Damn the television remote. And damn PBS for only showing the first installment of the new Masterpiece Theater so that I had a half-hour to waste before Monarch of the Glen came on, forcing me to flip channels in the interim and risk exposing myself to the frightening dreck that is Boston Legal.
It's impossible not to get sucked in, it sucks so much. The cast is good, but it was painful to hear Rene Auberjonois say "12(b)(6) motion" like he's never heard of one before (most likely because he hasn't) and as if none of his colleages had either. Of course, it appears that none of them (nor the judge in the hearing) remembered what one was from first-year civil procedure. Their client was trying to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. But instead of drafting a persuasive brief, or actually arguing the point of law, they instead gave an ad hoc courtroom presentation full of philosophical pontificating on foreign policy, and when they actually alluded to matters of law ended up arguing for jurisdiction, which would have been a different motion.
From this little observation I'm not quite sure if series creator David E. Kelley is really doing his alma mater proud... (Although maybe this is what the CivPro final should be: watching an episode of Boston Legal and spotting the flaws...)
Edited 1/10.
Edit 1/11: (Of course, speaking of final exams, the issue that was argued was awfully similar to the one from my International Law Process course last semester.)
Edit 1/15: (Another law student review is here. A comment attached seems to think they did actually argue the 12(b)(6) part, eventually, but there is nonetheless some consensus that Real Life and Boston Legal may occupy separate universes.)
Comments (3)
Hey... Give Odo a break. Shape changers don't have 12(b)6) motions (or shapes for that matter). I believe that they are beings of pure emotion, but you'd have to check with a bigger DS9 fan than I to be sure.
Mark
Posted by Mark | January 10, 2005 2:16 PM
Posted on January 10, 2005 14:16
Odo? Don't you mean Clayton Endicott the Third?
Posted by Cathy | January 10, 2005 2:22 PM
Posted on January 10, 2005 14:22
Nope... I would expect Clayton to snobbishly tell Benson that he was violating 12(b)(6) while having no idea what it meant. Besides, Clayton would probably be more familiar with state court actions, given that he worked in the governor's office.
Now Odo, on the other hand, would probably have his own unique way of seeking the resolution of a 12(b)(6) action-- and I wouldn't want to be between him and whoever he was resolving.
Mark
Posted by Mark | January 10, 2005 4:25 PM
Posted on January 10, 2005 16:25