The Problem With Boston Legal

I kind of have this love hate thing with David Kelly legal dramas such as Boston Legal. I find them very entertaining, but annoying and frustrating at the same time. As a lawyer, I suppose it’s hard to have that willing suspension of disbelief when so many things that happen are unrealistic or just flat out wrong. Of course I am sure that’s true for police officer’s with cop shows, theoretical physicists with science fiction and mathematicians with Numb3rs.

Some of the issues I have are true of almost all legal dramas. For instance, cases do not walk into law offices in the morning and go to trial in the afternoon. In real life, criminal cases take months and civil cases take years to go to trial. The only show that got this mostly right was a show called Murder One which took an entire season to deal with a single high profile criminal case. Still, I understand cases must be time condensed for dramatic purposes. But David Kelly, who is himself a lawyer, will do things in his show that clearly violate legal rules. For instance, on The Practice, they decided to make the receptionist a partner in the firm. When told she was being made a partner, Lisa Gay Hamilton’s character noted that legally only attorneys can be partners in a law firm. Then the issue was ignored.

Boston Legal is one of the worst examples. On last week’s show, a woman that wanted to become a Catholic priest sued the Church for sexual discrimination. While the First Amendment came up in conversation, the fact that Supreme Court precedent is clear that neither the government nor a court may enquire into the reasonableness of a religious belief was not addressed. The plaintiff, in a state court, sought to strip the Church’s tax exempt status, though a state court would have no jurisdiction over federal tax law. In an earlier episode, they got a state court injunction to stop a nuclear power plant from being built, though again a state court would have no jurisdiction. The other case last week involved an argument that the law against prostitution is unconstitutional. The argument boiled down to its still going to happen, why not regulate and tax it, after all we need money for the war. Support our troops, legalize prostitution!!!

I understand that it’s only a TV show. But I think shows like this have a negative effect on the audience. In many of these cases, the lawyers do not make legal arguments at all. Rather they make impassioned arguments that we should have a different public policy. I often agree with the arguments. I think prostitution should be legal. While the Catholic Church is free to have whatever rules it wants, I think that it would be well served by opening the priesthood to women. My problem isn’t with the arguments they make. The problem is that by making these types of arguments to a judge week after week. It reinforces the idea in the public consciousness that it is appropriate for a judge to substitute their judgment for that of the people as a whole. It is the proper role of a judge to interpret and follow the law, not to make up the law to suit their personal preferences.

There are plenty of laws I disagree with, but my disagreement does not make those laws unconstitutional. So I get frustrated watching. But I watch because Denny Crane and Alan Shore are funny.