Dear Saphire382, Thanks for your note. I know a lot of TV shows lack realism and to some degree we all know that. I guess I'm making a different more subtle point. My point is: there's a difference between entertaining viewers and deceiving or manipulating viewers. My point is that it's one thing to bend the truth and exaggerate in ways that everyone watching knows and expects. It's quite a different thing for a show's producers to willfully exploit people's ignorance about something such that if they were told the truth about it, they might feel completely differently about the show. I'm willing to bet that most people watching the show have been led to believe that to practice law, it's enough to pass the bar, and that the only "lie" involved is that Mike went to Harvard. What I'm further saying is that I believe that most people, if told that the show's writers were basing the entire show on a fundamentally impossible premise, would become pissed off because they would feel their ignorance about the law was being manipulated and exploited. At the end of the day, a television show whose entire story line relies on people's ignorance, and that manipulates and deceives the audience with respect to that basic premise, is a cheap cynical unlikable show. I strongly disagree with your suggestion that most TV shows are like that or yourimplicit suggestion that to be entertaining TV needs to be that way.
that's not true, it doesn't make people think that all you have to do is pass the bar as he has done it. and if you were right then he would be a proper lawye but he is not a lawyer because he didn't go to law school and therefore cannot register with the bar association. that's what the shows about, somneone who physically can be a lawyer but legally can't and at the end of the day if you don't like it you don't have to watch it stop trying to ruin for other people. typical lawyer.