.png){kind=logo}
.png?width=50&height=50&name=Untitled%20design%20(6).png)
Suits captivated audiences with its sharp dialogue, high-stakes legal drama, and charismatic attorneys. But beneath the entertainment lies a world of ethical dilemmas that raise serious questions about the practice of law. This article explores ethical lessons from Suits and evaluates key character actions under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Watch the full "Ethics Lessons from Suits" course, presented by Brent Turman of Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP, on Lawline.
Did Mike Ross Commit Unauthorized Practice of Law?
From the very first episode, Mike Ross operates as a lawyer without ever attending law school or taking the bar exam for himself. Despite his photographic memory and natural talent, his employment at Pearson Hardman is a blatant violation of ABA Model Rule 5.5, which prohibits the unauthorized practice of law.
Key Ethical Issues:
- Holding oneself out as a lawyer without licensure violates Rule 5.5.
- Harvey Specter, as a supervising attorney, knowingly allows this deception, making him complicit.
- Jessica Pearson also becomes aware of the deception and fails to report it, violating Rule 8.3 (duty to report professional misconduct).
While Mike’s abilities make for great television, in the real world, practicing law without proper licensure carries severe consequences, including disbarment and criminal prosecution.
Can a Lawyer Employ a Fraudulent Associate?
Harvey Specter’s decision to hire Mike, knowing his credentials are fake, is more than just a plot twist—it’s an ethical disaster. Under Rule 5.1, lawyers with supervisory authority must ensure that subordinates comply with ethical obligations. By hiring and mentoring Mike, Harvey violates this duty.
Additionally, Mike’s secret binds multiple characters, including Jessica Pearson, who, upon discovering the truth, chooses to protect Harvey rather than report the misconduct. This decision violates Rule 8.3(a), which requires attorneys to report violations that raise substantial questions about a lawyer’s honesty or fitness.
Conflicts of Interest: Pearson Hardman’s Internal Disputes
The firm often assigns attorneys to cases despite clear conflicts of interest. For instance, Harvey and Louis Litt represent opposing heirs in a will dispute, violating Rule 1.7(a), which prohibits concurrent representation where interests are directly adverse.
Real-World Takeaway:
- Law firms must conduct conflict checks to prevent ethical breaches.
- Assigning opposing family members to the same firm creates inherent bias risks.
Candor to the Tribunal: Lying to Clients and Courts
Throughout Suits, lawyers deceive clients, opposing counsel, and even courts. A key example is Harvey misleading a client to secure a settlement, a direct violation of Rule 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others) and Rule 3.3 (candor to the tribunal).
Lessons for Attorneys:
- Misrepresentation in negotiations can lead to malpractice claims.
- Candor with the court is not just an ethical duty—it’s a legal requirement.
Document Destruction: Donna’s Ethical Dilemma
In one of the show’s most critical moments, Donna Paulsen finds a document proving Pearson Hardman received key evidence in a product liability case. Fearing its implications, she considers shredding it—a violation of Rule 3.4 (fairness to opposing parties and counsel), which prohibits destroying evidence.
Legal Takeaways:
- Spoliation of evidence can lead to sanctions and case dismissal.
- Ethical attorneys must disclose relevant documents, even when harmful to their client.
The Duty of Competence: Assigning an Associate to File a Patent
Harvey instructs Mike to file a patent, despite Mike’s complete lack of experience in intellectual property law. While humorous, this scenario highlights Rule 1.1 (competence), which requires attorneys to provide legal services with adequate knowledge and skill.
Practical Implications:
- Attorneys must ensure they (or their associates) are competent before taking on a matter.
- Seeking guidance from an experienced attorney is an appropriate remedy under Rule 1.1.
Mental Health in the Legal Profession: Lessons from Louis Litt
Louis Litt, known for his abrasive personality, struggles with stress, anxiety, and professional insecurity. The show subtly highlights mental health challenges in the legal profession, aligning with the increasing awareness of attorney well-being initiatives.
Key Takeaways:
- Attorneys should prioritize mental health and seek support from lawyer assistance programs.
- High-pressure environments demand coping mechanisms to avoid burnout and ethical lapses.
Key Takeaways
- Practicing law without proper credentials (like Mike Ross) violates ABA Rule 5.5 and can lead to criminal liability.
- Supervising attorneys (like Harvey Specter) must ensure subordinates comply with ethical obligations (Rule 5.1).
- Lawyers must avoid conflicts of interest (Rule 1.7) and maintain candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3).
- Destroying or concealing evidence (as Donna nearly did) is an ethical and legal violation (Rule 3.4).
- Competence in practice areas is required (Rule 1.1), and mental health support is crucial for ethical decision-making.
Suits provides an entertaining yet exaggerated look at legal practice. While it dramatizes ethical breaches, it also serves as a useful case study in what not to do.
Watch the full "Ethics Lessons from Suits" course, presented by Brent Turman of Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP, to explore these lessons in greater depth.
The content of this article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Further Your Legal Education With Lawline Courses
Interested in learning more strategies and tips for becoming a better lawyer? Lawline offers a wide assortment of informative continuing education courses that allow you to develop your expertise and take charge of your professional growth. Check out our programs covering more than 60 practice areas and sign up for a free trial today.
Stay up to date! Receive updates on new content, promotions, and more:
