I think it's the FedEx box cum Pope hat, personally.

This, exactly. And since Chuck wouldn't, now maybe Jimmy finally will.

Jimmy was hired in the mailroom at HMM 10 years ago, he worked in the mailroom, he put himself through law school, he passed the bar without telling ANYone or asking any one of the lawyers around him, including his own brother, for help or advice or cash.

if she's watched BB but not BCS, wouldn't just a "Huell's back!" suffice as explanation? :)

So I take it you haven't seen s3e5, then?

Yep, it was time to finally stand up for himself instead of hopelessly continue to try and win his brother's love and respect.

The law may strive for objectivity, but since it is a human creation it is as flawed and subjective as morality.

I remember most of what happened in BCS… but remembering which things were in s1 vs. which things were in s2… eh, that's starting to get a bit fuzzy. It'll only get worse one s3 is over and especially only s4 starts. Oy….

well, it was more of a disciplinary hearing than a trial. Remember, the previous episode Chuck was attempting to school Kim on how different they are, and saying he knows it's her first time, etc. etc. She's obviously dealt with dozens of regular cases, dealt with plea deals, actual trials in courtrooms, etc… but this…

Yep. a real "she went there?!" moment. But ofc she wasn't trying to call out Hamlin Sr. for nepotism, she was trying to call out the elder McGill brother for not even considering hiring his own brother as an associate (no one was talking partnership!).

I think that's just Jimmy knowing that it's all in Chuck's head and wishing Chuck had taken his advice to be straight with Rebecca and tell her the whole truth and not some Slippin' Jimmy-esque lie (like Jimmy warned him not to do early on in the flashback).

Kim grinds harder than a robot could, though, so I think she's definitely more compatible with the HMM straightforward automaton way of lawyering than Jimmy ever could be.

We saw a con man take Jimmy's father for cash in a flashback. I doubt it was the only time that happened.

Yeah, if we discover with no reasonable doubt as viewers that Jimmy INTENTIONALLY caused Chuck's EHS, then… all our sympathy for Jimmy (when it comes to his Chuck issues, at least) is lost.

Chuck is right about the particulars of everything Jimmy's done. About the facts, the events, the actions.

Yeah, I asked my wife "do you think Jimmy keeps the fish, gives it to someone else, or just flushes it?"

Just a more independent, less social brother than Jimmy was. Jimmy needed more love and attention than Chuck did with how their childhood personalities differed, no doubt.

Yes, as Chuck schooled Kim on at the end of the previous episode. Rules are more lax, evidence discovery isn't handled the same way as with a regular trial, etc. etc. Lots of differences.

Chuck seemed concerned that without his testimony, if they'd gone forward like Howard wanted to, Jimmy might have just been slapped with a suspension. Chuck felt like he was the only person who could truly seal the deal on an outright disbarment.

Of what it wanted to be, perhaps… but not so much of how long it would take to unfold the tale. Vince and Peter were planning on "making Jimmy Saul" looong before 2.5 seasons in originally, but they fell in love with pre-Saul Jimmy so much that they've lengthened that portion of the story.