HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: LegalEagle

Real Lawyer Reacts to Suits, Law & Order, and L.A. Law // LegalEagle

9750 ratings | 516803 views
Who doesn’t love Law & Order? Who hasn’t binged watched 10 episodes in a row on TNT? I know I have and I know I will again. This week i’m taking a look at Law & Order, Suits, and LA Law. And don’t worry, this review of Suits is just a small taste of a full episode i’m devoting to Suits in the future. So if you need more of a fix on Harvey and Mike, you’ll get it soon! New episodes weekly! Subscribe here: https://www.youtube.com/legaleagle?sub_confirmation=1 You can find more Real Lawyer Reacts Here (including my reaction to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more): https://goo.gl/42fKce ★ SUIT UP! Even if you're not a lawyer, you can still DRESS LIKE A LAWYER. All of my suits are from BlackLapel (I've used them exclusively for over five years). Their custom suits are amazing, yet still ridiculously affordable. HIGHLY recommended: https://go.magik.ly/ml/f78n/ ★ GET TIED! If you’re looking for skinny ties, pocket squares, or tie bars (like the ones I wear) check out Ties.com. Huge selection and great prices: https://go.magik.ly/ml/ftki/ ★ BOOKS & MOVIES! When I’m not crushing it in court, I’m probably reading a great book or watching a legal movie. Check out what’s on my list (as well as the best books for Law School and all of my favorite camera gear): https://www.amazon.com/shop/legaleagle I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. Like most people, I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous. Today I'm taking a break from teaching law students how to kick ass in law school to take on lawyers in the movies. While all legal movies take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth. This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reacts" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments! ======================================================== If you're going to law school get our Ultimate Pre-Law Checklist (FREE) here ➜ https://www.legaleagleprep.com/prelaw Learn how to get ready for law school, the 5 things you must do the summer before law school, and more . . . ======================================================== ★ Got law school questions? Ask in the comments! ★ Say hi on Facebook: ➜ https://www.facebook.com/legaleaglereacts ★ Tweet at us on Twitter @LegalEagleDJ
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (1840)
Marc Colten (2 days ago)
Do Ghostbusters II, especially when Bill Murray calls a female lawyer "kitten"
Marc Colten (2 days ago)
Shouldn't you at least watch the whole episode before judging what the lawyers say.
Marc Colten (2 days ago)
Re the pills, Jack McCoy did the same demonstration with cartridges while suing gun manufacturers who sold easily convertible semi-auto rifles like the one used in a massacre. IIRC he lost when the judge threw out the case for insufficient evidence.
peteyarsky (4 days ago)
Please do an episode on the Law and Order episode "Bodies" from 2003!
frump99 (4 days ago)
If you want to see a real person with tourettes then check out Sweet Anita on youtube or twitch.
sultanabran1 (6 days ago)
suits is a great show, but seems to be the most full of crap law show of all.
Inorite (7 days ago)
OBJECTION!!!!! Have you thought about reviewing Judge Judy or some other TV courtroom.....you know, for laughs.
aref horr (8 days ago)
How i met your mother twelve horny women
Joseph Hoffnagle (9 days ago)
I like to see you do when wwe did court on there shows
Moonbeam 87 (9 days ago)
I take a medication with a Suicide warning Label, but I'm not that type of Person.
Lore Velasco (11 days ago)
i really want you to react to the trial of the episode “25 acts” of law and order: svu
Marcelo G (11 days ago)
How about reacting to “Night Court”.
Caitlin Brady (11 days ago)
I like your videos but could I just beg you to turn off the auto focus on your camera! It's so distracting when your gesturing and the focus goes in and out over and over...
Logo Tibbetts (13 days ago)
*has nightmares about torts.*
Van Gelis (15 days ago)
i watched the first few seasons and then bailed after sam waterson left.
Joseph Carroll (21 days ago)
Hey..just subscribed..and was wondering..I've watched most of your videos and I can say..I love the straight forward advice..however..I was wondering if you could review the movie Amistad? I'm aware that the narrative focuses upon slavery..but the theme of the film is firmly in the realm of property law..and since would be considered a civil suit..I would love to hear your review on both parties legal arguments..And also..it's a great courtroom movie..
TXLionHeart (21 days ago)
3:02 3:35 "It adds color to the story." I see what you did there...
Ruvindu Hewage (22 days ago)
He didn't react to the part where harvey destroys Trevor
Mark Gokel (24 days ago)
Objection! You should review Inherit The Wind
Brianne Bright (24 days ago)
do legally blonde!
Stickman (25 days ago)
I'd love to see a movie or show where someone gets tackled for entering the well.
T Duke Perry (27 days ago)
I got a weird request for you to a video on. It's a TV show called Century City. Bit obscure, only lasted nine episodes, which is criminally low (seriously, I think they should be arrested for not making more episodes). But I think it's probably the most exciting law drama to ever grace television because it takes place in a future where cloning and cheap DNA sequencing exists. There's nanotech, VR, bionic implants, holograms, and a ton of other crazy tech that ends up having bizarre legal consequences that these lawyers need to deal with. Yes, they deal with hypothetical future-laws, like anti-human-cloning legislation. But there's also the future application of current laws, like how the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to sport in a world with robotic prosthesis (specifically, a bionic eye). Genuinely, I'd love to see an actual lawyer give their thoughts on this show.
Tim Hucks (27 days ago)
"That's a recipe for being found in contempt or pissing off the judge, and you don't wanna do either of those things." Judging by the judge's face, the latter has been accomplished and the former is on its way.
Jim Johnson (27 days ago)
Please do JAG tv show reactions
Jen Dee (1 month ago)
Legal Eagle: It would be SO COOL if you did a few reaction videos to a few episodes of Criminal Minds. It'd be interesting to see your take on those!!
Steven Pollard (1 month ago)
One great TV Show I loved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKRL7ErA6Mc&list=PL5E57547CB58415FD&index=4
elchamber (1 month ago)
I do remember one some older shows and movies where the lawyer would ask permission to approach from the judge. Can’t quite remember though. Possibly “the Insider.”
William Phillips (1 month ago)
I’d like to see legal Eagle cover charmed episode “Honeymoon is over” I think cole was less than a effective A.D.A. In this case. Misquoting a “Homerun case even without the ______ in question” I censored that so if someone under 18 reads this post I’ve left the bad word out
Beth Performs (1 month ago)
Haliperidol is psychoactive, isn’t it? Can you work on haliperidol?
Mike Donovan (1 month ago)
Sam Waterston would never lie to us. Except when he was in Capricorn One.
Sarah Griffith (1 month ago)
You should do Jag but that might be different because it's the military
Scott Longwell (1 month ago)
OBJECTION! : Apparently, some judges are very lax about lawyers entering the well. At the 25 min mark in the following video, you can see the lawyer walking awfully close the witness without getting permission from the judge. SEE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DWXDJcmYXU
Kotone (1 month ago)
I would say that if there were past examples of the drug causing violent behavior that could be used as evidence, then the drug company is 100% at fault, especially if the defendant had no previous history of violent behavior. If the defeat however was found guilty is previous cases of violence/abuse then it would be another story, though the drug company should still be held accountable to the victim's family. Either way though I think it is better to let a guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent one, and the U.S legal system needs a serious overhaul to make this the norm. Along with massive prison reform and a focus on rehabilitation/education and help for any underlying mental disorders.
OnlyPushLane (1 month ago)
Objection! I like your tie.
SnowyWolborg (1 month ago)
I'm pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere in the original Law & Order that Jack McCoy has been held in contempt of court dozens of times, and I remember at least one episode where he was locked up for being a pain in the ass to the judge.
Sara3346 (1 month ago)
Why is this in the Machinarium ost playlist?
No Body (1 month ago)
Please do a breakdown of the movie Philadelphia. It's always been a favorite of mine.
Vic G (1 month ago)
Dude... when I took the lsat, it was like total lockdown. You needed two forms of ID and a photo uploaded on the ticket. How the hell did the kid in Suits take the lsat for anyone?!
Incitatus (1 month ago)
Review Rules of Engagement. Great courtroom drama starring Sam L Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones
Guilherme Pereira (1 month ago)
maybe watch and react to philadelphia? :)
Mother of Dragons (1 month ago)
Review double jeopardy
Raymundo Velarde (1 month ago)
Are you a licensed attorney? If not, you may be in violation of many ethical violations.
Anand Kashyap (1 month ago)
Can lawyers be part of a jury (Obviously what I meant was for an unrelated case)? Have you been a juror? Have you seen terrible arguments as a juror from other lawyers? Can a good lawyer (who is part of a jury) convince the rest of the jury into thinking his/her way?
lakodamon (1 month ago)
Objection: In almost every episode I've seen, McCoy invites testimony he knows to be at least partially false; and handing exculpatory evidence over? Blood out of a stone. How has he never been a defendant?
Sam Souyave-Murphy (1 month ago)
Objection to your Suits objections! You were looking at that scene in isolation. In that episode (and the episodes before), they actually explain why Trevor, Mike’s former friend/roommate, could be a good witness. You also cut off just before Harvey wins the argument, which is a tragedy in of itself. Love the channel, though! Keep up the good work. :)
robotech fan (1 month ago)
vinny1010 (2 months ago)
Suits starts 18:34 You're Welcome :)
Peter Taylor (2 months ago)
Be great to see you do an episode or two of Boston Legal
Jasmen Jackson (2 months ago)
Do the Netflix Daredevil series!!!
C. ladimore (2 months ago)
is the "isn't it possible" opening an actual thing? that seems like it is both leading and so open-ended as to be objectionable. but yah, do the data episode!
Kaustav Dutta (2 months ago)
Does that white spot on his right cheek bother anyone else?
yamahaU3 (2 months ago)
So basically they made better legal shows in the old days?
Jonathan Davis (2 months ago)
My parents watched LA Law and I remember that episode. I couldn't have been more than 5 or 6 but I remember that guy with taurettes.
Akroma Martell (2 months ago)
I'd love to see a full episode dedicated to the best and worst of Law & Order.
seb (2 months ago)
i love how nobody tries to copyright claim him cause HE’S A GODDAMN LAWYER
Tom Crawford (2 months ago)
Hi, question for you if you have time. Many years ago I worked as a court deputy in Virginia in the Circuit Court. When we had jury trials, every so often an attorney would say to the jury, "the law is this:, or "the law requires..." as Jack McCoy did in his closing argument. When that happened, my judge would always stop the attorney, telling them, "You don't get to tell the jury what the law says in my courtroom. Only I get to do that." Attorneys who practiced in his court quickly learned not to say those words. So here is my question. Is this actually considered improper, or was this just a case of one old cranky judge being weird? Thanks.
Guy Desaulniers (2 months ago)
Objection: In the case against Mike Ross, Harvey could have objected to the statement that Mike was kicked out of college for cheating as hearsay, but he would likely walk into a trap by the defendant saying "He told me, he was my best friend and roommate." He could then object to that as hearsay, but the objection wouldn't be very compelling.
benrudin (2 months ago)
Would you do Suits Episodes 11-16? Mike Ross’s trial
Joshua Furtado (2 months ago)
I will place this on a few of the videos, I'd love to see a few episodes of Ally McBeal. :) I always loved that show.
Phillip Ward (2 months ago)
rstremcha (2 months ago)
Dang I didn't make it that far in Suits. Spoiler for me 😂😂😂
Derek Wall (2 months ago)
at 19:38 an attorney can walk or stand outside of the so called "well" during a cross examination (BUT ONLY WITH THE EXPRESSED PERMISSION FROM THE JUDGE). i can vouch for that because the assistant state's attorney did that while he cross examined me during trial. and in the courtroom where i was, the bailiff (who was also a sheriffs deputy and jailer) sat in the very back of the courtroom right next to the door. and when i was on trial the courtroom wasn't packed at all. they called us in from the hallway outside so there wasn't anybody in the gallery or nothing
Patrick Obando (2 months ago)
You should do Kramer vs Kramer or My Sister's Keeper!!!
Michael Sommers (2 months ago)
Perhaps the not-entering-the-well thing varies by jurisdiction, or is a post-9/11 innovation, because I've seen New Jersey lawyers do it more than once.
Y2H (2 months ago)
Please review more Suits episodes!
kirixen (2 months ago)
Are there specific rules as to which props, or how many, a lawyer is allowed to use in closing arguments?
Nancy O'Malley (2 months ago)
Please do this scene of Night Court: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE6brM24yIA&t=2s
Nancy O'Malley (2 months ago)
Do Judging Amy!
Gabriel Babuch (2 months ago)
Do the HBO miniseries The Night Of! It's a fantastic thriller and has some of the most decent court scenes in contemporary TV, imo.
Sheepdog Smokey (2 months ago)
OBJECTION! - What's the scar on your right cheek from?
Nathan Mag (2 months ago)
You NEEEEED to watch Matlock and give your opinion.
Joshua Fitzgerald (2 months ago)
19:15 Not an objection but on suits that witness and the defendant know each other very well and he has direct knowledge of everything he’s saying. It’s a good show
Chrystal Bess Redding (2 months ago)
As a kid I never bothered to see past the legal terms in tv shows. Then I grew up and started watching grown up tv series. And wondered if tv show execs from The Good Wife, West Wing, The Practice, Law & Order (all versions), JAG, Matlock, Judging Amy and so on ever hired REAL writing staff with some legal background and/or full time consultants and other experts; to make the scenes and writing more realistic. I did not mind then or today them adding some extra footage or bonus (no matter how mundane it is).
D L (2 months ago)
Any chance you could do some of the scenes from the Netflix Daredevil show? Either the closing argument Matt Murdock makes in Season 1 Episode 3 (Rabbit in a Snowstorm) or the "Trial of the Century" bit in season 2 where the firm is representing the Punisher. Or heck, maybe even the whole "beleaguered law office representing poor people" thing they have going in both seasons 1 and 2.
Space Jew (2 months ago)
SUSTAINED I see some commenters arguing against what was said in the Suits clip, but it's important to note that being a person's roommate for x years doesn't really give you any special knowledge of what someone does when you aren't around. They can tell you all day how they make money, but if you never actually see them do it it's all hearsay. Unless he was sitting in on the meeting with the dean or whoever when Mike got kicked out, he sat with him when he took an LSAT for someone, and followed him around 24/7 to make sure he wasn't studying law, he couldnt really testify to any of the things he said.
Dcast Gaming (2 months ago)
21:35 Objection! Harvard is in Boston, Massachusetts and he said the address was in Brooklyn, New York. With question being if it's "possible the defendant has ever attended Harvard Law School" it's not about knowing the schedule or if he could do it....It's a 3 hour and 40 minute drive. And that's checking at 11:30pm EST at night. I can imagine it would be longer during the day considering traffic in both New York and Boston.
Do the Community Episode "Basic Lupine Urology" please.
Kev G (2 months ago)
objection: were you disruptive is not an open ended question...
Bushido Brown (2 months ago)
Felt sad when " well mainly like you" popped up . I thought we were in this together
Mason Shelley (2 months ago)
Season 4, episode 8 of The Office is entitled "The Deposition", really curious to hear your thoughts on it. Really enjoy your videos, keep it up!
kathy lane (2 months ago)
May I suggest you include information on the tv episodes you are reviewing? (ex. season, title or number)
DeathwishDare (2 months ago)
OBJECTION! The use of "like you and me" to describe our collective legal experience is invalid. Through years of hard work and study you've passed the bar and are now a practicing lawyer, whereas I would be thoroughly trounced in court by the legal beagle.
Nick Wilson (2 months ago)
Can you please do a reaction video to one of my favourite movies, The Social Network? I'd be especially interested considered it was based on real litigations cases.
Uncle Creepy (2 months ago)
I wasn’t allowed to watch movies until I was interested in martial arts and then convinced by parents to let me watch Steven Segal films so I could learn martial arts. I watched so many Segal movies that I didn’t even need to take one martial arts class. I’m pretty sure those movies are accurate.
Anita YT (3 months ago)
"If you walk into the well unannounced you are going to get tackled by the bailiff." 😂 I would love to see that happening on a TV show now
TheFoxFan (3 months ago)
You should watch Chicago for Billy Flynn
ubermom (3 months ago)
She does something else. The pharmaceutical company is a company, a business, an impersonal thing. Her client is "Gregory." First name. In plaintiff malpractice cases, Ted Amshoff reminded plaintiff attorneys that their client is always Susie. She's not Miss Smith or Ms. Smith or Mrs. Smith or the plaintiff or my client. She's Susie. And every time you refer to the defendant, choose your words carefully. Susie trusted Dr. Jones. Susie went to Dr. Jones for help. Dr. Jones failed to do what he'd been trained to do. Dr. Jones failed to follow medical protocol. But "the defendant corporation" owes Susie money. The defendant corporation left Susie incapacitated. The defendant corporation needs to pay up
ubermom (3 months ago)
The best example I can remember of turning something abstract into something the jury could see was in an abortion malpractice case. Dr. Scott Barrett wanted his patients to be unconscious during the abortions because it kept them from squirming and thus made the abortions faster and easier, but he would have to have somebody on staff trained in anesthesia to be able to do that and keep his clinic licensed. He came up with an out -- he'd overdose them on the lidocane he used to numb the cervix. The woman would pass out and he'd be finished with the abortion by the time she woke up. Sometimes a woman's heart would stop beating but he and his staff had always been able to resuscitate. Until the unfortunate Stacey Ruckman, who died. The family's attorney established early in the trial how much lidocane had been administered to Stacey and how much she weighed. Later he established his expert witness, who was a professor of anesthesiology. The attorney presented his witness with a notepad, pencil, and glass jar marked "Medically legitimate reasons to administer X dose of lidocane to a patient weighing Y pounds." He then asked the witness to please write each medically legitimate reason he could think of to administer that dose on a piece of paper and put that piece of paper in the jar. The witness, of course, said he could think of none. The attorney belabored the point as much as he could -- "Surely, doctor, in your ___ years of clinical practice," "Surely, doctor, in your ___ years of supervising clinical practice," "Surely, doctor, in all of the conferences you've attended, journals you've read, etc., reiterating the expert's experience and getting "I can think of none" time after time after time. This way, any time the defense attorney might try to get back to the idea that maybe Barrett had a medically legitimate reason to administer that dose of lidcane, the jury would have the image of that empty jar and how the expert with all that experience couldn't put a single legitimate reason in that jar. All they would have was Barrett's staff's testimony that he did it to knock them out and make it easier and faster to do the abortions. $28 million for the plaintiffs.
Sarah McFadden (3 months ago)
I was watching a cross examination by a defense lawyer in a real trial (here on YT). The lawyer got all confrontational and started raising his voice and left his podium to approach the witness (walking). The judge immediately started yelling at the guy saying "GET AWAY FROM THE WITNESS". Lol the prosecution was objecting at the same time but pretty much got drowned out over the very angry guy in the black robe. :O :D
Jamie Gregory (3 months ago)
Please review A Civil Action with John Travolta. I really enjoy the movie.
vonkäuen Theforbidden (3 months ago)
This is why, in my philosophy (I have a degree in philosophy and was and still am kicking around the idea of law school), I consider the question of punishment last, at least in cases where a question can be raised. What matters is if the defendant can be proven to be a danger to society or not. If the boy really did take a garrotte to the other boy's neck and kill him, then he is a dangerous person and must be confined at minimum until that ceases to be the case, regardless of why he did it. If it were self defense, he is clearly not a danger and merits no punishment If it was an accident, it depends on the circumstances. If it was mental illness, whatever the cause, he is a threat and must be contained. If it can be established that he did it out of anger and passion, or revenge for some offense against him, he must be punished, but not too harshly, and confined thereafter until he has shown himself worthy of rejoining the free world. If, however, he did it with malice, full knowledge that what he was doing was murder, or planned it, the punishment must be severe. Decades of hard labor and rehab, years of sorrow and austerity, and only then can he begin to be worthy of a second chance. In the most extreme cases, such as a serial violent felon (a record of similarly bad or escalating crimes), his life is forfeit, if he's an adult. Let him serve as an example of what happens when you commit yourself to such a wicked life. All executions should be public, otherwise they're too abstract and lose the effect of genuinely scaring criminals or potential criminals. You also get one year to get an appeal in, so at most you can push the envelope a few years. No new appeals in court after that first year. Beyond that, it's up to the governor or the president to show clemency. None of this nonsense of spending decades on death row. That is how I think it ought to be.
Katie Donovan (3 months ago)
15:40 Objection: Just because this kid was on whatever psychotropic drug, for however long, that says nothing about the fact that many thousands of other people are on these same drugs, and have been for far longer. If the jury excuses him because he is on medication, that is a slap in the face to every single one of the many thousands of Americans who have taken these same drugs every day for decades and have somehow managed not to cause anyone else's death. I might even have a TRASHCAN full of the number of pills taken by every one of those other patients over the same time period. If I were the prosecutor in this case, that young man would be going to jail.
Terry (3 months ago)
How about something where an attorney is either over-objecting (A Civil Action) or under-objecting (Matlock - "any" Matlock)
Guadalupe Andrade (3 months ago)
Objection! Oklahoma has Uniformed Instructions to the Jury. Why would the attorneys and Judge have to agree to them?
zeyogoat (3 months ago)
I suppose L&O left out the jury instructions to bring viewers into the dilemma of burden and blame. Isn't our personal take on these cases the fun of watching the show?
Sarah McFadden (3 months ago)
I've seen just about every episode of LO and LO SVU and I can't recall anytime the jury instructions have ever been read. I guess they have been deemed too boring lol
Chris Ramcharan (3 months ago)
Can you do the law and order episode patsy?
Pasquale Potzo (3 months ago)
>Sidebar< Just wondering if you could do Daredevil season 2 ( i think episode 6-8 ) the trial of frank castle
F Je (3 months ago)
This episode was criticized for depicting Tourette's Syndrome unrealistically.
Mishchievious Badger (3 months ago)
Seem pretty accurate to me
Chadwick Rogers (3 months ago)
Can a lawyer get jury duty? With a lawyer's firm grasp on the laws Wouldn't that make the lawyer someone to get rid of during jury selection Because with the knowledge a lawyer has from the education they chose, they can sway the opinion of the entire jury. Just because you know more or come off as more intellectual than them. They'll listen to you because the average person defers to what they believe is the more educated of the group thus following suit I.E. Sheep. How many Sheeple Jury have you witnessed? Where one Juror is more outspoken causing people follow the more charismatic and confident juror. Are people just inherently lazy?
Gregory Taylor (3 months ago)
Have you done a eps of bull

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.