MovieChat Forums > Boston Legal (2004) Discussion > Have any of Alan's closing arguments dis...

Have any of Alan's closing arguments disturbed you?

posted 13 years ago by dogstar-12
25 replies | jump to latest

I can think of one of the top of my head that bothered me in a major way - his anti-smoking/Big Tobbaco argument in the fifth season premiere. It bothered me for a number of reasons.

First of all, he smokes himself, while asking the jury how smoking can possibly be legal.

Second of all, he and his team didn't even bother having an autopsy done to determine whether smoking had caused the guy's death, when the defense offered a number of credible explanations (like asbestos poisoning). It just smacked of arrogance that it didn't even occur to them that they could be wrong about this, or that there were other explanations.

Thirdly, the fact that he stood up for his friend's right to smoke in a previous episode. Sure, that shouldn't have meant that he couldn't have taken that case, but his whole attitude was a little hypocritical.

Fourthly, their case seemed to me to advocate the deceased's lack of personal repsonsibility. I mean, people quit smoking every day!

Finally, it's not such an issue about Alan's argument itself, but from memory I think the jury awarded the plaintiff $200m in "non-pecuniary damages" (if that's the right term). I've heard of ridiculous sums being awarded in American lawsuits before, but that's ridiculous! If there isn't a cap on non-pecuniary damages in the USA, then there should be.

So, was anyone else bothered by this case? Or is there another case someone finds equally irritating?

[–] indymovies 13 years ago

Irritated but not disturbed. I think those involved in the making of the show would refute any criticisms on the grounds that "it's only entertainment". Ditto the political bias.

[–] dogstar-12 13 years ago

Yeah, maybe "disturbed" is too strong a word. Oh well. The cases were nothing if not entertaining.

[–] straw_hat_boy_luffy 13 years ago

I agree that disturbed is too long. But the condom one was just so ridiculously absurd, I almost quit watching.

__
Writing is my favorite hobby. Writing something that many can enjoy is my favorite dream.

[–] Aldrius 12 years ago

He's a lawyer. It's his job to argue the merits of his client's case, whether he agrees with it personally or not.

---------------------

"You're not smiling, Joker. I thought you found death amusing."

[–] Brandos_Bitch 12 years ago

Yes,I completely disagreed with how he handled that anti-tabacco case, and it did seem hypocritical.But I just think he is doing his job.If Allan were to say those things out of court,then it would piss me off.But he is a lawyer after all and he will say anything to win a case.

There have been many similar times when I didnt agree with his arguments,but he won the case,so I guess he did his duty.

[–] LouisRenault 12 years ago

A lawyer is rightly called a "mouthpiece." His job is to say what the client would say himself if he had been admitted to the bar and had a facility with words. So no, not disturbed at all.

My question is slightly different, but close enough not to need a new thread, I think: why are these lawyers always taking on, and winning, wholly unmeritorious cases? Clearly we are meant to sympathize and agree with them - the show is built around them - but I certainly don't.

L A Law was the same. Nearly always the side that should have won turned out the losers.

Is this purely for entertainment purposes, or are the producers also trying to make a point about the rottenness of the legal system?

[–] joyfarrah 12 years ago

Im not sure. Some of the cases are just so ridiculous that tehy are presuambly just there for "shock" or laugh value. but I find it annoying not that Alan says what he needs to in order to win his case, but that he seems to feel that hes' superior to other lawyers that he has a moral agenda to put forward all the time and that everyone (except Denny) who does not subscribe to his ideas is wrong. If he's such a liberal why does he work for a big top flight law firm which is there to make money? Why not work as a poverty lawyer and fight the system?

[–] lancer165 12 years ago

The arguments for and against are all known by the Shore character. He knows when someone is taking a WRONG stand. The Lawyer as someone else said is the mouthpiece for the client and Alan has always tried to stay somewhat within the right and the law. We have seen him defend a few people who he knows committed the ultimate offence. But these have been purely for comedic value and those who would suggest [hey that's wrong and not fair] are not watching properly.

Many times when the short balcony debrief happens we see Alan completely at odds with what may have just happened. We have seen him vigorously defend someone who has been guilty. In fact in one case it was an old FRIEND and Alan's eventual assistant [the golden girl] did try to aid him with her so called evidence. Perhaps it was this that allowed him to aid her in her killing of a killer. Alan was most upset when he found out that he had defended to excess a guilty man.

This post case depression is shown quite often and we are made aware that Alan gets no pleasure from winning a case for one [a known acquaintance] who turns out to have been lying.

[–] juviejay 12 years ago

I was bothered by one (not sure what episode, or even season) in which he sort of defended revenge killing. I think it may have been the one in which Mare Winningham (sp?) killed the man that killed her son (I think) and was unrepentant.

Alan ends up saying something like that revenge killing is actually more therapeutic to the victim than letting the law handle it.

While I can understand that, I disagreed with the whole premise that revenge killing is justifiable.

Also, wasn't crazy about his defense of Fox News. *beep* you Rupert Murdoch! And *beep* you David E. Kelley for defending the lying slimeball.

[–] dogstar-12 12 years ago

Yeah, Alan lost me when he put on a priest to argue that it was Biblically justified despite the fact that he was running a temporary insanity defence.

Personally, if I was the prosecutor in that case I'd have asked him how God felt about mafia soldiers engaging in revenge killing. Surely if it's okay for some it's okay for others?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] P-K-One 12 years ago

You have to see that sum in perspective. That company earned 12 billion per year. So 200 million is literally a week's profit.

I earn 48 thousand Euros per year, that's about 60000 dollars. Around 1100 dollars per week. If my behavior killed somebody, do you think 1100 dollars would be enough in damages? Those sums are supposed to hurt a company so badly that it changes its behavior. The idea is that the next time one of the executives says "Hey, how about we put more nicotin into our cigarettes?" the other executives say "Hey, remember how that was the argument that cost us that process and we had to pay 200 million dollars?"

If you have them pay 1 million, a reasonable sum, than they don't even care. That's 45 minutes of profit. They will have earned more during the time the jury was taking to decide the verdict.

[–] Trackmaster 12 years ago

P-K-One,

Those are not a faceless "company's" profits, that is money that shareholders have earned and sacrificed for. Taking money from shareholders is a serious thing, and should not be done unless absolutely necessary. A company of that size would have shareholders across the world of all different income levels. A victim should be compensated for their loss if there is any wrongdoing, and companies should be deterred from wrongdoing, but it shouldn't be like winning the lottery.

But, the one saving grace of that rediculous suit is that it was so absurdly high that it won't stand a chance in appeal. As was mentioned in the finale by one of the partners, the firm will probably end up losing money on the case after all of the appeals.

[–] P-K-One 12 years ago

You are wrong.

First, the shareholders by and large have not sacrificed for the company. They just had money over and decided to invest into something that looked profitable. I have invested into several fonds so via proxy I am a shareholder in dozens of companies. I don't feel like I sacrificed.
Second, that suit is not going to actually take their money, it's just going to reduce the values of their shares by an insignificant bit.

Usually people can't deal with numbers that are that big so you have to think about percentages and smaller numbers.

Imagine you have an electrician who has his own company and his company makes 104000 dollars per year. He screws up the wiring in your house and your dead who visits you gets a lethal shock. and he gets fined a weeks profit...2000 dollars. That is the exact same scale. Would you say that we can't do that because it would be such a colossal blow to his business? Because the people who invested in his business can't be made to suffer? If you just look at the percentages, it is an insignificant sum that will not even make a dent in the annual profits.

[–] Trackmaster 12 years ago

Typical parasitic blather. You go after whoever has the deepest pockets, and don't worry about the innocent that you harm. People do the responsible thing by saving and investing for their future, people like you come along and steal from them.

[–] P-K-One 12 years ago

First, who are people like me?

Veterans?
Engineers?
People who have never sued anybody and work hard for their money?

Second, is this the day of bad arguments (or rather no arguments)? Of the three replies I got today to the various things I wrote, not one contained an argument of any sort.

I explained at length and a total of 2 times, why those penalties have to be this high and why it does not hurt the honest people who invest their money into a company.

You people are so blinded by your own worldview (You people are republicans who think that everybody who attacks corporations is a poor and lazy idiot who does not work and hopes to win the lottery. Did I just perfectly describe you?) that you don't see anything else. I am an engineer. My annual income is 48000 €, around 60000 dollars. I invest 4 and 5 digit sums every year. And I would rather loose one of those investments than have that company run rampart and kill people without punishment. Hows that for people like me? But as I said, no risk for that because loosing a weeks profit does not ruin a company. It's barely more than a sting in the long run.

[–] Trackmaster 12 years ago

You were the one with a poor argument. You were arguing that the only thing that should matter in a lawsuit is the capitalization of the corporation being sued. I was arguing that it should be the merits.

[–] roxyb03-170-975082 11 years ago

Shareholders(especially those with voting power) have a responsibility for the actions of the company. If stock values and or dividends increase as a result of bad conduct on the part of the company then it is only right that they should take a loss when the company is held accountable for that behavior.

[–] shoktart 12 years ago

It didn't bother me and I'll tell you why.

The great thing about this show, and about the Alan Shore character in particular, is that whatever the issue, and whatever side of the issue Alan Shore is put on, he finds a way to make a compelling argument. That's what makes him such a great lawyer. And that's what makes the writing on this show so stellar!

There were more than a couple of episodes where I didn't think I would agree with the stance Alan Shore was arguing, but his argument not only swayed the jury in the show, he swayed me as a viewer. Or at least made me think about it a bit more.

Thought provoking is the best way to describe this gem of a show.

(also, regarding the ridiculous amount of punitive damages awarded in that smoking case I thought the show did a good job at pointing out that no one will see a dime of that money for years due to all the appeals. I think this is also an important thing to keep in mind as it helps explain why that BIG WIN to start the final season did not prevent the firm from going broke later that year)

[–] nates06 12 years ago

i know this is late but he smokes cigars not cigarettes there is a big difference between the 2 of them cigars are just tobacco leaves it doesnt have any of the other crap in it

[–] Brandos_Bitch 12 years ago

Both cause cancer.

[–] aryafsharm 11 years ago

Well, the thing is, Alan is a hypocrite, and he admits it. Lawyers do take sides, but sometimes they take the side opposite of what they believe, or a side they don't believe in at all. Alan defended Judge Brown even tough Judge Brown considered homosexuality as disease. Obviously, Alan didn't agree, but he defended him.

Secondly, Alan defended his friend, 'cuz she was being fired for doing something legal (smoking) to relieve test, even though she was exceptional at her job. But there's no denying at the same time that tobacco do their best to make cigarettes addictive. In fact, they are so addictive that Alan's friend, even though she knew she'd lose her job for smoking, couldn't stop.

Thirdly, people do quit everyday, but people are different. Some people kick meth and heroin addictions, which are considerably harder. But they do it. Some people can quit. Personally, I have quit several times, never successfully, and I'm not saying I'm not weak, but I find it strange that I've personally quit a Tramadol addiction but can't stop smoking. Cigarette companies are not responsible for weak people, but they are for making cigarettes extra addictive.

Finally, large sums of money are often rewarded in Big tobacco, or any corporate cases for that matter. Corporations have more money, they make more money, so if they somehow acquire that money wrongfully, they get to lose more money. Fast Food Chains, Big Tobacco, General Motors, Samsung, and many more corporations have been known to lose cases and pay punitive damages to tone of 100million-1billion.