The Good Wife Analysis
-
Upload
jessica-c-northey -
Category
Entertainment & Humor
-
view
130 -
download
3
description
Transcript of The Good Wife Analysis
1. Summary of Case from The Good Wife television show (episode: Alienation of Affection and Fraud)
a. Include: Plaintiff and defendant Facts and outcome of the case Present evidence crucial to proceeding
In the Good Wife television show’s episode called “Alienation of
Affection” the plaintiff is Mr. Huntly and the defendant is the law firm where
the main character of the show, Alisha, works at. There were multiple
defendants in a complicated case. There were four lawyers involved: Alisha,
Will, Diane, and David Lee. They were each given summons papers stating
complaints against their actions during one of their previous divorce cases.
Additional complaints stemmed from the equity partners who shared equally
responsibility for profit and losses.
Mr. Huntly filed a claim against the law firm and sued them for
‘Alienation of Affection’ because the couple had reconciled after the divorce
and wanted their assets returned. Mr. Huntly’s first claim was based on an
old state law in New York, ‘Alienation of Affection’ which is one of seven
states who still has this law on the books.
Mrs. Huntly had hired the law firm for the divorce case. Mr. Huntly’s
complaint is an intentional tort against the law firm. More specifically,
fraudulent misrepresentation tort, claiming the defendant caused the
plaintiff to be an injured party and suffered damages because of the
defendant’s actions of reckless disregard for the truth and misrepresented
material facts and conditions. (Business Law. McGraw-Hill Create p. 69). Mr.
Huntly claims the stripper photos used in the divorce case against him was a
setup from the divorce lawyer, David Lee. Therefore, the divorce would have
not happened and he would still own his original assets prior to the divorce if
the law firm had not fraudulent misrepresented their actions.
Specifically, his old company called “Bubble Elastic” was now worth
$44 million dollars. The plaintiff claims the law firm caused their divorce in
order to earn profits from the liquidation of the couple’s assets. The law firm
had a contract that earned 5% profit from sale of this asset after the divorce
was final. The law firm was acting on behalf of Mrs. Huntly in order to
liquidate the assets and split the assets 50/50 in the divorce.
The lawyers met and interviewed all parties involved in a deposition.
Mrs. Huntly stated that she tried to reconcile with Mr. Huntly twice during the
divorce proceedings. The reason the lawyer’s assistant sent the stripper to
meet with Mr. Huntly was to have him drink only, not for sex, which Mr.
Huntly acted on his own accord to do. He drove home that night and was set
up for an arrest for a DUI so that Mrs. Huntly could win full custody of their
daughter. Mrs. Huntly was unaware of this and how David Lee’s assistant
hired a photographer to take pictures of Mr. Huntly kissing a stripper as well.
Mrs. Huntly decided it was only a kiss and was now fully reconciled with her
ex-husband and saw the photos as a simple kiss and nothing more. Since it
was not David Lee who set up the meet with Mr. Huntly and the stripper
personally, he did not consider it as a purger against himself during the
deposition.
When the plaintiff could not use the photos of Mr. Huntly kissing a
stripper against the defendant, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Preston, used
another tactic. He went after Alisha for fraud. Mr. Preston claimed she used
her personal divorce experience to talk Mrs. Huntly into going through with
the divorce the second time she tried to reconcile her marriage. Alisha stated
she was only there to comfort her.
The deposition comes to a break so they can discuss their next
strategy. Will points out that Mrs. Huntly signed a conflict of interest waiver;
therefore, there is not a fraud case. Except, the show needs just a little extra
drama by adding the conflict of Alisha not filing the paperwork correctly, or
perhaps it was lost, because it was her first year working at the firm and
made a mistake. However, this claim did not hold either because David Lee
and Will magically found the paperwork when they looked through an old
employees files during that case.
Naturally, Mr. Preston did not believe the missing rider from the waiver
could show up from nowhere at the exact moment it was needed. Mr.
Preston called in the old employee, Carey, into the deposition for questioning
about the recently discovered rider. He wanted to prove the rider was a
forgery. Carey backed up Alisha, and stated that they shared an assistant
and that the files could have possibly been filed incorrectly. That the
defendants where an ethical employer and there was nothing in it for him to
make this statement. After Carey’s testimony did not go well for the plaintiff,
Mr. Preston said they were going to test the ink to see if it was recent or
older.
Diane receives a tip about the plaintiff in this case towards the end of
the show that Mr. Huntly was cheating again. The defendants provided
photographs that proved he was cheating again. The entire case was
dropped because the ex-wife, Mrs. Huntly, decided she wanted to end the
relationship again. The case against the lawyers was automatically dropped.
The complaints from the equity partners were also settled and the show
ends.
2. Assume the role of a legal critic reviewing the show. Focus on the legal issues in the show and present your factually supported opinion about:a. the plaintiff and defendant;b. and how the case should have been decided versus how it was actually decided in the episode.
Opinion article:
I love television drama. It leaves me hanging on the edge for the next
episode almost every time. I enjoy the TV show on CBS called “The Good
Wife”. In a recent episode called ‘Alienation of Affection’, the plaintiff was a
man who wanted his cake and eats it too. The fact that one of his companies
was sold during his divorce was now worth 44 million dollars made him feel
emotionally upset that he lost out on this money. All of their assets were sold
in the divorce in order to split assets in half to distribute as liquid assets. His
ex-wife, Mrs. Huntly, was a naive woman who reconciled with her ex-
husband and supported him in the case against the law firm. Mr. Huntly’s
lawyer, Mr. Preston, was eager to gain his commission from the law suite and
did not fully investigate the case before proceeding. He did not ask the right
questions to reach the truth.
The defendants, Alisha, Will, David Lee, and Diane, are all smart
lawyers who may or may not bend the truth. Without evidence it is difficult
prove, in order to defend their position to protect themselves. That is the job
of a lawyer to protect their firm under the law as it can be proven as fact and
evidence.
The case should have been decided differently if the right question was
asked. Instead of asking if David Lee hired the stripper to meet Mr. Huntly,
his lawyer needed to ask a broader question. A better question would have
been to ask if anyone who works for their law firm hired a stripper to
interfere with the case to steer it their way. The lawyer’s assistant would
have been questioned and had to confess the truth in order to avoid
purgering herself. In real life, the case would have been settled. The law firm
would have taken a hit with all of the equity partners and lawyers and
lawyer’s assistants should be in jail for interference tort.
In the episode, the conflict of interest waiver that Mrs. Huntly signed
was enough for them to win the case because even if the ink was new,
Alisha’s best memory is what the law is based on, which was that she did
have the rider. They chose to expose the husband of his cheating another
time because it was the concrete way of settling the case in their favor. The
feelings and relationship of their marriage by keeping the cheating a secret
was not even considered. Like I said, a man who wants his cake and eats it
too, always bites off too much and loses the entire cake.
Thank you for listening. This has been a JessicaNorthey.com
production.