- How would you like to
make a partner right now? - Oh, oh no, oh no. Ew, quid pro quo sexual harassment! Oh, is that even consensual? (cheerful jingle) Hey legal eagles, the James Stone here, teaching you how to think like a lawyer. Today we are covering one of the funniest legal movies of all time, Liar Liar. Now this is the first
in a two-part series. As always, remember to like and subscribe, and be sure to comment in
the form of an objection. I'll either sustain or
overrule your objections, and while you're there,
let me know what movie or TV show I should do next, and stick around until
the end of the video where I give the first half of Liar Liar a grade for legal realism. So without further ado, let's dig in to the first half of Liar Liar. - My dad, he's a liar. - A liar? Oh, I, I'm sure you don't mean a liar. - Well, he wears a suit and goes to court and talks to the judge. - Oh, oh, I see, you mean he's a lawyer. (relaxed music) - I object, that is slanderous
and I will take that little boy to court and sue
him for all that he is worth. Uh, you know, or no, it's not defamation, I'm just kidding. - Reede, do you have a moment? - I'm sorry, I'm very late, it's my day to be with my son. - A couple of reporters
want to talk to you about your big win today. - Oh yeah, how's my hair? - Fabulous, you look great. - So lawyers often have
to talk to the press. I've talked to journalists
on many occasions to talk about recent
developments in the law and things that are going on in my cases, because if you don't do PR
for your client, no one will, or worse yet, they'll
talk to your opponent who will give a completely different spin, and you've gotta get ahead of that to make sure that your side gets out. - Fred, it's your duty to present the strongest case possible. - Sort of.
- The strongest case possible consistent with the truth.
- Yeah, sort of. - Will you let the judge
decide what's true? That's what he gets paid for. - Eh.
- You get paid to win. - So lawyers are bound by the rules of professional responsibility and ethics for their particular jurisdiction, and most jurisdictions base their rules on the ABA model rules of conduct, and under those rules, a
lawyer has an obligation of candor to judges and juries. In other words, they have to be honest to those judges that
they're up in front of, so under the rules of
professional responsibility, no single lawyer can lie to a tribunal, and in fact, if the lawyer
knows that their client is going to lie to a
judge or jury, that lawyer has an obligation to not
elicit that information. In fact, the lawyer has
a duty to try to convince their client not to offer false testimony in front of a tribunal, so there are plenty of rules
of professional responsibility that prevent lawyers from
actively lying to a court. So under rule 3.3 of the Model
Rules of Professional Conduct a lawyer can not lie to a judge, a lawyer cannot knowingly
elicit false testimony from their client, and
in fact, if you know that there is contrary legal
authority out there, you have to give that
to the judge in addition to the legal authority that
actually helps your case. So this attorney is absolutely right that there is a limit to
the kind of representation that you can use for a particular client, and you can't actively lie
to a judge or jury to help your client out, regardless
of what your client wants. - Damn it, I completely forgot. - Oh, what a surprise. - You are a saint. I should buy you a gift. - You did. - I always do the classy thing. - I think it's inappropriate for a lawyer to rely on his legal
secretary or legal assistant to get gifts for his family. However, I will put in a plug for having a good legal secretary, they
can really save your life when you are working really long hours or you have a filing that
is on a tight deadline. They can really be the
difference between life or death in an attorney's office because
they know your schedule, they know what's going on, they
know what needs to be done, and often they're knowledgeable enough to really help you out when
you're in a tight bind. - Any calls? - Ted Rawling's clerk,
he needs your filing. - Tell him it's in the mail. - Right, you'll do it next week. Mr. McKinley called.
- Oh man. - To confirm your meeting tomorrow. - All right, so one of
the things that drives all attorneys just completely insane is the deadlines that they have to adhere to. When a court or a judge sets a deadline, the worst thing you can possibly do is let that deadline
lapse because the courts have a very busy schedule
and you're at their mercy. So if you miss a court-set deadline, you can be in a huge amount of trouble. You could miss one deadline
and that could be grounds for getting disbarred or
getting sanctioned by the court, and really prejudicing your client. Often, these deadlines are
what's called jurisdictional, which means that if
you miss that deadline, your case might get dismissed. So deadlines are this
malpractice trap for attorneys, and I've seen many, many appeals taken where the attorney just screwed up, they missed a deadline,
they were late in a filing, and you cannot do what Fletcher
Reede is trying to do here and just push off a
deadline when the court is calling you up and saying
"you need to file something." That could be really
important to the case, and you could get horribly sanctioned if you fail to adhere to that deadline, so that's the first time
Fletcher may have been disbarred in this particular movie. - I heard about your
victory, congratulations. You know, you're making
quite an impression on the partnership committee. - Oh that's right, you folks
are meeting again soon. I've just been keeping myself so busy I haven't even thought about it. (laughs) - Most law firms have
a partnership committee that is formed by a
group of equity partners, which means that they are actual partners, they own equity in the particular law firm and they're going to
choose who gets to come in as another equity partner
for that law firm. One of the things that
most people don't know about partners in a big law firm is that in order to become a partner, you have to actually invest, usually, you have to invest in the firm itself. So often when you're being upgraded from an associate to a partner in the law firm, you actually have to make
a substantial contribution, often on the order of hundreds
of thousands of dollars, to purchase your equity. So they are voting to let
you in to allow you to pay the firm to allow you to be
a partner in that law firm. Hopefully if you're paying
a substantial amount to become an equity partner in a law firm, it's profitable enough that you will recoup your investment and then some. Another thing that a
lot of people don't know about partners in a law
firm is that they often don't get paid a salary. They only get paid a percentage of revenue or profit in the law firm itself. So often when you go from
an associate in a law firm to a partner, you forego a salary and you only get paid maybe once a year based on the general
financials of that entire firm, so there's a lot of good and a lot of bad associate with being a partner, but obviously Fletcher here
wants to become a partner, as most people do in a law firm. (playful music) - Oh, this is good. This is really smart. - Thank you. - Only, well it's not true, I mean, does that present a problem? - So if the lawyer himself can't lie to a judge or jury, I really doubt you can convince your client to
lie on his or her behalf to the judge or jury, so I
think this is a violation already of rule 3.3, the duty of candor. - You're the victim here, the wife of a cold, distant workaholic, starved for affection, driven
in the arms of another man. - Seven. - Yeah whatever. You're not trying to deny
him what is rightfully his, all you're insisting on is
what is rightfully yours. - Yeah. - And maybe a (scoffs) fraction more. I think you're bending over backwards. - So ironically, despite
them saying that whatever was in that legal brief that was a lie, the argument that Fletcher
Reede is making here aren't really lies,
they're just creative ways of talking about the facts as they exist. So his rhetorical flourishes
here talking about how she's the victim, those can be true from her point of view, so
it's not necessarily a lie in and of itself, it's
just a creative argument that uses the facts as they exist. I don't know if that would win the day against a prenuptial argument
that's pretty cut and dry, but so far, what he's talking about probably doesn't breach
rule 3.3 yet, we'll see. - You're right, Mr. Reede, I am tired of getting kicked around. - Good for you. - Thank you, I am so grateful to have an attorney I can trust. (whimpers)
- Oh god. All right, so let's talk
about whether it's appropriate for a lawyer to engage in sexual activity with his or her client. Up until last year, California
was one of the few states that said that a lawyer could, in fact, engage in sexual relations
with his or her client, so long as that attorney
didn't coerce or force that client into that
activity under duress. That rule changed last year
when California Supreme Court brought California into
line with most other states that says an attorney cannot,
under any circumstances, have sexual relations with their client, unless that relationship existed before the attorney client relationship existed. So, at the time that this movie was made, it was sort of okay for
clients and attorneys to have a romantic relationship. Now, that's not appropriate at all, so that's something that
Fletcher really needs to watch out for, he needs to
be careful with that client. (heels click) - Oh you are good. (chuckles) You are very, very good. You know, the Cole case
is worth a truckload of money to this firm. If you win, I guarantee
you'll make partner. - Oh. - In fact, how would you like to
make a partner right now? - Oh, oh no. Oh no.
- I mean, I shouldn't-- - Ew, quid pro quo sexual harassment. Oh, is that even consensual? Really, I think that
that could be considered quid pro quo sexual harassment. She is making it seem like his partnership is contingent on some sort of
sexual relationship with her. So this is yet another
example of quid pro quo sexual harassment showing up in Hollywood. Mixing romance and an employment relationship is always tricky. A jury could look at the
situation and say that his promotion is premised on
this romantic relationship with her and thus it's a quid pro quo. Always, always tricky, never a good idea. - You know, the Cole case is
worth a truckload of money to this firm, if you win, I
guarantee you'll make partner. - Oh. - I don't think she can
make that guarantee. A partnership committee is just that, it's a committee of other partners, and if Fletcher doesn't
have the right numbers or the right personality or
there are other problems, then there are all kinds of reasons why he would not be able to make partner, even if one particular partner
really goes to bat for him. In fact, while it is
really helpful to have at least one partner go
to bat, you need to really wine and dine the whole
partnership committee in order to make partner. (playful music)
(door bangs) All right, so fun fact about going to counsel table in a courtroom like that, normally you wouldn't
be able to walk right up to counsel table because
there are a lot of different cases that are gonna be called
before the judge that day, and you may not be the first one, but if you ever go to a courthouse, if you look outside the
door to the courtroom, then you'll see what's called the docket. The docket will explain what cases are up for a hearing that day and there will probably be
a dozen of them at least, and you'll find which number
you are on the docket, and odds are they'll go sequentially down and leave the most
contentious for the last one so that they get the most time. So if Fletcher has the first
number on the docket that day, often you will go and you'll just sit down straight at a counsel table,
but before you do that, you have to check in with the court clerk, and in California generally you give them two copies of a business card
so that they can attach that to the sheet that talks about
what your case is there for. Once you check in with the court clerk then you can sit down if
you are the first number to be called on the docket. - Fletcher.
(chairs squeak) - Dana. - All right Samantha, how much will it take to
put an end to all this? - 50% of your estate. - (scoffs) 50%? With a prenup and proof of adultery? What's your case? - Our case is simply this. (tense music)
(stuttering) - It is pretty normal for
attorneys in the same field to have a prior
relationship, to know people by their first name and to talk with them. What's odd here though is
that Fletcher started out this movie representing
a criminal defendant, or presumably someone who
was a criminal defendant, and has now jumped into divorce law, which you don't really see very often. So it would also be weird for him to have this prior relationship with
another divorce attorney when it's not clear that
he's ever represented someone in a marital dispute like this. - All rise for the honorable
Judge Marshall Stevens. - Honorable. (scoffs) - Good morning, call case number BD09395, Samantha Cole versus Richard Cole. How we doing this morning, counsel? - Fine, thank you. - And you, Mr. Reede? - I'm a little upset
about a bad sexual episode I had last night.
(laughing) - So far, this is exactly what happens when the judge comes into the courtroom and calls the hearing to order. They'll read the case
name and the case number so that the stenographer
can take that down and make it part of the official record so that they have a
record of what's going on, and he'll make a little bit of small talk with opposing attorneys before
getting the ball started and proceeding into the hearing. - First, Mr. Reede, I
see where your client-- - Your Honor, I would like a continuance. - This case has already been delayed several times, Mr. Reede. - I realize that, Your Honor, but I would really, really,
really like a continuance. - I'll have to hear good cause, counsel. - I can't lie. - Commendable, Mr. Reede,
but I'm still waiting to hear good cause, now
do you have one or not? - Not. - Motion for continuance denied. (gavel bangs) Is there any chance of a
settlement in this case? - Yeah, so that is right on. Attorneys can ask for
continuances all the time, and often, especially in
California state court, things are going to be delayed
over and over and over again. So if you get to the point
where the case is ready to go to trial, then the judge is going to want it to go forward with due speed. So you can get a continuance,
but as the judge has required here, you're gonna
have to show good cause. Now I think Fletcher
should have been able to come up with good cause
without having to lie. He could have said that
he was just brought on to this case a few days ago, that is generally considered good cause, especially if the court
approved the transfer of counsel because her old lawyer
withdrew from the case so that Fletcher could
come on and represent her. So if the court presumably
approved that withdrawal and substitution, then he
has good cause baked in to be able to delay this
case a little bit more. - Mr. Reede has made it abundantly clear that he has no desire--
- Settle! Settle, settle, settle, settle! - I don't want to settle. - Just settle. - Mr. Reede, you convinced me yesterday, I'm the victim here, I'm
starved for affection, I'm driven into the arms of another man. - Seven. - Yeah whatever. With the story you came up
with, I don't think we can lose. I want to proceed. - Mrs. Cole, you don't understand. - Mr. Reede, do we have a settlement? - No! - All right, that's good. An attorney has an obligation to provide all offers of settlement
to his or her client, and in the first instance,
Fletcher Reede tried to settle the case without
talking to his client, which would be a violation
of the model rules of professional conduct,
which would be cause for disbarment if he
want forward with that, so watch out for being disbarred, but ultimately he
conferred with his client, provided the terms of the
settlement, and she rejected it. She has the ability, as
the client she's the one that's in charge of the litigation and she can choose to
reject that settlement and more forward, that's up to her. - You know what I pulled you over? - Depends on how long you
were following me. (cringes) - Why don't we just take it from the top. - Don't talk to the cops. - Here goes, I sped, I
followed too closely-- - Stop, stop talking to the cop. - I sped some more, I failed
to yield at a crosswalk, I changed lanes in the intersection, I changed lanes without signaling while running a red light and speeding. - Is that all? - No. I have unpaid parking tickets. (groans)
(tender music) Be gentle. - All right, let's talk
about what Fletcher Reede should have done in this situation, with the understanding that he can't lie. Just because you can't lie doesn't mean you have to
tell the police everything, so what I would have
recommended, and what Fletcher should have known if
he was a better lawyer is that you don't have
to talk to the police. You almost always have the
right to remain silent. That's in fact what the
Miranda warning is all about, you have the right to remain silent. Now the police can ask
for your identification. They can ask for your driver's
license and your registration without any real objection,
but that doesn't mean that you have to talk to the police, nor do you have to answer their questions. So generally speaking,
and there are of course exceptions to this, but
Fletcher didn't need to tell the police
everything that he had done. He could have just sat there silently and let the police draw
their own conclusions. Now many police officers will tell you that if you remain silent during a stop, that may give them probable
cause or reasonable suspicion that something else is
wrong and that they can do a more thorough search, but here, Fletcher doesn't appear
to have any evidence of other wrongdoing except
for those old parking tickets. It's not like he had a bunch
of cocaine in the trunk of his car and he didn't want
the police to search his car. So potentially, the police
could have responded to his silence with the assumption of reasonable suspicion of some other crime, but they wouldn't have found anything else and they would have only
be able to write him one or maybe two ticket infractions. So if Fletcher had been a better attorney, he just would have stayed silent, given the police his ID and registration, and taken whatever ticket
the police gave him instead of making his
situation so, so much worse. - You scratched my car! - Where? - Right there. - Oh, there. That was already there. - Why you, you liar! You know what I'm gonna do about this? - What? - Nothing, because if I take
you to small claims court, it'll just drain eight
hours out of my life and you probably won't show up, and if I finally got the judgment, you'd just stiff me anyway,
so what I'm gonna do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk and then bend over and
take it up the tailpipe. - You been here before haven't you? - So Fletcher points out
that while would be correct in suing this tow yard for
the damage that they have done to his car, it would
be very time intensive and even if he won, he
might never see the money to compensate him for that damage. That's called being judgment proof, where even if someone gets a
valid judgment against you, you have so few funds
that you couldn't even pay that judgment even if
you got a court order. So that happens all that time,
where sometimes the people that commit civil wrongs
or do illegal acts are the ones that are least
able to pay for the damages that they cause, so Fletcher finds himself on the other end of the spectrum
when it comes to law suits, where he has a valid law suit presumably, but he'll never see
money as a result of it, which is, it's an issue. - Hello Judge Stevens, hi, Fletcher Reede, I'm scheduled to be in
your court in half an hour. - Oh, talking to the judge. - I badly, badly need a continuance. Ill, am I ill? That is the perfect
question for you to ask. Greta please lie to him for me. - Okay, I have never heard of any instance where a particular lawyer
was able to call up the judge's chambers and get the judge, the actual judge on the phone. That basically should never happen. There are times when
you can call up chambers and eventually get the judge on the phone, but in almost all of those situations, you need opposing counsel present as well. For example, if you had a deposition where you thought the witness
was behaving improperly such that you had to
shut the deposition down and the witness would have to be recalled, well you could threaten and
follow through with your threat to call the judge and
report that behavior. You'd put the judge on speaker phone and talk about the
situation that you're in so that you can hash it
out right there and then, so you don't have to call the witness back to do another deposition
and incur additional costs, but that's a situation where
even with the judge present, you're going to have the other side there so that you have a communication between all of the parties, not just
one party and the judge. These are called ex parte communications, the communications that
take place outside of court, and I've never, ever heard of a time when an attorney could just pick up
the phone and call the judge. That kind of ex parte
communication would be very, very frowned upon and would be potentially grounds for sanctions because the other side doesn't
know what's going on. So that really should never happen. - Mr. Reede, several
years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof, a burglar. - Oh no. - He fell through the kitchen sky light, landed on a cutting board
on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my
friend, he sued my friend and because of guys like you, he won. My friend had to pay the
burglar $6,000, is that justice? - No. I'd have got him 10.
(laughs) - All right, here's the
thing about that example about the burglar
falling through the roof. That is a complete urban myth. I hate hearing that example,
it never, ever existed. That fictitious example
was created specifically by politicians in order to argue for something called tort reform. In other words, making
it harder for plaintiffs to be able to sue individuals and entities for harms that they have befallen them. Now you can agree with tort
reform or you can disagree with tort reform, but
the particular example of a burglar falling through a sky light into a kitchen and then
suing the homeowner simply never happened, it
is just a piece of fiction that was created for argument
rather than legal precedent. So if you hear someone use that example, ask to see where that case came from because I guarantee that is an urban myth and not a piece of judicial precedent. And on top of that, if that
example ever did happen in the real world, there
are all kinds of reasons why the homeowner would succeed. I don't wanna get into the
details of the difference between an invitee and a trespasser, and the duty that one property
owner owes to another, but suffice to say there
are a lot of reasons why a homeowner would be
successful in defending a suit against a burglar who had
fallen through a sky light. So just know that that particular example is completely fictitious
and make up for the point of political argument and has no
real basis in the law itself. All right, that was the
first half of Liar Liar. Next week we'll get to the trial, including the question
of whether the prenup and the marriage itself
was void due to fraud, but now it's time to give the first half a grade for legal realism. (gavel bangs) There is a lot going for Liar Liar. You've got the real books
that people use in practice. It was filmed apparently
at a real law office, because it was right across the street from my old law office, and you've got some of the
dialogue that's pretty realistic. On the other hand, you've
got completely insane things happening due to
a curse that required him to say only the truth,
you've got a lawyer who doesn't know when to shut up. All in all, I'm gonna give Liar Liar a B+. Not a bad effort but there's definitely room for improvement,
and we'll see how you do next time in the second half. All right, do you agree with that B+? Leave your objections in the comments and let me know what you
think I should review next. In the meantime, check out this playlist I put together that includes
all of my prior reactions, including Suits, Better
Call Saul, and tons more. So click on this playlist
and I'll see you in court.
