Oh, poor Howard ...
Was Howard really that bad of a guy that he deserved that?
shareScumbag but no
share
MovieChat Forums > Better Call Saul (2015) Discussion > Oh, poor Howard ...
Yes he did and I also fail to see how it’s Jimmy or Kim’s fault. They did not invite Howard nor did they invite Lalo to their house
shareIt’s Jimmy’s fault for getting involved with the Cartel, engaging in unethical behavior to make sure Lalo got a bail and then bringing $7 million in drug money to bail him out.
Had Jimmy remained honest, Lalo would’ve been held without bail.
Not only is Jimmy responsible for
Howard’s death. He’s responsible for all the murders committed by Lalo after he was released.
The judge agreed to give him bail and Jimmy was ethically and legally bound to represent his clients wishes. If he didn’t advocate for Lalo he could have been disbarred. Nice try.
shareYou weren’t paying attention, then.
The Judge agreed to bail because Jimmy falsely represented to the Judge that Lalo had family in the U.S., thus, not being a flight risk.
This was, of course, a lie.
Jimmy, like all lawyers, has a duty of candor towards the court and he knowingly violated it by making this false representation.
I paid attention perfectly and Jimmy was just doing what was right for his client. The judge should have done her job and denied bail. You Jimmy blamers are just as pathetic as the people who blamed Walt for Hank beating up Jesse
shareYour answer shows you didn’t.
Jimmy knowingly misled the Court. If anything, he should get disbarred for lying to the Court. That is why no one in the Court House likes him anymore.
The Judge was legally obligated to give bail.
Jimmy was the problem, not the Judge.
If this happened in real life, Jimmy would probably have his law license suspended or disbarred.
Jimmy didn’t lie to the court, he was oblivious to Lalo’s plans and I’ll reiterate: He had to advocate for Lalo. Jimmy wouldn’t get disbarred, Jimmy did what he swore to do. Even if Jimmy was trying to con the judge, the judge should have saw through it. Lalo and Howard are the ones responsible for Howard’s death and now that I think about it, Lalo is an indirect rat which means I am not as on his side as I once was (he told Krazy 8 to rat out Gus).
Also I never once said you blamed Walt for Hank beating Jesse, I said you were as pathetic as those who do. Learn how to read, junior.
Jimmy did lie to the Court because he knew the entire family storyline was false. He wasn’t oblivious. Mike fed him the bullshit story and he ran with it.
Trust me. Jimmy would’ve have been disbarred once the entire family bs was proven false. Lawyers have a duty of candor and he violated it. He betrayed his oath. This is why everyone in the Court turned their backs on him.
The Judge could only act with the evidence that was presented. If he didn’t give him bail, he could’ve been revoked in an appeal.
All of this would have happened like I described in real life. You can’t dispute it as it is indisputable.
You are totally wrong, Jimmy has to do what’s best for his client even if he knows he’s a murderer. You are also arguing non sequiturs because Jimmy never told Howard or Lalo to show up that night. You are making excuses and you are arguing logical fallacies
shareDoing the best for a client does not mean you are allowed to engage in fraudulent behavior, which Jimmy did.
There is a reason why Attorney’s have a Code of Ethics. If they violate it, people get hurt.
Not only was Jimmy wrong in presenting false evidence to court, he was wrong in going to Mexico and bringing drug money to pay the bail.
Jimmy didn’t do anything wrong, it was Lalo who broke the law and if the judge and the DA did their job then nothing Jimmy did would have mattered. Hell the guy was posting 7 million in cash that should have raised some red flags. Jimmy and Kim are 100 percent blameless
shareJimmy violated the code of ethics. So, he did a lot wrong.
Once the bail was set, all Lalo had to do was pay it. In the end, the Court had nothing to hold him on.
Jimmy engaged in fraudulent and illegal behavior that got a lot of people hurt or killed.
The court should have realized that the money was obtained illegally, no one has 7 million in cash just lying around. Jimmy did was he was legally obligated to do.
shareThe court had no choice but to accept the money, no matter where it came from. That’s the law.
Jimmy had an obligation to refuse to use evidence that he knew was fraudulent.
Jimmy had an obligation to protect and advocate for his client, what part of this aren’t you getting? He could literally be disbarred for actively working against his client.
It’s beyond obvious the money was drug money, the DA should have confiscated it, they didn’t and as a result Lalo was released.
You are the one that is not getting it.
Jimmy cannot engange in fraudulent actions to win a case. It’s against the law and the code of ethics.
The DA had no legal authority to confiscate the money. In any event, considering Lalo skipped bail, it belongs to the government anyway.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You need to educate yourself on how the law works.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, any DA would have realized the 7 mil was drug money and would have confiscated it and not allowed Lalo to leave , if they did their job then Jimmy’s actions would have been meaningless. Jimmy is not responsible for Howard’s death, if Howard didn’t show up uninvited he’d still be alive
share[deleted]
What’s with the attitude fella?
shareWhat you're missing here is that Jimmy knew that "Jorge De Guzman" was actually Lalo and knowingly lying to the court about who he was is clear grounds for disbarrment and not simply doing what he is required to for his client.
Lawyer/Client privilege does NOT apply here
Attorney client privilege never goes away. It is the most sacred Bond there is
shareit is sacred but it does not apply here
It only applies to communication between the attorney and client about past crimes
1. It doesn't apply to any fact the lawyer knew outside of privileged communication (anything he knew prior to taking Lalo as a client or learned from another source)
2. It doesn't apply to ongoing criminal activity or future crimes he may learn in a privileged communication
and specifically
3. It does not apply to the identity of the client
https://youtu.be/ujv1yoyHXbI?t=182
I disagree with everything you said, Jimmy just did what was right for his client and yes Howard deserved to die.
shareYou stand corrected. Everything I said regarding attorney/client privilege was factual.
You can say that a banana is an apple all you want, it doesn’t make it so.
shareyeah that's exactly what you are doing.
You have no response for the facts I presented
You’ve not presented any facts whatsoever, all you’re doing is repeating the same failed and debunked talking points.
sharethese facts.. not debunked , not answered by you because you can't
it is sacred but it does not apply here
It only applies to communication between the attorney and client about past crimes
1. It doesn't apply to any fact the lawyer knew outside of privileged communication (anything he knew prior to taking Lalo as a client or learned from another source)
2. It doesn't apply to ongoing criminal activity or future crimes he may learn in a privileged communication
and specifically
3. It does not apply to the identity of the client
It doesn’t matter, he has to advocate for his client, even if he did violate the rules the DA and the judge should have realized it was drug money, they didn’t do their job, even if they did Jimmy didn’t invite Howard nor did he invite Lalo over to his house, therefore Howard’s death isn’t his fault.
shareAttorney client privilege never goes away. It is the most sacred Bond there is
shareJimmy concocted a story about the blokes family to get bail and walked half way across a desert with 7mil drug money to pay the bail in cash. Jimmy (Saul) is complicit in allowing a pathological murderer to walk the streets. Maybe it’s all down to fear but those are the facts.
shareOnce again if he didn’t do it he could have lost his licence, you are not allowed to work against your clients interests
shareNo he wouldn’t! Lol! Your duty to you client does not include filing fraudulent evidence. Not only is it unethical. It is illegal.
shareHe didn’t do anything illegal, he advocated for his client which is his duty. The judge and DA should have realized it was drug money, they didn’t do their job.
shareHere, so you can educate yourself.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-crime-fraud-exception-the-attorney-client-privilege.html
It even includes a BB example, lol.
Example: Walt meets with criminal defense attorney Saul for legal advice and asks about the penalties for cooking and selling meth. Saul explains the penalties, and also explains that profits from illegal drug sales can lead to money laundering charges. The conversation is privileged because Walt merely sought advice about penalties. But the result would be different if Walt asked Saul for advice on hiding or destroying evidence, or how to launder his profits by funneling them through a legitimate business.share
exactly, attorney/client privilege is very narrow. It is not an umbrella as is often portrayed in tv/movies
shareYeah!
share