MovieChat Forums > The Firm (1993) Discussion > Aren't mobsters entitled to legal repres...

Aren't mobsters entitled to legal representation?

posted 10 years ago by jk80
10 replies | jump to latest

A slightly tongue-in-cheek question here, but is there anything wrong, legally speaking, with being a lawyer for a firm that is the sole legal representative for the Chicago mob? I mean, they're entitled to legal representation if one of them is charged with murder or whatever, or if they want financial advice. Plus if the government loses its case every time as is said, that must mean the government doesn't have much of a case. I don't excuse the spying and other stuff the Firm engages in, just interesting that it's deemed to be such a secret thing too - I'd have thought it would be quite easy and a matter of public record to see who is representing the mobsters legally.

[–] eddieinportland 10 years ago

No there's nothing wrong with a law firm being the sole legal representative to the Chicago mob.

But the problem was this. The firm was also helping the mob with their business and helping them break the law. That's why the Justice Department was after the firm.

Mitch did the right thing. He protected his client's legal interest (the mob) from the Feds. He told the mob that the firm was stealing money from all their clients by over charging them for their services. And the Justice Department wanted the billing statements to prove that the law firm was over charging their clients.

[–] jack-upland 9 years ago

Yes, that is a problem with the story.

Mitch says, "Go after their lawyers". But what if the lawyers have not broken the law?

[–] Karl Aksel 9 years ago

Yes, that is a problem with the story.

Mitch says, "Go after their lawyers". But what if the lawyers have not broken the law?

The law firm was laundering money for the mob. They could have done a better job of showing that in the movie, but it was mentioned.

[–] NewtonFigg 9 years ago

If I represented the Mob, I definitely would not overbill them $10.00 for doughnuts.

[–] Karl Aksel 9 years ago

If I represented the Mob, I definitely would not overbill them $10.00 for doughnuts.

I thought that was a really dumb plot device. Why would a law firm, which was already getting filthy rich off its shady dealings with the mob, take the risk of such an amateurish act of fraud, and on top of that put no discernible effort into covering up? Clients were bound to find out, and when they also do it to their mobster clients, that is not very smart. And considering the FBI said that 70% of the firm's dealings were with the mob, you'd think that they would have the sense to stay as squeaky clean as possible in any dealings besides the laundering.

And what was it Avery said? He said he didn't mind an audit, just as long as nothing was found. Well, the overbilling thing would have been found pretty much right away. They kept very clear records of actual hours as well as charged hours.

[–] NewtonFigg 9 years ago

But it was fun to see all those addressograph credit card slips.

[–] simonxlong 9 years ago

It's really a kind of arrogance mixed with corruption. I have absolutely no problem believing this, and, in fact, it makes perfect sense to me having seen so much of this type of behavior in the real world. You would think that the money from the mob would be enough, but it's not. That fact is, they are so corrupt that they never even think of the possibility that this will come back to haunt them. It never crosses their minds.

You can point out numerous examples of this type of thinking in the real world. Just look at Deflategate. Why would Tom Brady and the Patriots do such an unnecessary and stupid thing? Why risk so much for such a small advantage?

One of my acquaintances in accounting told me about a guy who was laundering money for his brother who was a drug dealer. He was laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and making a killing. He decides to cheat on his taxes in some unrelated matter, all to save $800. He is audited, the IRS discovers "irregularities," and the scheme gets exposed. He cheats to save a miserable $800 when he is making half a million. What was he thinking?

[–] dl4060 8 years ago

Wow.

To save 800$? That should be chump change for a guy like that.

In the book Abby and Mitch end up running. There is no silly get out of jail free card from the overbilling. In the book the firm is actually owned and started by the mob so overbilling would not have mattered. It is one of the problems with the movie, the silly ending.

I advise everyone to read the book. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[–] fountaincap 8 years ago

It's really a kind of arrogance mixed with corruption. I have absolutely no problem believing this, and, in fact, it makes perfect sense to me having seen so much of this type of behavior in the real world. You would think that the money from the mob would be enough, but it's not. That fact is, they are so corrupt that they never even think of the possibility that this will come back to haunt them. It never crosses their minds.

You can point out numerous examples of this type of thinking in the real world.

Yes. I believe this also happened in real life when the Chicago mob controlled Las Vegas. They already had a nice casino skimming operation going and even if they paid their people well, the mob associates in Las Vegas couldn't help but skim off a bit more for themselves out of greed and arrogance.

[–] Tabbycat (915) 6 years ago

Who said criminals were smart?

Yes it’s dumb and exposes the firm.
But they’re greedy.
They attract top law grads by appealing to that greed.
Many successful criminals get caught because of their greed.
They could have stopped at some point and gotten off scott-free, but greed pushed them ever onward. Not a new tale.