TV and the law.

[tssandwich]

Look, I understand the concept of dramatic license. But having just watched an episode of "The Good Wife," I've got to wonder who the hell is writing this crap. (Spoiler warning, but if this show continues like this, it'll be off the air by sweeps, anyway. Poor Julianna Margulies deserves better, as does Christine Baranski

Comments

[hopita]

I watched the show tonight.

As a non-legal person, I have to admit, all of that slipped right by me unnoticed. But now that you mention it, I can definitely see your point.

[tssandwich]

It happens that a few weeks ago, I ran into a suspended lawyer who was still passing himself off as active and practicing (he was careful enough to not say or do anything that would compel me to call the state bar on him. Yet.), so it's fresh in my mind.

[sconstant]

I didn't see the show, but thanks for the pointer to BMW v. Gore, which I had missed. I don't think it draws a bright line rule about 10x, but certainly limits things, and the breakdown between justices was wacky. Strange that SCOTUS has kept making law in areas outside my practice since I finished law school.

[tssandwich]

There's actually another case after BMW v. Gore that mentions the 10x multiplier again. I think it's still a guideline, rather than actual policy, but the SCOTUS hasn't upheld any punis that are higher since, AFAIK.

[creidylad]

I'm kind of excited to hear that Law & Order is in the "legally precise" category.

[tssandwich]

I haven't watched it much in recent years, and I'm mostly talking about the original show, but L&O actually has a couple of lawyers on staff to get the law right. They speed things up, which you have to do in a TV show (motions that would sit on a judge's desk for weeks get decided the next day), but the substantive law is correct, down to the case names they cite.

[creidylad]

The thing I find amusing is the idea that a single (well, evolving out of time) set of lawyers would be responsible for so much freaking new case law.