File No: Woman-With-A-Suitcase-EP-07

Appearing before the dramacourt: Woman With a Suitcase Ep 07

***If this is your first time browsing The Drama Files, please read The Rules section first for our reviewing and rating system***

***Disclaimer***: This analysis based on Canadian law. This is also NOT LEGAL ADVICE for anyone and this drama is FICTIONAL.

Issues:

1. Whether law firms can threaten people?
2. Whether you can impersonate a government official?
3. Whether it’s okay to use blackmail to claim extenuating circumstances to have a charge read down while at the same time not disclosing what the “blackmail” is?
4. Whether you can convince your client to lie?
5. Whether law firms get to choose the prosecutor for the case?
6. Whether legal representation can be forced onto you when you have refused it?
7. Whether “NO MEANS NO” actually means NO?

The Rule(s):

1. Hell no.
2. No. We’re pretty sure that impersonating ANYONE is a crime.
3. Uhh no…this is a logic fail.
4. You could, but we’re pretty sure that’s unethical and you could be disbarred if the bar association found out.
5. No. This isn’t some buffet where you can pick out your favourite and biased prosecutors.
6. No. It’s your choice and if you say you don’t want it, then you’ll have to represent you self.
7. Abso-freakin-lutely.

Application:

RedRosette J: I really tried so so hard not to FF and it took me twice as long to watch this episode. It was so boring. Most of the time I felt like nothing was happening except for Hamburger trying to be cute and Geumjoo not having it. Oh and Suk Woo being jealous. I think they were trying to develop the romantic story line but there were so many problems with that too (See Issue 7). Oh and they tried to talk about the big bad case of this drama (which I totally zoned out for. I just don’t care about Tommy Kim and his lollipops anymore) and then they brought up the ‘case of the day’ which to be honest shouldn’t even be a case because their argument was moot (See Issue 3).

All smiles

Tommy Kim and his lollipops are right behind you man…

All dem feels though..

Hamburger, jealous much?

So much jealousy going around…

Jubiemon J: I understand that this episode was supposed to set up for the next one, but I agree with RedRosette that this felt more like a filler episode. The legal arguments by the male partner were ridiculous. A lot of other problems were in this episode. The chemistry between Hamburger and Geumjoo was lacking. Sorry pals, but I don’t really understand why Hamburger is so keen on getting Geumjoo fall for him. I really don’t get how he fell for her. Their interactions are supposed to be cute, but they fall short and feel rather forced. There was just so much talking that didn’t do much; sure there’s that Tommy Kim build up, but it’s not done well like a build up in Bad Guys or Signal. I found myself skipping so many parts that while RedRosette ranted to me about this episode, I asked her: “Did that really happen? What? I didn’t see that.” I even missed the ending where there was a kiss. Ha.

Issue 1: Whether law firms can threaten people?

RedRosette J: Hell no, because this defeats the purpose of a law firm. This is like common sense so I’m not going to waste time explaining it. A law firm is the gateway to access to justice, so if these people are going to be threatening clients and other peeps, how is that meant to provide access to justice? Please just stop. Also there are much more efficient ways to threaten people. You don’t need to put the whole law firm at risk. It’s called Craigslist. And use a pay phone. Seriously. *eye roll*

Uhh, you sure you wanna do that?

Jubiemon J: I really hate how big law firm lawyers are being portrayed as having no ethics at all and do all this crazy threatening. The legal community isn’t that big. Unethical stuff you do will come back and bite you back hard. People who are lawyers generally have a sense of ethics. We want justice to be served. Therefore, we applied to law school and got in. We also get taught ethics in our schools. So . . . yeah, none of this crazy threatening stuff. Even if there were, I don’t think it would be this obvious. It’d be very passive aggressive.

Issue 2: Whether you can impersonate a government official?

RedRosette J: So this part bothered me a lot. This was when the driver/right hand man talked to the immigration people and flashed his NIS badge. Uhhh..Did I miss something? when was he employed with them? So unless I’m told otherwise, I’m assuming based on these facts, that he was impersonating a government official. This is fraud. Seriously. It doesn’t even have to be a government official. Impersonating anyone is a crime. And you can be criminally charged for it. Yea yea I get it, it’s for dramatic flare because its TV and all that, but still….it’s fraud. So no, you can’t impersonate people.

Pfftt No you’re not!

Issue 3: Whether it’s okay to use blackmail to claim extenuating circumstances to have a charge read down while at the same time not disclosing what the “blackmail” is?

RedRosette J: So the evil male Partner comes up with the “brilliant” plan to use blackmail to get the lady’s charges read down [“read down” basically means reduced to something less serious btw] using it as an extenuating circumstance or what not. And then he proceeds to say that they aren’t actually going to submit or use the evidence that actually constitutes “blackmail”. Okayyy…so then how are you going to prove blackmail? Because without evidence, it’s hearsay and that basically means nothing in court. How is this their brilliant plan? YOU’RE ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS MOOT. Also, I’m pretty sure that you can’t just use “blackmail” to get a murder charge read down to manslaughter (2nd degree murder). If these facts happened in Canada, at most they may have a chance to get the charge read down to manslaughter by claiming provocation, but there is a high threshold to meet (this means that they have to look at the case law and apply the tests from previous cases and see if the criteria matches. It’s a long and really complicated process). But again, they would need to submit evidence to meet this. So no, this argument is moot and therefore you don’t have a case. Sorry.

Jubiemon J: I agree with RedRosette. I’ll add a few more things about the law generally. Provocation isn’t a full defense; it only allows the 1st degree murder charge to be read down to manslaughter. A significant part of the test for provocation is whether it is convincing enough that an ordinary person would have been deprived of power of self-control by the victim’s action. Like RedRosette said, there are a lot of cases to reference what factors to consider and how relevant they are. Also, provocation has been treated differently in different common law jurisdictions as well. I think some parts of Australia has banned provocation as a defense.

Issue 4: Whether you can convince your client to lie?

RedRosette J: You could, but it’s super unethical and you could lose your licence if the bar association found out. There’s a difference between taking a position to defend your client and then outright telling them to lie, which again, if the client is brought to the stand and under oath at a trial and still lies, amounts to perjury (which is a crime). So do this at your own peril.

Say at your own risk

RedRosette J Sidebar: Evil Sister, apart from being blatantly two faced, also developed a conscience in this episode. Ugh. Fake Bambi, just go home.

Obviously two faced

With a conscience now apparently.

Issue 5: Whether law firms get to choose the prosecutor for the case?

RedRosette J: Uhh no because this isn’t like some buffet where you pick and choose the best prosecutor for your case. The prosecutor is assigned by the Attorney General’s office and you, be it big law firm evil Partner or not, have no say in it. Again, in the interest of justice and fairness. Imagine if you could just pick whoever prosecutor was in your pocket to run these cases? There would be an obvious bias and a conflict of interest and that is not how justice works. This is a gross misrepresentation of how the law works. And now I’m just annoyed. If you were going to do a show like this, why were we told to expect a higher standard? -_-

Not a prosecutor buffet.

Issue 6: Whether legal representation can be forced onto you when you have refused it?

RedRosette J: No because the entire point is to give you the chance to decide whether you want  legal representation or not. At one point Geumjoo says that the husband (who didn’t murder the guy) refused a lawyer. Hamburger then proceeds to say that they are taking on a pro bono (free) case to represent him. Wait. What? You literally just said that he refused a lawyer and now you guys are just going to go represent him anyway? No! No! No! That’s not how it works. He said no, that means you’re done. Pack up and go home. It doesn’t matter that you’re doing it for free. He said no. At this point, he ends up representing himself. I think self-represented people are given multiple opportunities to seek legal representation but if they don’t want to, they don’t want to. Fairness is in being asked ‘whether you want a lawyer or not’, and not ‘Oh you don’t want a lawyer, no big deal, we’ll assign you one anyway.’ Please, Please someone explain to these writers how the basics work!!!

Jubiemon J: Usually lawyers pick up pro bono cases to help people who can’t afford to hire attorneys. I think the husband is quite rich, so it doesn’t really make sense for him to have a pro bono lawyer. Yes, he refused having a lawyer, so he shouldn’t be forced to get one. The ironic part is most people are trying to get a lawyer, yet they can’t. The husband refusing one is . . . absurd.

Issue 7: Whether “NO MEANS NO” actually means NO?

RedRosette J: OH MY GOD. THIS ABSOLUTELY MEANS NO. IT DOES NOT MEAN TRY HARDER, IT MEANS NO!!!! We actually ranted about this in the context of Scarlet Heart Ryeo but this just keeps popping up. That whole interaction with Hamburger and Geumjoo where he kept grabbing/manhandling her and where she kept saying No: OMG. It wasn’t cute and it wasn’t adorable. It was borderline harassment and it was very uncomfortable to watch. She was not consenting to him grabbing her. Why was he still grabbing her after she told him multiple times to stop? Please shows, you have to stop portraying consent like this because it really does send the wrong message. No doesn’t mean that you keep on doing it. I had so much faith in Suk Woo and then he went and participated in the Geumjoo tug-of-war (which basically boiled down to her being a passive object in the guys’ fight for her without any regard to her point of view) and ruined things further by forcing a kiss on her at the end of the episode. I am not impressed show. -_-

How many times must we say this? CONSENT IS SEXY.

Jubiemon J: Sukwoo’s kiss could arguably get him in trouble with tort (eg battery). Yes, I didn’t want any wrist grabbing or forced kissing here. Sigh, but the writers just want them to happen. It’s not hot! Who wants to be kissed by someone they’re not into?

She’s not cool with this bro…

She’s REALLY not cool with it..

What are you doing Suk Woo? No. 

So are we, my friend.

RedRosette J Aside: Did anyone also catch that extended commercial (PPL) where Geumjoo explained to us how to buy a fully loaded car? WTF!

-_-

RedRosette J Aside: Basically I’m just watching this show for the side characters and their office gossip now. 

Jubiemon J Aside: I’m honestly dreading each episode. So disappointed because there’s nothing that is keeping me interested so far.

Conclusion: Appeal Dismissed.

Rating: 2 = Yell At The Cast (Actually again it’s just the writers. Ugh)

Jubiemon J dissent: Rating: 1 = Tomatoes thrown at the writers only! (I really think they’re wasting the cast’s talent. Seriously. The plot is getting so dry and unrealistic.)