+2 more lawyers from my household. they're taking a lot of liberties with the legal side of things to make their point with respect to the overall "justice system". If they portrayed these matters as they are (99% of the time, anyway), with much more subtle instances of injustice, people would snooze through the…

Not to mention the fact that testimony about those fights in middle school would never be admissible in the first place (for these reasons)

could also be a rent stabilized apartment that, theoretically, he could have been born and raised in, making his rent anywhere from a couple hundred to maybe a thousand and some depending how long he's been there.

not for nothing but it could also be a coop. assuming it's an older building with good finances the maintenance fees would be super low.

"clutching your pearls" is just an idiom, please relax yourself. am I being dismissive or am I just making my point in the same way that you're trying to make yours? Agree on pedantic (because words matter), but needlessly rude? endless lolz.

ethics and morality are not the same, especially when you're discussing someone who actually has to conform to specific rules of ethics governing his profession. Again, you may be clutching your pearls at his morals, but he wasn't acting unethically.

I know a lot of good public defenders who would take major offense to that. In any event, that's speculative and it seemed as if the city was going to decline to prosecute anyway.

the only explanation you've given is that you object because he has "power" over her. He doesn't, though, as demonstrated by the fact that (i) his representation of her ended when the charges were dismissed and (ii) she could hire any lawyer she wanted and if she couldn't afford it one would be appointed for her. …

it wasn't a trial, it was an arraignment at which time the case was dismissed and his representation of her (his "power", if you will) ends when the case ends and/or he quits and/or she fires him.

actually yes, and if they can't afford to hire someone they will get an appointed attorney for free.

coercive how? She could have hired any lawyer she wanted and yet she chose him.

to the extent that he was paid for the arraignment and then he paid her for the sex, it's not violating any professional rules of conduct. Sad? Yes. Unethical? No.

Yeah but him wearing bad suits has more to do with him having no fashion sense and not really caring about it to begin with no? And to put this matter to rest I hope for good re how much money he makes, 18b lawyers (assigned lawyers not part of legal aid etc) make $75 an hour. So assuming 40 hours of billables a…

short answer is no.

depends on what you mean by 'cheapo'. They still cost more money than what most solo practitioners would want to spend.

Yeah not trying to argue that the guy is white shoe, only that he has to fork out $$ for those ads. Goes without saying that he must be pulling in some sort of money to be able to advertise like that. The show wants to portray him as this poor, lowly guy scraping by, but some of the details betray that.

Not trying to get into internet fights with strangers, but yes they absolutely do. I'm talking about 18B lawyers, not legal aid, where you get paid per case. volume = money. Also he has little to no expenses. Criminal litigation isn't like civil where you're fronting thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of…

I wonder about this, though — the guy has a subway ad. Not cheap. Also bear in mind that he's a "paid" lawyer - he's not taking assigned cases, which can still gross lawyers $100-$150k a year, so he (theoretically) would be making more than that, otherwise he'd just get back on the list to take assigned stuff. …