L.A. Lawyers
Did Los Angeles-based attorneys really act this way? How much of this show is based on actual cases?
shareAct what way? Gotta be more detailed. L.A. Law didn't really base their cases off real cases per se. But they dealt with a lot of real life issues and some cases may have mirrored real life cases.
A lot of lawyers stated that L.A. Law was one of the more realistic law themed shows. It's a TV show so liberties have to be taken.
Thanks for the reply. Well, I guess I could have used a specific character. I doubt many real-life lawyers in Los Angeles at the time were as over the top as Arnie Becker. But maybe they were! LOL
Obviously, this is not a docudrama and liberties were taken. I guess what I am wondering mainly is how technically correct the show is in terms of its legalese and courtroom dialogue.
Arnie is sort of the typical lawyer. However getting involved with his clients and one time his clients wife well that wouldn't happen. At some point he'd get dis-bared. I'm sure situations like that have really happened. But keeps happening you'd lose your license to practice law. But the go all out sleazy kinda a lawyer often referred to a shark yeah there's a lot of Beckers.
As for the courtroom stuff. It varies. Some not authentic. Some are. Terry Loiuse Fisher co-creator and writer/producer for season 1 and some of 2 was a former lawyer. William Finkelstein writer/producer for season 1-4 than returned when the producers were fired during season 7 was also a former lawyer. And David E. Kelley was a former lawyer.
However we talked about liberties that applies again. If you get too technical with the legal terms you might lose people with little knowledge of the legal system. Also a murder trial can last months or certain other cases can be lengthy. So if done by the book it would take half if not an entire season for 1 case. Not very exciting. So you need to cut that down to 1-3 episodes.
Remember season 4 with the Earl Williams murder trial? Its very, very difficult to get a conviction over turned. I can name several convictions where the person may very well be guilty BUT there's enough evidence for a new trial. And when convictions are over turned in typically takes a few years. I could give a few examples where despite evidence supporting evidence it took nearly 10-years for the conviction to be overturned. There are cases that happened within a few months, but you figure in a major city like L.A. it would take a while.
So its authentic to some degree.
I think the show was best under Finkelstein. Those episodes are consistently good and my favorite ones. I am not a David Kelley fan-- I think he over-sensationalizes things, especially on his later programs, or goes for the very irreverent angle of a story to make it supposedly memorable.
I agree that the show could not get bogged down in dialogue that was too technical-- but it still had to come across realistically. I do think the show should have had trials that stretched out over full seasons, mixed in with the short-term cases that played out more quickly. I liked the program Murder One, because they would spend a whole season looking at the application of justice within one on-going court case. Since L.A. Law had so many different lawyers and cases going on, and since the show did have serial-like elements, they could definitely have stretched some more of the cases out longer than three episodes.
Another issue I have with the show is that it was too isolated, character-wise. The Law & Order shows had crossovers. I think L.A. Law should have had crossovers from other Bochco programs-- like we could have seen some of the cops from Hill Street Blues testifying. HSB's setting was never clearly defined, so it could have been Los Angeles too. Or else characters from other Bochco shows, where the occupations would logically connect them on occasion with the litigation occurring on this program.