.
> 
> Add on the nonsense about the wedding and this last episode was nothing but lazy rehashed crap.


I think he ought to fall down an elevator shaft 

Yeah, this show is getting dumb. Perhaps there's just nothing left to write about at this point and they should end it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Enrique said:


> I don't get why don't they have Mike go back and get his law degree at Harvard. Take a few months or years off, then go back to Harvard to get his degree so you don't have to anymore of these issues.


I think because if he did this, it would open the firm up to a lawsuit and pretty much any case he worked on posing as a lawyer would be null and void, wouldn't it be?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I can say I know little about becoming a lawyer, but, to pass the bar, is it REQUIRED to go to law school? I would think Mike being Mike, he could pass it with his eyes closed (and I think he mentioned he'd already done it for others).


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Jeeters said:


> But then if somebody were to do a background check, wouldn't they still see that when he really graduated was after he started "practicing"?


Didn't Mike learn in the latest episode that they just signed a client that automatically triggers a background check on the firm? Mike's secret is this show's gift that keeps on giving even though lots (or most) of us are tired of that nugget.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I can say I know little about becoming a lawyer, but, to pass the bar, is it REQUIRED to go to law school? I would think Mike being Mike, he could pass it with his eyes closed (and I think he mentioned he'd already done it for others).


Most states require law school to be admitted to the bar, whether you can pass the exam or not. I think there are 4 or 5 that do not require a law degree, but those require several years of apprenticeship to a lawyer in place of the degree. New York is not one of those states.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Enrique said:


> I don't get why don't they have Mike go back and get his law degree at Harvard. Take a few months or years off, then go back to Harvard to get his degree so you don't have to anymore of these issues.


As others have said, that would open the firm to liability for all the cases he's worked on.

The really dumb thing about this whole premise is that anyone can work as a law clerk under the supervision of a licensed attorney. There's very little that Mike has done on the show that he couldn't have done as a clerk. If Harvey had simply not hired him as an associate but as a clerk, Mike could have still done all the same work on Harvey's cases and there never would have been a problem.



cheesesteak said:


> Didn't Mike learn in the latest episode that they just signed a client that automatically triggers a background check on the firm?


That was two episodes ago, and I thought Rachel was able to pull some rabbit out of a hat that made that requirement go away.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I could actually live with a lot of silly stuff that could never happen with a real law firm and this scenario. What I can't live with is that they keep rehashing the same stuff, pulling characters out of a hat that are part of the firm and turn into integral characters, the Louis and Harvey sideshow, and the stupidity that is Mke and Rachel's wedding plans. Add that to these seemingly complicated law cases that no one in their right mind can follow and the show has lost a lot of steam for me. I used to watch because I liked the characters, but I really don't much anymore.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Regarding the stupidity of Mike and Rachel's wedding plans, why is Mrs. Rachel's Mom inviting the dean of the Harvard Law school? Is he a close friend of the Zane family or something?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Nice way to end the 'season' last night. Was the arrest charge for the mis-use of his attorney status or something else? I think the officer said "...attempt to commit fraud" which isn't what I would expect if this was the attorney thing.

And did Harvey really quit? I thought he did but then he seemed to be hanging around more than I would expect.

Louis, blue jacket, green tie? Yikes.

And Donna is again the man. Good scene between her and the shrink.

Good episode, really.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Good Episode.

What age was Mike supposed to be? Anything under 25 he didn't pull it off, bad hair or not.


----------



## Marc (Jun 26, 1999)

efilippi said:


> I think the officer said "...attempt to commit fraud" which isn't what I would expect if this was the attorney thing.


What I remember hearing was "conspiracy to commit fraud," which leads me to believe that it's not specifically about him not having a law degree, but instead related to some legal transaction he was a party to, perhaps from the time he was working as an investment banker.

It's generic enough to leave people wondering...


Spoiler



until next season, since season six has been green-lighted for sixteen new episodes in 2016.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> Good Episode. What age was Mike supposed to be? Anything under 25 he didn't pull it off, bad hair or not.


I thought Mike pulled it off a lot better than Harvey. That scene between young Harvey and his brother, where the brother is complaining that he won't have anyone because Harvey drove everyone away - I'm like, "Dude, you're 35. It's OK to be on your own now."


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

This half-season finale has at least put the show on a possibly interesting new path, unless they advance time in some way that makes what we just saw meaningless.

I hope that meeting was the last time we ever saw Jack Soloff. What a lousy character that was.



efilippi said:


> Louis, blue jacket, green tie? Yikes.


I thought the suit was spiffy, but then the tie kind of destroyed any good the suit possibly had going for it.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Yes, it was "conspiracy to commit fraud."


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

On the finale:

I am betting that Mike's arrest has nothing to do with his pretending to be an attorney and they just wanting us to think that. It's going to turn into something small, that they will be done with the first episode back in the second half of the season. Just a gut feeling.

I do wonder what Harvey's resignation means. Again, this could be another one episode resolve where he winds up somehow back at the firm and it opens up the plot for the rest of the season (guy from prison gets out and seeks revenge or something. But we'll see. At least it left something interesting to watch for, for what was a pretty bad season.


----------



## Marc (Jun 26, 1999)

ElJay said:


> I hope that meeting was the last time we ever saw Jack Soloff. What a lousy character that was.


I agree.

He could have been much more interesting if he was the lynchpin in a plan to bring down Hardman instead of just playing Hardman's lackey.


----------



## flikhem (Sep 6, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I think he ought to fall down an elevator shaft


How very Rosalind Shays of you.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Even though I ffwd'd through half of his flash back scenes, I thought Patrick Adams pulled off younger Mike pretty well. Harvey and his brother, on the other hand, looked as old as their parents.

Can a law firm call for a no confidence vote on such sort notice? The same day?

Does Jessica have a secretary?

Did I fall asleep during a previous episode in which Donna learned of Harvey's shrink? I remember that she noticed he blocked out a period of time that she was unaware of but that's it. Personally, I thought the Donna/shrink scene was blecch worthy. Donna's mind reading act and the "Harvey doesn't know what he's missing" line almost made me want to hurl.

Let's see how happy Rachel is that Mike's unemployed when she's paying all the bills. Is she still a paralegal? Going to law school? A lawyer?

They show all the other partners a couple of times per season. I wonder if any of the actors are the same or if they just pull random people from central casting.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I am betting that Mike's arrest has nothing to do with his pretending to be an attorney and they just wanting us to think that.


I think so too. I'm betting on some kind of vengeance from Hardman or Forstman. Forstman is just the kinda guy who would hatch some kind of get-out-of-jail plan using Mike as a scapegoat, and his 'deal' with Harvey was to stop destroying the firm, didn't say anything about not destroying Mike.

Can anyone remind me whether or not Forstman or Hardman know Mike's secret? Sometimes I wish they would just do a two year jump at the end of a season and get Mike a law degree. I tire of his secret.



Steveknj said:


> I do wonder what Harvey's resignation means.


Assuming Forstman and/or Hardman are behind Mike's arrest, I bet Harvey is back as soon as their plot has been foiled.



cheesesteak said:


> Let's see how happy Rachel is that Mike's unemployed when she's paying all the bills.


I thought it was pretty lousy for him to make a major life-changing decision without consulting her. They've pretty much ruined Rachel for me over the seasons. She started out a strong character, but by this point she's pretty damn weak.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Neither Hardman nor Forstman know Mike's secret. If they did, they wouldn't be using these round-about methods to take over the firm.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> *I thought Mike pulled it off a lot better than Harvey.* That scene between young Harvey and his brother, where the brother is complaining that he won't have anyone because Harvey drove everyone away - I'm like, "Dude, you're 35. It's OK to be on your own now."


It took me longer than it should have to realize Harvey's mother was not his sister!


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> On the finale:
> 
> I am betting that Mike's arrest has nothing to do with his pretending to be an attorney and they just wanting us to think that. It's going to turn into something small, that they will be done with the first episode back in the second half of the season. Just a gut feeling.
> 
> I do wonder what Harvey's resignation means. Again, this could be another one episode resolve where he winds up somehow back at the firm and it opens up the plot for the rest of the season (guy from prison gets out and seeks revenge or something. But we'll see. At least it left something interesting to watch for, for what was a pretty bad season.


I also have a feeling both of these are just misdirections and will be resolved quickly. I am more confident of this on Mike's since there are so many ways they can play it. And Harvey isn't going anywhere.

I really hope they put an end to the resurrection of old characters, the Hardman/Forstman/Soloft (and any other) conspiracy stories and move into new directions. If they continue with them and some kind of revenge plot I may call it quits.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I enjoyed the season even though it was a fashion show with pretty weak plot lines (panicking and needing therapy about losing your secretary-- seriously?) 

I'll keep speeding though the recordings until it runs its course.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Just watched the finale last night (we've been on vacation and are catching up). I really hope it's not mis-direction and that Mike is being arrested for impersonating a lawyer. I'd really like to get that old chestnut out of the way. 

But if it *is* what it is, then I'm betting Mike tipped them off himself. It puts him in control of the situation, which likely allows him to keep the others out of it. It allows him to plead for leniency. And it allows him to get absolution.

But back to the mis-direction. They said "conspiracy to commit fraud" and not fraud. IANAL but doesn't that imply two things? First, there are others involved (can you have a *con*spiracy of one?) Second, "conspiracy to commit" implies it hasn't been committed, no?

Can anyone tell me what is so bad with someone buying you out? So beard#1 threatens Louis with buying out his sister's company. So what? Let him. Enjoy other people's money for a change. And same with Smoke Monster guy -- they were going to buy him out at a ridiculous premium. Umm, yeah, why the heck not? If you wanted to have another go, you'd have a ton more money than the last time and many, many excellent contacts in both the business and technology side of things. Or just retire and do whatever you want to do *without* the burden of fiduciary responsibility to your share holders.

Lastly, if Eric Roberts in in jail, how does he have access to his fortune? Wouldn't they have froze his assets?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wprager said:


> Can anyone tell me what is so bad with someone buying you out? So beard#1 threatens Louis with buying out his sister's company. So what? Let him. Enjoy other people's money for a change. And same with Smoke Monster guy -- they were going to buy him out at a ridiculous premium. Umm, yeah, why the heck not? If you wanted to have another go, you'd have a ton more money than the last time and many, many excellent contacts in both the business and technology side of things. Or just retire and do whatever you want to do *without* the burden of fiduciary responsibility to your share holders.


These aren't business owners who are just trying to make a living and scrape together enough to retire. These are people who know they could sell out and retire right now if they wanted to, but they prefer to continue working because that's what is fulfilling and satisfying for them. If you start a company and build it into a big business, you want to sell on your own terms, with some protections so you'll know what you worked for will continue after you're gone. You don't want someone to come in, force you out, and dismantle everything you've built.



wprager said:


> Lastly, if Eric Roberts in in jail, how does he have access to his fortune? Wouldn't they have froze his assets?


I'm sure his money is spread out over dozens or hundreds of shell companies and banks and accounts.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

If they wanted to take things in a new direction, they could have Harvey open up a private practice. They could get Mike's situation resolved somehow, and have Mike work with him (either as a lawyer, or if his secret comes out, as a clerk). Pearson could subcontract work out to them, or work with them, so it would not mean abandoning all of the other characters, just reducing their appearances.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> If they wanted to take things in a new direction, they could have Harvey open up a private practice. They could get Mike's situation resolved somehow, and have Mike work with him (either as a lawyer, or if his secret comes out, as a clerk). Pearson could subcontract work out to them, or work with them, so it would not mean abandoning all of the other characters, just reducing their appearances.


I'm not even sure what Forstman was trying to accomplish. If Harvey resigns, he would then either set up his own firm, or go work at an existing firm. Either way, he'd take his clients with him.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen, and then when all the remaining partners at Pearson Litt see what has happened to their bottom line by Harvey taking all his clients and their billings, the PL partners will all vote unanimously to bring Harvey back, thus taking away any leverage Hardman or Forstman would have over the firm in the future.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Maybe Forstman will get killed in prison thus bringing a swift end to that story arc. And Hardman falling down an elevator shaft would be very appropriate. 

I honestly don't understand how people like that even exist. Being ruthless to get ahead is one thing, but he (and Forstman) are using all their energy, acumen and resources for very personal -- and not at all financially sound -- reasons. People like that wouldn't last very long -- they would simply run out of resources.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

wprager said:


> Maybe Forstman will get killed in prison thus bringing a swift end to that story arc. And Hardman falling down an elevator shaft would be very appropriate.


A cameo by Diana Maldaur in such a scene would be most excellent.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> Even though I ffwd'd through half of his flash back scenes


You made it through half? I fast forwarded through all of them - well except for anything with Gram - I love her.

Wow - talk about a bad wig.

Other than that - the rest of it was enuf to keep my interest.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Cainebj said:


> You made it through half? I fast forwarded through all of them - well except for anything with Gram - I love her.
> 
> Wow - talk about a bad wig.
> 
> Other than that - the rest of it was enuf to keep my interest.


That wig reminded me of Ben Stiller's prom-night flashbacks from There's Something About Mary.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Just finished the season. 

Am I the only sap or did anyone else tear up at Mike seeing the bookcase and the books!?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

sushikitten said:


> Just finished the season.
> 
> Am I the only sap or did anyone else tear up at Mike seeing the bookcase and the books!?


Some of us _may have been_ sitting in a dusty room.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

wprager said:


> Some of us _may have been_ sitting in a dusty room.


I was cutting onions...


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

sushikitten said:


> Just finished the season.
> 
> Am I the only sap or did anyone else tear up at Mike seeing the bookcase and the books!?


Tear up? I cried through half the episode!

Lots of hating in here, which is everyone's right, but I'm still all in. Love the eye candy and the melodrama and the characters. Sure it gets a bit tired rehashing a lot of the same stuff but pretty much every show does that after a few seasons.

I mean damn, the men on this show look so fine in those suits. Very, very dapper.

I did wish there was a little less screaming - binge watching ten episodes in a weekend and you see how much they scream at each other.

I enjoyed Harvey and the therapist and seeing a different, more vulnerable and ultimately more selfless version of Harvey.

I do hope they stop having Louis play the buffoon. Even if his sister said she doesn't see him as one, the writers continuously push him a bit too far, I'd rather we get to see him not be the overreacting screw-up for a while.

Looking forward to seeing where Mike and Harvey end up in the second half of the season!


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Well... Well... Well... I can't say I'm surprised at who exposed Mike, but the reason it was done and the actual beginning of it did surprise me a bit. 

It will be interesting to see how they get out of the mess they made. 

I'll say one thing this who's going to turn on who is getting tiresome, since we all know that none of the main characters are going to turn on each other for any reason. They're a family, a dysfunctional family to be sure, but a family nonetheless.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Why is there no simple "you law firm must by law employ qualified attorneys so show us Mikes Harvard bonafides and we'll be done with it?" Mike provides a diploma, the bar association verifies it, done.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

efilippi said:


> Why is there no simple "you law firm must by law employ qualified attorneys so show us Mikes Harvard bonafides and we'll be done with it?" Mike provides a diploma, the bar association verifies it, done.


Mike has a forged diploma and has also hacked into Harvard Law's records and embedded his name and personal information, along with a fake transcript. Unless the DA can find someone to authenticate the diploma, we are meant to believe it looks real enough to anyone taking a scrutinizing look at it.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Plus, "innocent until proven guilty," not "guilty until proven innocent."


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

frombhto323 said:


> Mike has a forged diploma and has also hacked into Harvard Law's records and embedded his name and personal information, along with a fake transcript.


Ok, I do recall some of that now, especially the hacking part.



JETarpon said:


> Plus, "innocent until proven guilty," not "guilty until proven innocent."


I don't think I could set up practice as a physician and do it freely until I'm proven to be a fraud. I don't think it is unreasonable for someone applying for a professional position to be asked to prove qualifications. Not like he could say "you prove I'm not a lawyer" and go on unchallenged until all possibilities that he _might_ be a lawyer are exhausted.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

But it's the prosecutor who is going after him, not the bar. The prosecutor has to prove he committed a crime. 

The bar would probably have other means, as part of their licensing. But that's not what's happening here.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The dumb thing about this whole plot from the beginning of the series is that Harvey could have hired Mike to be a law clerk and Mike could have done almost everything a lawyer does except sign court documents and speak in court. They could have had the benefit of Mike's brilliance without the risk, but then there wouldn't be a show.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I'm not sure if you were asking a question but I think you just answered it.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Any resolution that includes Mike practicing law will be a huge disappointment (but not a surprise).


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

zordude said:


> Any resolution that includes Mike practicing law will be a huge disappointment (but not a surprise).


Mike will probably end up being a named partner.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

zordude said:


> Any resolution that includes Mike practicing law will be a huge disappointment (but not a surprise).


Any resolution at all will be very welcomed. Get back to the story lines I enjoyed when I first started watching.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

wprager said:


> Any resolution at all will be very welcomed. Get back to the story lines I enjoyed when I first started watching.


No kidding! A new crisis every ten minutes in the show, it's really fatiguing and a chore to watch.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

So I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but isn't there a provision that allows you to take the bar, even if you haven't been to law school (or an accredited law school), that allows you to practice law?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Agatha Mystery said:


> So I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but isn't there a provision that allows you to take the bar, even if you haven't been to law school (or an accredited law school), that allows you to practice law?


Depends on the state. For example, in CA, you can take the bar without having gone to an accredited law school. In AZ, you have to have graduated from an accredited school.

Apparently there are a couple states that will allow someone to take the bar exam after a certain amount of time working in a legal office rather than going to law school, but it's very rare.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...hout_law_degrees_require_apprenticeships.html


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> The dumb thing about this whole plot from the beginning of the series is that Harvey could have hired Mike to be a law clerk and Mike could have done almost everything a lawyer does except sign court documents and speak in court. They could have had the benefit of Mike's brilliance without the risk, but then there wouldn't be a show.


Yep, then it becomes a procedural CBS crime drama  The whole premise of the show was Mike fooling everyone. I guess the logical twist it could have taken was Mike secretly going to law school while actually practicing law. Heck, why not just enroll, take the exams, take the Bar and be done with it. But it's much more fun this way.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I was wondering what other ways they can prove Mike never went to Harvard instead of just relying on Sheila Sazs' memory and paper files. I assume there would be a Harvard email address in his name and its associated email trail. There'd probably also be a financial aid trail. Probably an id card and its security trail of what buildings were accessed.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

You say there would be these things, but you mean there wouldn't be these things.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Yep, then it becomes a procedural CBS crime drama  The whole premise of the show was Mike fooling everyone. I guess the logical twist it could have taken was Mike secretly going to law school while actually practicing law. Heck, why not just enroll, take the exams, take the Bar and be done with it. But it's much more fun this way.


Because any effort he takes to get an actual law degree and take the bar will automatically legitimize any claims that he acted fraudulently before that.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

JETarpon said:


> You say there would be these things, but you mean there wouldn't be these things.


I would say logs of who entered which door aren't kept for a long time. It's Harvard, not Langley, VA. We are in S5, so his e-mail has likely been purged a while back (each year they admit how many thousand new students?)

In my opinion they have way more "proof" that he attended Harvard that the DA has that he didn't. If all they have is Sheila Sazs saying "I remember every student, but I don't remember this one" I think the judge will dismiss the case immediately.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

If the onus was on Mike to prove that he was a student then it would be a lot more difficult (surely you can find *some* other former student who remembers you, since you are the wunderkid with the photographic memory).


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> The dumb thing about this whole plot from the beginning of the series is that Harvey could have hired Mike to be a law clerk and Mike could have done almost everything a lawyer does except sign court documents and speak in court. They could have had the benefit of Mike's brilliance without the risk, but then there wouldn't be a show.


That's the first thing I thought when I watched the pilot. There is simply no need to give the title Attorney and allow him to represent clients as such.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I would think the easiest way of showing that he didn't attend Harvard during the time in question is to show what he was doing. He couldn't have been totally off the grid.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

Agatha Mystery said:


> So I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but isn't there a provision that allows you to take the bar, even if you haven't been to law school (or an accredited law school), that allows you to practice law?


It's been years since I've known this to be true, so it is likely no longer so, but the only two states I was aware of that allowed apprenticeship, without having attended an accredited law school, as a pathway to sitting for the bar are (were?) Alabama and New York.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Depends on the state. For example, in CA, you can take the bar without having gone to an accredited law school. In AZ, you have to have graduated from an accredited school.
> 
> Apparently there are a couple states that will allow someone to take the bar exam after a certain amount of time working in a legal office rather than going to law school, but it's very rare.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/business...hout_law_degrees_require_apprenticeships.html


Ah, should have read a little further before my previous post. Good find.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Just a random, but fun, thought:

Imagine if we combined Suits with The Grinder?


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I wonder how fatiguing it is for the actors on this show. Ninety percent of it are these 45-second scenes of people getting angry and raising their voices at each other over an issue that gets resolved two minutes later. Of course this resolution usually leads to a new issue to then argue and yell about.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Since the show started up again in 2016 every week I start it thinking what stupidity will they give me this episode? 
- and then I find myself thoroughly enjoying it. 
It's so dumb it's fun...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> Since the show started up again in 2016 every week I start it thinking what stupidity will they give me this episode?
> - and then I find myself thoroughly enjoying it.
> It's so dumb it's fun...


This exactly. The plot line is really dumb, but I enjoy watching the characters in those situations.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

At first, I thought the memory thing was a cool hook and I liked the way they used it (give Mike a spit ton of stuff to read and he'd pick out the good stuff) and Rachel was(still is) cute. I think they used to have more case-of-the-week too, which I liked.

Now, I think the show is stupid and I'm tired of all the posturing and bravado. I just fast forward to the Donna scenes now. If Amanda Schull(Katrina) or Amy Acker(Esther) guest again, I'll stop and watch their scenes too.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

I skip just about every Jessica scene. They're all the same:

"This is my firm! My firm! They can pry it from my cold dead hands. No one tells me how to run my firm. My firm!"


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

More ridiculousness in the latest episode. Two weeks between delivery of discovery documents and a trial? That's complete BS. In a real case, there would be at least six months, probably more like a year. 

And does it bother anyone else that all the parties to Mike's secret are constantly talking about the secret without shutting doors or even bothering to look around to see if anyone else is in earshot?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

How about Sheila agreeing to fly to Argentina! She's been tagged as a witness, hasn't she? I realize he picked Argentina because she can't be extradited but wouldn't running away when you are a witness for the prosecution kinda kibosh her career at Harvard School of Law? Wouldn't it be easier for her to say that she wrote the letter out of spite because of being dumped?


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> And does it bother anyone else that all the parties to Mike's secret are constantly talking about the secret without shutting doors or even bothering to look around to see if anyone else is in earshot?


YES!!! We're constantly saying "SHUT THE DAMN DOOR!"


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm amazed that almost nobody ever has to stop a receptionist's desk when they go to another law firm or corporation. They just walk into the office.

I don't know anything about the LSATs.  Is there any way that Mike could have taken the exam for Rachel? I know he didn't but what kind of identification and security involved with taking the test? How easy/hard would it be for Mike to take the test for someone else in the real world and could a man possibly take the test for a woman and nobody notice?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> Is there any way that Mike could have taken the exam for Rachel? I know he didn't but what kind of identification and security involved with taking the test? How easy/hard would it be for Mike to take the test for someone else in the real world and could a man possibly take the test for a woman and nobody notice?


Wasn't that how Mike made money in early episodes, taking tests for people? I think so.

Or am I confusing him with Lip on Shameless?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

efilippi said:


> Wasn't that how Mike made money in early episodes, taking tests for people? I think so.
> 
> Or am I confusing him with Lip on Shameless?


No, you are correct. Mike was definitely taking the LSAT for others when the show began, and the assistant prosecutor that Mike confronted in this episode was one of the ones that Mike took the test for.

However, I don't know if we were ever shown Mike taking the test for a female.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Do you have to produce any legal id to take the LSATs? Do you just show up in a classroom and write your name on the test and nobody checks? I never cared about any of the "behind the scenes" stuff about Mike taking the test for other people before the Dean insinuated that Mike could have taken the test for Rachel. That made me wonder how.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

i think the implication was it was easy for him to do in the era of fake IDs for guys. Not so much in 2016 for a black woman.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Do you have to produce any legal id to take the LSATs? Do you just show up in a classroom and write your name on the test and nobody checks? I never cared about any of the "behind the scenes" stuff about Mike taking the test for other people before the Dean insinuated that Mike could have taken the test for Rachel. That made me wonder how.


It's been over ten years since I took it, so I don't really remember the process, but I'm fairly certain that I had to show a government issued ID. However, I don't think there was a lot of scrutiny, and I'm guessing any random guy could have shown my ID and sat for the test in my name.

As for a male taking it for a female and vice versa, that would probably depend on how closely the test proctor looks at the ID upon entrance to the exam. I'd guess that the fraudulent test taker would be wearing a disguise and it would depend on how good that disguise is.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

huh, apparently there was a time when they didn't require a photo ID
http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid/275582/LSAT-Cheating-Part-2-Enforcement


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

frombhto323 said:


> Ah, should have read a little further before my previous post. Good find.


Yep, reading the whole thread before responding should be SOP.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Flop said:


> I skip just about every Jessica scene. They're all the same:
> 
> "This is my G-d D*mn firm! My G-d D*mn firm! They can G-d D*mn pry it from my G-d D*mn cold dead G-d D*mn hands. No one G-d D*mn tells me how to G-d D*mn run my G-d D*mn firm. My G-d D*mn firm!"


fyp


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

jr461 said:


> fyp


:up:


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> Since the show started up again in 2016 every week I start it thinking what stupidity will they give me this episode?
> - and then I find myself thoroughly enjoying it.
> It's so dumb it's fun...


I think that is the only way to enjoy the show, as the premise itself is ludicrous. Once you realize (and buy into) that, it is just relax and not scrutinize too much.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> More ridiculousness in the latest episode. Two weeks between delivery of discovery documents and a trial? That's complete BS. In a real case, there would be at least six months, probably more like a year.
> 
> And does it bother anyone else that all the parties to Mike's secret are constantly talking about the secret without shutting doors or even bothering to look around to see if anyone else is in earshot?


I don't recall, either, as it has been much longer for me since I took it. I vaguely remember having to show some ID to be checked off a list before entering the room, but I'm not sure my memory is correct at this point.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Watching "Self Defense" (S5e13, I think) right now.
I think I've realized that if the series ended with Mike, and maybe Harvey, going to prison, I think I'd actually kind of enjoy that. It would be kind of funny.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I'm still watching this but I don't see how they can get out of this without it being super duper far fetched.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Kamakzie said:


> I'm still watching this but I don't see how they can get out of this without it being super duper far fetched.


But isn't any resolution they ever come up with pretty far fetched?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I noticed that my PVR was not recording last night. Checked the show live and it was a new episode, but the guide info said original air recdate was Feb. 10. Good thing I caught it as I was able to set up a later recording (Bravo in Canada re-airs it a couple times). Anyone else have this problem? The only discussion I see here is up-to last week's episode (but that's not unusual).


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

sushikitten said:


> But isn't any resolution they ever come up with pretty far fetched?


Very true!


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

sushikitten said:


> But isn't any resolution they ever come up with pretty far fetched?


The whole thing is preposterous so how can the resolution not be (but still entertaining, however ).

This prosecutor (forgot her name) is literally everywhere just showing up in front of firm employees, knowing everything about everyone and their friends and families and what they have all been doing down to the second, with pictures!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

jr461 said:


> This prosecutor (forgot her name) is literally everywhere just showing up in front of firm employees, knowing everything about everyone and their friends and families and what they have all been doing down to the second, with pictures!


I was thinking the same thing. She must have a huge budget. Apparently she has someone following Mike 24/7. And other people digging into everyone's history in minute detail. She even sent someone to Argentina on a moment's notice to track someone down.

Quite a large budget to go after someone just for faking a law degree.

I wonder how much she would spend to go after someone for defying a restraining order.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I thought it very interesting that they had Donna be the one to crack. She is the unflappable one so it came as a surprise to me. I don't blame her at all though. There has to be at least one person on the show to root for and I am quite pleased that it be her.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I agree - based on the testimony so far - I don't see any way that he would not be found guilty...

I wait with bated breath on what happens next.

This episode the IN-fighting is pretty bad - hey, ya all are on the same side people!!

Although... Imagine from a jury's perspective... I suppose I might buy that he got a degree but never actually attended any classes with his photographic memory etc...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

They all deserve to be in jail.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

I think you need to view this show as if you were watching a superhero one. With a superhero show it's assumed that they can do amazing things that violate the known laws of physics, but it's important that they are consistent with the characteristics of the universe in which they live.

In the universe in which _Suits _exists the firm the protagonists aren't "bad" guys, they're lawyers that sometimes "bend" the rules to help their clients. In their universe Mike was expelled from college based on his roommate selling a test to the dean's daughter, even though he was well qualified academically to continue. His taking of the LSATs (which gets someone into law school, doesn't pass them or help them pass the Bar) was done to raise money for his grandmother's medical bills. His eidetic memory, as well as ability to understand and apply what he remembers has shown him to to be as, if not more, prepared to take the bar exam than anyone who would have been his law school peer. He took the bar exam and passed.
He's being brought up on fraud charges. He's passed the bar, even without going to law school, which is sufficient in some areas to practice law. (sometimes internship is required, which we've seen him do as well ). With all the detailed knowledge we have of Mike, we haven't seen him provide legal service as good, or better, that other lawyers on the show with his level of post- bar exam experience.

So in the universe that _Suits _exists, we see that he has not intended to defraud his clients by providing substandard legal representation. Arguing that he should be convicted for fraud would be like arguing about Superman or Batman violating the civil rights of bad guys, forcing the release of anyone imprisoned after being caught by them or for them to be brought up on murder or manslaughter charges for anyone killed by them.

Since a show were Superman has no powers would be less interesting, so would one where Mike Ross can't practice law. This requires him to somehow get past this case against him. Consistent with the universe in which the show exists I'd expect it to sort out in one or more of the following ways: Leverage against the prosecutor for something she's done bad that causes her to throw or drop the case. (we've seen her violate the law already) A tenuous legal loophole that stops the case before going to jury. Through perjury or other tricks the jury into acquitting him.

Even if not found guilty by this trial, there's still a chance he could be disbarred, the bar set much lower for that to happen than his criminal trial. This still leaves a "sword of Damocles" hanging over his head to keep the basic premise of the show going. If disbarred he could always become a non-lawyer consultant and make a good living, but that would be as interesting as a show where Superman rides around in a cop car, using his super vision and hearing only after someone else obtains a warrant, subduing suspects with non-lethal force while reading them the Miranda warning before passing them off to the courts.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Idearat said:


> I think you need to view this show as if you were watching a superhero one. With a superhero show it's assumed that they can do amazing things that violate the known laws of physics, but it's important that they are consistent with the characteristics of the universe in which they live.


That the protagonists have superpowers isn't the problem, it's that they've setup a premise where everyone else in the world has to be stupid. Any decent graduate education is going to require you to interact in some way, either with your classmates or with the professors, at some time. For anyone to believe that Mike Ross somehow earned his degree by only showing up for tests, without attending lectures, without interacting with other students, is too great a suspension of disbelief. His absence would itself earn him notoriety.

Suits is a smart show, but it's gone down kind of a dumb path with this one. Mike Ross constantly being in danger of being caught is one thing, but now that he's actually caught it should be game over. He has got away with it so far solely because he his fraud hasn't been examined in detail, now that he's under close scrutiny, it all falls apart.

I have no doubt that they'll find some way to manipulate their way out of the situation (superpowers, as you point out), but I don't see any reasonable way that could be done with his reputation intact. By now, his entire firm, as well as entire professional community would know that he was a fraud.

As far as how he gets out of it, I'm betting they find some leverage on the prosecutor. She's way too personally invested in this prosecution. There's something about her we don't know yet, and it'll be her Achilles heel.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> They all deserve to be in jail.


Yeah.

All along while I know they've been doing something wrong, and have sometimes skirted the grey area of the law, it's usually been for the right reasons.

Now they are all blatantly doing illegal things (witness tampering, suborning perjury, destroying evidence) that I can no longer root for anyone at PSL. It's really absurd. The writers needed to find a way out of this without turning us against everyone at the firm. Or, just basically drop all the "someone's going to find out" stuff and move on.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

The way they are going to get out of it is obvious but I won't say anything in case I'm right.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

So all three partners are screaming at each other in Jessica's office--with the door open, obviously--and Mrs. Opposing Counsel just walks up. 

Where is Jessica's secretary? Have we ever seen her have one?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

smbaker said:


> That the protagonists have superpowers isn't the problem, it's that they've setup a premise where everyone else in the world has to be stupid. Any decent graduate education is going to require you to interact in some way, either with your classmates or with the professors, at some time. For anyone to believe that Mike Ross somehow earned his degree by only showing up for tests, without attending lectures, without interacting with other students, is too great a suspension of disbelief. His absence would itself earn him notoriety.
> 
> Suits is a smart show, but it's gone down kind of a dumb path with this one. Mike Ross constantly being in danger of being caught is one thing, but now that he's actually caught it should be game over. He has got away with it so far solely because he his fraud hasn't been examined in detail, now that he's under close scrutiny, it all falls apart.
> 
> ...


In the minds of the people in the Law firm, it CAN'T be game over because it would mean the end of the firm. So this is why they are trying to find some way, ANY way to get Mike off. What I find preposterous is this whole argument about Mike representing himself because "if they see me as a lawyer, they'll find me not guilty". That's just ridiculous. To me, that's like saying that "if they see me driving a car fast, I'm a race car driver". No Mike, you committed fraud, no matter how you look at it.

I'm also not getting why the DA is being so over the top vindictive that she has to try to blackmail EVERYONE in the firm. To me, this show is kinda like the movie Catch Me if you Can. The show should have ended with Mike being found out, and they find a way to make good use of his skills. Not this "You're caught, and now I'm going to bring down everyone because I don't like you".


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Beryl said:


> The way they are going to get out of it is obvious but I won't say anything in case I'm right.


I want to know what you think! Post it in spoiler tags.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

They do have a valid reason for Mike to represent himself, in that he can testify without subjecting himself to cross examination. But even that's stupid, because Gibbs is likely just going to call him as a witness and force him to take the Fifth. 

As for letting the jury see him being a lawyer, that's preposterous, and it shows the writers really have no idea what they're talking about. Being good in the courtroom doesn't make you a lawyer any more than sleeping in the garage makes you a car. Having a valid license to practice law is about three things: 1. Graduate from an accredited law school, 2. Pass the Bar Exam, and 3. Apply for and receive a license from the state. Whether he's actually good at practicing law (which nobody disputes), is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> The show should have ended with Mike being found out, and they find a way to make good use of his skills.


I think it would be/would have been a better show if they had done this early on, or if they would do this now and use it as a pivot to move forward in a different direction. I have always thought (and have said on these boards in the past) that IMO what makes Mike interesting is not that he has a secret, but rather the fact that he has a photographic memory. But I suppose it's probably a lot easier for the writers to build "suspense" around guarding his secret than it would be for them to continually think of new ways to write about his memory.

(I use quotations around "suspense" because after 5 years I'm not finding it to be very suspenseful any more.)


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> They do have a valid reason for Mike to represent himself, in that he can testify without subjecting himself to cross examination. But even that's stupid, because Gibbs is likely just going to call him as a witness and force him to take the Fifth.
> 
> As for letting the jury see him being a lawyer, that's preposterous, and it shows the writers really have no idea what they're talking about. Being good in the courtroom doesn't make you a lawyer any more than sleeping in the garage makes you a car. Having a valid license to practice law is about three things: 1. Graduate from an accredited law school, 2. Pass the Bar Exam, and 3. Apply for and receive a license from the state. Whether he's actually good at practicing law (which nobody disputes), is completely irrelevant.


I didn't take it a a literal thing, just that seeing him in action will reinforce in their minds that he is skilled (and presumably because he was taught)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> I didn't take it a a literal thing, just that seeing him in action will reinforce in their minds that he is skilled (and presumably because he was taught)


I guess that's where my background kicks in and gives me a bit of extra info over most viewers. Because I know that they typically don't teach you that kind of stuff in law school. Most law schools are all about reviewing cases and then learning how to spot issues. It's actually very frustrating that you take three years of law school and then when you start practicing, you've received very little training that will help with the day-to-day things that a lawyer does.

Unless you're on a mock trial team, which is kind of an extracurricular thing and not part of the regular classwork.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> They do have a valid reason for Mike to represent himself, in that he can testify without subjecting himself to cross examination. But even that's stupid, because Gibbs is likely just going to call him as a witness and force him to take the Fifth.
> 
> As for letting the jury see him being a lawyer, that's preposterous, and it shows the writers really have no idea what they're talking about. Being good in the courtroom doesn't make you a lawyer any more than sleeping in the garage makes you a car. Having a valid license to practice law is about three things: 1. Graduate from an accredited law school, 2. Pass the Bar Exam, and 3. Apply for and receive a license from the state. Whether he's actually good at practicing law (which nobody disputes), is completely irrelevant.





Dawghows said:


> I think it would be/would have been a better show if they had done this early on, or if they would do this now and use it as a pivot to move forward in a different direction. I have always thought (and have said on these boards in the past) that IMO what makes Mike interesting is not that he has a secret, but rather the fact that he has a photographic memory. But I suppose it's probably a lot easier for the writers to build "suspense" around guarding his secret than it would be for them to continually think of new ways to write about his memory.
> 
> (I use quotations around "suspense" because after 5 years I'm not finding it to be very suspenseful any more.)


I think they should do a Mike meets The Grinder crossover episode


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I guess that's where my background kicks in and gives me a bit of extra info over most viewers. Because I know that they typically don't teach you that kind of stuff in law school. Most law schools are all about reviewing cases and then learning how to spot issues. It's actually very frustrating that you take three years of law school and then when you start practicing, you've received very little training that will help with the day-to-day things that a lawyer does.
> 
> Unless you're on a mock trial team, which is kind of an extracurricular thing and not part of the regular classwork.


agreed, but thats they way with many degrees. I've never had to calculate the moment of inertia of anything. But having been taught how to do it helps me not build things that might fall down.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> As for letting the jury see him being a lawyer, that's preposterous, and it shows the writers really have no idea what they're talking about. Being good in the courtroom doesn't make you a lawyer any more than sleeping in the garage makes you a car. Having a valid license to practice law is about three things: 1. Graduate from an accredited law school, 2. Pass the Bar Exam, and 3. Apply for and receive a license from the state. Whether he's actually good at practicing law (which nobody disputes), is completely irrelevant.


A very nice, logical speech. I expect most jurors would listen politely to such a speech, and then proceed to make their decision on gut instinct rather than logic (does Mike have an honest face? does he act like a confident lawyer does? yes and yes? well then he must be innocent!)


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Zevida said:


> I want to know what you think! Post it in spoiler tags.





Spoiler



Mike has taken exams for several successful Harvard graduates who can easily be encouraged to testify that they've seen him in class and/or on campus on exam days.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Well there was sure a lot going on in last night's penultimate episode. I got the impression that the writers said "there are 13 possible ways to get out of this, let's do them all and sort them out next week." 

I thought Louis's head was going to explode during the wire tap incident.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I'm still waiting for the bus to hit Anita Gibbs as she crosses the street.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Kamakzie said:


> I'm still waiting for the bus to hit Anita Gibbs as she crosses the street.


Maybe Nina Myers can kill her again.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

There was some high quality no one talking to each other in this episode.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Why are they always making Lewis look like a dumbass traitor only to roll it back 15 minutes later? 

I'm glad there's only one episode left. I have zero patience remaining with this story.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Once again it felt like I was watching a soap opera with a few cuss words. Really disappointed in what they've been doing.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

wprager said:


> Once again it felt like I was watching a soap opera with a few cuss words. Really disappointed in what they've been doing.


What God Damn **** are you talking about?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

ElJay said:


> Why are they always making Lewis look like a dumbass traitor only to roll it back 15 minutes later?


When he heard Harvey wanted a mistrial, I was expecting him to tell everyone that Anita Gibbs defied the restraining order and approached him, which might be grounds for a mistrial.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I really thought his little recording device would have been used earlier, when he was talking to Gibbs. Disappointed that he used it on Harvey. Even more disappointed that Harvey was shouting out his confession for all to hear. Doesn't he know that Gibbs has an army following everyone and recording everything? And another army transcribing everything? Ben and The Others didn't have as much info on the Losties as she has on everyone at Pearson Specter Litt.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Mike was supposed to make a big splash by coming to his own defense so he calls the mother of a deceased son who can say that Mike tried his best to save her son. 

Defense rests. 

What?

That made no sense at all.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

efilippi said:


> Mike was supposed to make a big splash by coming to his own defense so he calls the mother of a deceased son who can say that Mike tried his best to save her son.


I thought the point was so that Mike could effectively testify in his own defense without cross-examination by being his own lawyer and making the closing argument.

I don't really see what the mother of the deceased son had to do with anything, other than proving that Mike did things that lawyers do, which is something both the prosecution and the defense agree on.



kamakze said:


> I'm still waiting for the bus to hit Anita Gibbs as she crosses the street.


Well, there is an elevator shaft on the way to her office...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Maybe Nina Myers can kill her again.


 I totally didn't realize that was the same actress who played Terri Bauer. She look so different with longer hair.

I can't believe Harvey fell for Louis' confession trap. That was so obvious.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

efilippi said:


> Mike was supposed to make a big splash by coming to his own defense so he calls the mother of a deceased son who can say that Mike tried his best to save her son.
> 
> Defense rests.
> 
> ...





smbaker said:


> I thought the point was so that Mike could effectively testify in his own defense without cross-examination by being his own lawyer and making the closing argument.
> 
> I don't really see what the mother of the deceased son had to do with anything, other than proving that Mike did things that lawyers do, which is something both the prosecution and the defense agree on.
> 
> Well, there is an elevator shaft on the way to her office...


I think the point of the mother testifying is for emotional impact. Mike not only wanted the jury to know he was an effective lawyer, but also an exceptionally conscientious lawyer. He wanted them to think twice before effectively ending his career because he is "one of the good guys."


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I agree with previous comment -- when Mike said "The defense rests" I was, like, "What??! You haven't done anything yet!"

Mind you, I was exactly the same when I hear "The prosecution rests" earlier. IANALBIWALOTV (...but I watch a lot of TV) but in my opinion neither side had done a good job at all. That's not grounds for dismissal, is it?

+1 on the "Rosalind Shays" suggestion. We need that to become a TV trope.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

efilippi said:


> Mike was supposed to make a big splash by coming to his own defense so he calls the mother of a deceased son who can say that Mike tried his best to save her son.
> 
> Defense rests.
> 
> ...


I was half expecting her to flip on him and say "If you didn't get him out he would still be in prison, but alive".


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I did not know next week is the season finale. If they drag this out with a cliffhanger I will scream.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Seriously, if this show insists on being a soap opera they should at least have it on 5 days a week with no hiatuses.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Whatever happened with that rich dude who forced Harvey to quit the firm? Should we expect a bombshell from him in the season finale? 

Will Anita Gibbs and Mike settle on a deal that he can only represent poor, crippled orphans from now on? 

Nobody ever calls the other person up and says "Hey, are you home? Can I come over?" They all just show up at the other person's door and knock, expecting them to be home. Or they just lurk outside for God knows how long before the other party comes along. And nobody seems to have any home security either. Donna and Jessica get into Harvey's zillion dollar bachelor pad at will. Harvey's able to knock on Mike's apartment door without being stopped at the front door.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Whatever happened with that rich dude who forced Harvey to quit the firm? Should we expect a bombshell from him in the season finale?


That's true. I totally forgot about Forstmann. At the beginning of this half season, they were taking pains to have Harvey work from home so that Forstmann wouldn't find out he didn't really resign. But then Harvey started coming into the office and they totally dropped that other thread without any explanation.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's true. I totally forgot about Forstmann.


I figure we'll see him in the last 60 seconds of this season to set up a contrived storyline to consume the next season.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

ElJay said:


> I figure we'll see him in the last 60 seconds of this season to set up a contrived storyline to consume the next season.


And whatever he says will provoke Harvey to proclaim, "That's goldarn bullspit!" (well, you know... the real version.)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I also felt they were throwing everything at us to see what might stick in that episode. I fully expect this to end with Mike making the deal to go to jail as long as they spare the rest of the firm. If there's another season (has anyone heard one way or the other?) they'll jump ahead 3 years (or whatever his sentence is), and things will have changed. It's a way to reboot the series, which has gotten kind of stale and stupid and a bit of a tire fire.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> If there's another season (has anyone heard one way or the other?) they'll jump ahead 3 years (or whatever his sentence is), and things will have changed. It's a way to reboot the series, which has gotten kind of stale and stupid and a bit of a tire fire.


It was renewed for season 6 about 8 months ago:

http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Suits-Just-Renewed-By-USA-Season-6-72785.html


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I also felt they were throwing everything at us to see what might stick in that episode. I fully expect this to end with Mike making the deal to go to jail as long as they spare the rest of the firm. If there's another season (has anyone heard one way or the other?) they'll jump ahead 3 years (or whatever his sentence is), and things will have changed. It's a way to reboot the series, which has gotten kind of stale and stupid and a bit of a tire fire.


But that was not one of the deals on the table. She wants Harvey/Jessica. She's been offering deals to Mike/Louis to get the others.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

There's definitely going to be some curveball thrown. At the end when Mike says he's willing to make a deal, then she asks "Which one?" -- I think he'll say neither one and will offer something out of left field. He knows that she wants three things -- to get promoted, to put away Harvey and/or Jessica, to stop Mike from practicing law; in that order. All along I was thinking that they really need to figure out her motivation -- she was on a crusade and was pulling out all the stops. But what was fueling that drive? I think they gave a huge hint to that last episode when (I think it was Mike) mentioned that she'd been in the same position for a number of years. She has ambition and has been unable to move up, so this is her shot at promotion. If he can figure out another way for her to move up (by either uncovering an even bigger issue or by submarining whoever got promoted ahead of her) then he would take the heat off the firm and himself.

Hadman is back practicing law. He embezzled from his former firm and is now colluding with a convicted felon. You'd think that's something that lawyers should not be doing.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

wprager said:


> At the end when Mike says he's willing to make a deal, then she asks "Which one?" -- I think he'll say neither one and will offer something out of left field.


This. The two deals shown to us thus far seem like show-enders. They led us to believe he is taking one of those deals, which probably means he is not.

Maybe he could offer to testify against all those people he took the LSAT for. Instead of getting rid of one fraud, she could go after many.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smbaker said:


> This. The two deals shown to us thus far seem like show-enders. They led us to believe he is taking one of those deals, which probably means he is not.
> 
> Maybe he could offer to testify against all those people he took the LSAT for. Instead of getting rid of one fraud, she could go after many.


I wonder if that would even be something a prosecutor could go after.

1. The LSAT is just an entrance exam for law school. I would think most states just have graduating from law school and passing the bar as requirements, but not taking the LSAT.

2. Since people generally take the LSAT as much as a year or more before starting law school, and then law school lasts three years, I'd guess that most people Mike took the LSAT for would be outside any statute of limitations.

However, the state bar could probably disbar someone for that.

Mike also took the bar exam for people, so that would be more of something the prosecutor might be able to go after.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I went to the Suits wiki to check a few details. Maybe the solution is somewhere in there:

- He wasn't expelled from Harvard but from college, after Trevor sold a math test Mike memorized to the dean's daughter; the dean was forced to resign and in his final official act he expelled Mike and wrote a letter to Harvard making sure Mike would never get in (wouldn't Sheila, in her position, have full knowledge of a letter which blocked a student's admittance?)
- Besides taking the LSATs for people (which he did to raise money for his grandmother's full-time care) he also, at one point, took the bar exam and passed. Did he take it in his own name? If so, isn't he a lawyer? 
- Trevor paid for Mike's rent as payback for Mike "taking the fall" for him; not exactly sure what that means, but could it be that Mike was actually unjustly expelled and blocked from transferring to Harvard?

So, is there anything in there? Was he wrongfully expelled? Was Harvard in breach of something when they blocked his transfer (clearly without knowing the full details)? Is he a lawyer because he wrote and passed the bar exam (didn't someone say New York used to allow someone to take the bar without having gone to law school?)


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I also felt they were throwing everything at us to see what might stick in that episode. I fully expect this to end with Mike making the deal to go to jail as long as they spare the rest of the firm. If there's another season (has anyone heard one way or the other?) they'll jump ahead 3 years (or whatever his sentence is), and things will have changed. It's a way to reboot the series, which has gotten kind of stale and stupid and a bit of a tire fire.





zordude said:


> It was renewed for season 6 about 8 months ago:
> 
> http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Suits-Just-Renewed-By-USA-Season-6-72785.html


Ugh. How are they still getting renewed?
We speculate about what outlandish tactic Harvey or anyone may use to get out of this. But how about for a twist, it doesn't work? Harvey and Mike lose. They and all the partners go to prison - like they should.
PSL folds. By the way, is anyone else craving a Pumpkin Spice Latte now?

And Season 6 is renamed: Jumpsuits.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Because they still get good ratings.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

alpacaboy said:


> And Season 6 is renamed: Jumpsuits.


I _like_ it!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wprager said:


> - Besides taking the LSATs for people (which he did to raise money for his grandmother's full-time care) he also, at one point, took the bar exam and passed. Did he take it in his own name? If so, isn't he a lawyer?
> 
> Is he a lawyer because he wrote and passed the bar exam (didn't someone say New York used to allow someone to take the bar without having gone to law school?)


Simply passing the bar exam doesn't give you a law license. Once you pass, that allows you to apply for a license and then the state bar will do an extensive background investigation to make sure you're qualified. You're not a lawyer until the state bar "admits" you.

Apparently NY allows individuals to do a legal internship program rather than completing law school, but it's extremely rare. And it would certainly require advance permission and oversight. You can't just pass the bar exam out of nowhere and then say, "Hey, I did it. Now admit me."


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

What about in TV-NY?


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

Cainebj said:


> I did not know next week is the season finale. If they drag this out with a cliffhanger I will scream.


Meh, the mid-season break for Suits is always longer than the end of season break, it will be back before summer!


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Not sure where they are going to go now.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I have to say I was surprised - I really didn't think he would do jail time and expected they would get out of it before the end of the episode. 
They can go anywhere from here and it won't much matter LOL.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

They'll all go to prison, and have meetings in Jessica's cell where she'll rage that they're not "going to take her cell block from her!"


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

They'll probably pull a P&R and fast forward to 2018 with even more flashbacks than ever before to fill in the past two years. 

Did anyone else feel like filling Rachel's father a bit on the fact that he is a conniving, backstabbing, slimy, obnoxious, treacherous, unethical, borderline felonious ******* and that Mike can be trusted a hell of a lot more than him? Man, the way he speaks you'd think he thought he was Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer rolled into one.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

The writing on this show has gone down the toilet. I did like how that judge told Harvey to not use that kind of language in her court -- like a little shout out to those who are not amused by the blatant (and wholly unnecessary) use of profanity.

I kept laughing out loud whenever they trotted out that little old lady who testified for Mike at the trial. Like she really would somehow run into Mike in Manhattan, then storm up to Harvey.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

With this show, I suspect, Harvey on the drive home, figures out the "Hail Mary" and Mike is out of prison before he has his orange jumpsuit on.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

(s1e16) I was just excited to see Katrina again. Katrina, Katrina.
Did something happen in the Mike storyline?


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm thinking next season will jump ahead two years and Mike will be working at a Cinnabon.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> With this show, I suspect, Harvey on the drive home, figures out the "Hail Mary" and Mike is out of prison before he has his orange jumpsuit on.


IANAL, but I'm thinking when one takes a plea deal it's pretty ironclad. Unless they could show clear coercion, he pled guilty.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I thought the "Let's get married before you go to prison" thing was dumb. 

The whole firm snuck out and quit while they were at the non-wedding? The whole firm? Not even a two week notice?

I thought this would have been a great series ender.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

At least the jury agreed with my statement, earlier, that prosecution did a piss-poor job proving its case.

Did the foreman say he was the only holdout trying to convince everyone Mike was guilty or the other way or what?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

wprager said:


> At least the jury agreed with my statement, earlier, that prosecution did a piss-poor job proving its case.
> 
> Did the foreman say he was the only holdout trying to convince everyone Mike was guilty or the other way or what?


I understood him to say that everyone wanted to vote Guilty and, while he agreed that Mike was guilty as sin, he convinced everyone to vote Not Guilty because he didn't think the DA did a good job/was too mean/was too ugly, something.

Unbelievable, in any case.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

What a bunch of *** **** bull****! 

I am amazed Forstman didn't make an appearance. I guess it doesn't matter now that the entire firm vaporized instantaneously. 

I at least hope this was the last *** **** time we saw that piece of **** Soloff character. That would be the only redeeming quality of this entire ridiculous arc.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

wprager said:


> At least the jury agreed with my statement, earlier, that prosecution did a piss-poor job proving its case.
> 
> Did the foreman say he was the only holdout trying to convince everyone Mike was guilty or the other way or what?


that he was the holdout that they had not proven their case. A sort of jury nullification if you will, though technically juries shouldn't find defendants guilty just because they believe they are guilty, it happens all the time.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> The whole firm snuck out and quit while they were at the non-wedding? The whole firm? Not even a two week notice? I thought this would have been a great series ender.


Right?! WTF?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> A sort of jury nullification if you will, though technically juries shouldn't find defendants guilty just because they believe they are guilty, it happens all the time.


Happens all the time?


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

efilippi said:


> Happens all the time?


you don't think lots of convictions are based on juries simply thinking a defendant is guilty and making it so?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> you don't think lots of convictions are based on juries simply thinking a defendant is guilty and making it so?


No. Can an innocent man be convicted? Of course, but you make it sound like this is just a normal thing. I don't think it is, and I have never seen any reasoned arguments that it is true.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

wprager said:


> They'll probably pull a P&R and fast forward to 2018


I don't know what P&R is, but that was my thought as well.



efilippi said:


> I understood him to say that everyone wanted to vote Guilty and, while he agreed that Mike was guilty as sin, he convinced everyone to vote Not Guilty because he didn't think the DA did a good job/was too mean/was too ugly, something.
> 
> Unbelievable, in any case.


Correct.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

efilippi said:


> No. Can an innocent man be convicted? Of course, but you make it sound like this is just a normal thing. I don't think it is, and I have never seen any reasoned arguments that it is true.


I didn't say innocent. I said juries commonly convict based on their feelings, not evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean someone is innocent.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

CraigK said:


> I'm thinking next season will jump ahead two years and Mike will be working at a *Cinnabon*.


In Nebraska


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

spartanstew said:


> I don't know what P&R is, but that was my thought as well.
> 
> Correct.


P & R = Parks and Recreation - the show jumped ahead a few years in its last season...


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

SeanC said:


> They'll all go to prison, and have meetings in Jessica's cell where she'll rage that they're not "going to take her cell block from her!"


I actually thought for a second all 4 of them were going to make a deal for 6 months each.

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wprager said:


> I kept laughing out loud whenever they trotted out that little old lady who testified for Mike at the trial. Like she really would somehow run into Mike in Manhattan, then storm up to Harvey.


She "ran into Mike" in front of the courthouse because she was coming to be in the courtroom when they read the verdict. Didn't seem unbelievable to me at all.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> She "ran into Mike" in front of the courthouse because she was coming to be in the courtroom when they read the verdict. Didn't seem unbelievable to me at all.


Perhaps I'm mis-remembering. I thought court was a lot earlier. After the judge accepted his plea and said he had 72 hours, there was that "personal day" that Rachel took and she ran into him when he was on his way to spend his last two days with Rachel.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

wprager said:


> Perhaps I'm mis-remembering. I thought court was a lot earlier. After the judge accepted his plea and said he had 72 hours, there was that "personal day" that Rachel took and she ran into him when he was on his way to spend his last two days with Rachel.


As Michael was catching a cab from the courthouse, Gloria ran up to him from what looks like a bus stop bench and said, "I came here to be with you for the verdict but they told me you made a deal."


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

How long between the deal was approved by the judge and the people at the courthouse found out? Still think he would have been long gone. In any case, it was the way she kept coming, first at him, then at Harvey. Anybody can just walk into a law firm and strike up a conversation with one of the name partners. Still think it was very unlikely to have gone like that.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

wprager said:


> How long between the deal was approved by the judge and the people at the courthouse found out? Still think he would have been long gone. In any case, it was the way she kept coming, first at him, then at Harvey. Anybody can just walk into a law firm and strike up a conversation with one of the name partners. Still think it was very unlikely to have gone like that.


You may have a point with the timing because Donna was able to get back to PSL before Mike left the courthouse. But Mike had to have had paperwork to sign to make sure he showed up for prison.

Gloria was at the reception desk and Harvey walked out of the elevator. Named partners seem to use the same elevators and entrances as everyone else. Plus, she has a previous relationship with Harvey.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Harvey's condo has worse security than Star Labs.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> Harvey's condo has worse security than Star Labs.


Not possible.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> I thought the "Let's get married before you go to prison" thing was dumb.
> 
> The whole firm snuck out and quit while they were at the non-wedding? The whole firm? Not even a two week notice?
> 
> I thought this would have been a great series ender.


I actually thought for a minute that it was.

What I would like is during the break for Rachel to run very far away from Mike and never to be seen from again. To leave him in such a way that he doesnt' even want to follow and find her. Bleh. I really dislike her and all she does is whine and cry and say "but what about me...". Grow some balls if you are going to be a lawyer. What does Mike see in her?

Ok, so Harvey has to figure out how to save Mike. Mike then can figure out how to save the firm and then it will all be rainbows and lollipops....

Maybe he can find something wrong with the evil prosecutor's documents and it cut's Mike's time behind bars down to a few months. I don't know if he ever has really looked at what Mike agreed to or the confession/plea bargain.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

betts4 said:


> What does Mike see in her?


Rachel has some flaws but the question is one that any guy would respond to with "huh?"


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Rachel is ok but I agree about the whining (as someone studying to be a lawyer and, even more so, as someone raised by Robert Zane, she really should have much tougher skin). When Mike gets out of prison he should put on a baseball cap an go hang out with Sestra Clone full-time.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

wprager said:


> as someone studying to be a lawyer and, even more so, as someone raised by Robert Zane, she really should have much tougher skin.


Is that how it always works? In my experience, kids often become the opposite of a dominant parent. Also, she has a mom to emulate as well. We don't know a lot about her, but Mike seems to think she is a little softer.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

teknikel said:


> Is that how it always works? In my experience, kids often become the opposite of a dominant parent. Also, she has a mom to emulate as well. We don't know a lot about her, but Mike seems to think she is a little softer.


I wasn't suggesting she would grow up to be an obnoxious blowhard, but that she would have a bit thicker skin.

As for her mom, I always think fondly pack to Larry Sanders and Millennium.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

efilippi said:


> No. Can an innocent man be convicted? Of course, but you make it sound like this is just a normal thing. I don't think it is, and I have never seen any reasoned arguments that it is true.





Mikeyis4dcats said:


> that he was the holdout that they had not proven their case. A sort of jury nullification if you will, though technically juries shouldn't find defendants guilty just because they believe they are guilty, it happens all the time.





efilippi said:


> Happens all the time?


While it isn't "normal," efilippi, it is not rare, either. Depends on the jury, of course. The presumption of guilt is quite strong among some people. Some people approach it with the idea "If he is innocent, why is the DA's office pushing so hard to convict him?"


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

wprager said:


> How long between the deal was approved by the judge and the people at the courthouse found out? Still think he would have been long gone. In any case, it was the way she kept coming, first at him, then at Harvey. *Anybody can just walk into a law firm and strike up a conversation with one of the name partners. Still think it was very unlikely to have gone like that*.


That scene is an example of what I call "a TV short cut." Instead of showing her entering the firm, stopping at the receptionist's desk, asking for Harvey, and then waiting, they just showed you the conversation. Everything that would normally precede the conversation does not add to the drama and at least is not interesting, so it's not portrayed.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I called this ending. I knew Mike would take the deal and protect the others. And as I said I expect this to jump ahead 2 years or so to when Mike gets out (or shortly after). I also predict that Rachel will be a full lawyer and be "seeing someone" when Mike gets out. For fun, I'll say some others. Mike will have completed law school while incarcerated. Jessica will be a judge and Harvey will be so messed up from letting Mike go to prison that he will have a breakdown but end up going back to the prosecutors office (Donna will too). Rachel will be working as an ADA as well. Louis will wind up with Zane as a name partner. Mike will go "The Good Wife" route and work as a public defender (much as Alicia did the beginning of this season), as no large firm will hire him. The season will lead to them all getting back together to form a new firm.

Lets see how close I got


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The only problem is that I doubt the NYS Bar Association will allow Mike to be licensed even if he legitimately completes law school while in prison. Of course, anything is possible in the fictional world of the show, but in real life I really doubt they'd look very kindly on someone who fraudulently acted as a lawyer for several years, and whose actions are likely to cause the near destruction of one of NYC's most prominent firms.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> The only problem is that I doubt the NYS Bar Association will allow Mike to be licensed even if he legitimately completes law school while in prison. *Of course, anything is possible in the fictional world of the show*, but in real life I really doubt they'd look very kindly on someone who fraudulently acted as a lawyer for several years, and whose actions are likely to cause the near destruction of one of NYC's most prominent firms.


And that's the point, this is fiction, and there is so much in this show that is not plausible that I don't see this as an impossibility. Didn't they say he was being put in Federal Prison in CT? If so, he could practice there.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

I'm pretty satisfied that after all Mike did go to jail. He is a fraud, he should get some jail time. 

I'm also expecting (and hoping for) a time jump at the start of next season. I am not interested in spending extended time with Mike in jail other than very limited flashbacks. I suppose they could have him witness something in jail that he can use as leverage for early release, but I think the time jump would be a nice refresh of the show. I'd watch Steveknj's version of the next season.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Mike can be the prison resident legal aide for everyone, like Andy Dufresne was the accountant in Shawshank. Maybe that could help keep him from certain things other prisoners might try to subject on him.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i watched 3 of these in a row. if i took a shot everytime jessica said 'i dont have time for this now' when someone came in the room, i'd be in a coma in the hospital or dead. it really seemed like it was all she could say. 

did i see correctly that that other woman came in and hired every single person away? seems a bit extreme even for this show. 

i'm glad mike finally beat on harvey, he needed it. 

lewis...lewis..lewis. i think things were a bit too dramatic overall with a lot of these actors. again, maybe because i watched 3 in a row. i'm glad to see donna finally broke and was proven not to be perfect. 

was the idea of rachel alone one day to punish mike? seems like she just punished herself there. geez go to disney or bed, dont not see your man


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

newsposter said:


> did i see correctly that that other woman came in and hired every single person away? seems a bit extreme even for this show.


I know Robert Zane hired away a bunch of people (Jack Soloff's department). I don't think we know where everyone else went.


----------

