'Boston Legal': Wanna bet?

For better or worse, Alan Shore is the heart of Crane, Poole & Schmidt, over innumerable episodes of Boston Legal we've seen as much. Alan fights with everything he has for all his clients, but does not always walk the straight and narrow quite as much as he should. Tonight's episode told us that some of Alan's tactics may come back to bite him, and the firm, one day soon.

It all began simply enough, with a walking into the firm of Crane, Poole, & Schmidt and asking for Mr. Poole. This week's main client, Jason Canfield, was quickly redirected to someone that might actually be able to help him, but I wouldn't have asked for Mr. Poole. He then tried for Crane, but Carl dissuaded him from that choice, and so Canfield went with Schmidt. Shirley, seeing how dire the case was, called in Alan to help tilt at another windmill.

To borrow from a different ABC series, the facts of the case were these - Canfield's brother had been killed due to medical malpractice, the hospital who killed him admitted as much. However, the hospital was a military one and the dead brother was on active duty, which apparently made the hospital immune from prosecution under the Ferris Doctrine. Canfield was against that, he wanted to sue anyway.

Denny, of course, found the case foolish as it, in his mind, amounted to Bush bashing. But, knowing that Alan was up against a Supreme Court ruling and feeling his friend to be incredibly wrong to boot, Denny bet Alan fifty thousand dollars on the outcome of the case (all the money to be donated to the troops).

Somehow, Shirley convinced the judge to hold a hearing. That may have been a bit shaky on the judge's part legally speaking, but he made up for it when he disallowed one of Shirley's witnesses because he wasn't "directly related" to the case and then didn't even let the doctor in question testify. The defense stipulated that the doctor's mistake rose to the level of malpractice and therefore the doctor didn't need to testify, but I would have thought that the doctor should have taken the stand anyway.

Wade Mathis, the pharmaceutical lawyer from a couple of episodes back, was on the opposite side again tonight, but with an added bit of special information. Apparently, Wade is part of a group of Bar overseers who have been worried about Crane, Poole, & Scmidt's drop in stature. It seems as though the overseers believe Alan Shore has been negatively influencing the firm for some time, and Wade saw this case as another example of that.

Shirley defended Alan to Wade, but the conversation came back to haunt her almost immediately. The judge learned of Alan and Denny's bet and informed Shirley, Alan, and Wade that he'd be recommending disbarment for Alan. Shirley and Alan were both completely livid, Shirley because of Alan and Denny's bet, and Alan because he figured out that Denny told someone close to the judge (it turned out to be the clerk) about the bet. Denny's logic in divulging the existence of the bet was that if the judge knew about the wager it would weaken the case and Denny would win the cash. Smart. Crazy, but smart. Alan tore into Denny for his indiscretion, more or less stating that Denny's actions may just have ended their friendship.

The next day, with Alan still miffed, Denny came to him to apologize, but to do more than that as well. Apparently, it came to Denny at some point during the previous night just how serious his transgression had been. It scared him. Denny was truly worried that his mad cow had stopped him from being able to consider his actions in a rational matter. Alan listened, forgave Denny, and doubled the bet.

The summation Alan delivered later was typically brilliant. It was heartfelt, sad, and angry. He also won the hearing as the judge decided the case should be allowed to proceed. The argument the judge used stated that the Ferris Doctrine was out of date and because the military is composed more of people from poor backgrounds than wealthy ones while more wealthy people are registered to vote than poor ones it was never something that would be corrected in the legislature. It made sense, but I'll leave it to better legal minds than mine to figure out if the ruling, legally speaking, was in any way valid.

The "B" plot tonight featured Jerry helping out his sister, Joy. After Joy's true-to-Boston Legal over the top entrance, she explained to Jerry that her son, Henry, may have been dating his sister. Joy wasn't sure because Henry was the product of an anonymous sperm donor and Henry's girlfriend was as well. Joy was terribly insistent that Jerry fix the mess, and Jerry, being a good guy, agreed to help her out.

When a trip to the sperm bank didn't go quite as planned -- Jerry got a little huffy and was escorted out by security -- Jerry opted to talk with Henry and Fiona (the girlfriend) directly. The kids were horrified about the prospect that they might be related and a hearing was held so Henry could argue that he needed to know who his father was. It was all very touching and compassionate, but the judge, refused to force the sperm bank to divulge Henry's sperm donor. Instead, she ordered them to tell Henry and Fiona whether or not they had the same father. Seemed like a rational, good decision, and the kids learned that they were in fact half-siblings.

Other thoughts and questions:

• Both cases tonight had judges state that the laws were out of date and needed to be changed. Clearly that was purposeful, but I wonder what exactly the purpose was.
• Alan's possible disbarment was not cleared up by the end of the episode tonight. Is that where you think things are headed for the series finale? Do you think Crane, Poole, & Schmidt is going to go down as a whole? Do you think Denny is slipping (as he worried) or is it just more of the same? Tell me, I'm dying to know.

The TV and Film Guy's Reviews - where no one is immune from prosecution.

E-mail

• Digg
• Facebook
• Fark
• Yahoo Buzz
• Stumbleupon