That was an interesting twist to Donna's Senior Partner request. I can buy her more as a COO than a senior partner. Her whole "needing a seat at the table" fixation is a bit annoying. It just rings as "I want to be able to tell people what to do".
Meh. Its still impermissible. No matter how it is painted, a non-lawyer cannot have any type of management role or control over a law firm (aside from something like office manager or an HR director . . . but they certainly cannot have any role that gives them control over the firm or a "seat at the table").
Frankly, this show has been on a decline for awhile a large part of it is the Donna character. She has gone from a quirky and fun supporting role to an all-knowing, all-powerful plot device. There have literally been plots on the show that she has fixed and when asked how the answer has simply been "I'm Donna" and that's the end of it. That is lazy writing, from both a character and plot perspective.
But lazy writing has sort of become a staple of this show, to the point where it is just beyond the realm of credibility. There is always suspension of disbelief in legal shows. Trials don't happen in a day or two, but we, as viewers, allow it for the sake of drama. Court testimony, arguments, etc are never that compelling or heated. But again, we allow it for the sake of drama. But the notion that Mike's past could be used against him as a jury question, is, simply put, absurd.
Even to a non-lawyer, watch any legal show and you will see someone stand up and say "objection, relevancy." The history of an attorney is in no way relevant to facts at issue in any case. In fact, the argument that "A hired Attorney B, who is dishonest, ergo A is dishonest" would be unconstitutional. It infringes on one's freedom to choose their attorney (which is something the Supreme Court has upheld as a fundamental right on numerous occasions, it is why lawyers cannot have noncompete clauses, something this show has also disregarded). I don't expect this show to get every nuance of the legal system, criminal, and civil procedure right. But it should at least get the basic constitutional provisions that affect of our legal system somewhat right.
But it doesn't bother with that and the reason why is the writers are lazy. Rather than move on to new and interesting dilemmas for these characters, now that the issue of Mike's secret has been resolved, they instead just keep falling back on it in increasingly absurd manners (i.e. "will the bar let Mike be an attorney even though he has never attended law school and fraudulently practiced law?! Yes! They will. Because by fraudulently practicing law he showed that he can practice law" . . . stuff like this goes beyond suspension of disbelief).
This is what happened on Burn Notice as well. They resolved who burned Michael and rather than move on, the writers just kept falling back on "but wait! There was one more super secret member of the conspiracy and he/she was the real mastermind!" That person gets killed and then "but really it was this person who was the true mastermind!" and so on and so forth.
USA's biggest weakness as a network is that it doesn't know when to end its shows. Instead the writers will drag out plots the point of absurdity and destroy any good will they once had with the viewers. Its why USA will never be on par with a network like AMC, FX, or even TNT.
This show should have ended two seasons ago. Yet here we are. Its disappointing because it used to be really good.
how?Ive yet to watch this weeks episode but how in the hell is this even possible ?
I like how the USA shows are now open to using that kind of language without making it gratuitous. Even Shooter dropped an F-bomb this season.
