In this week’s episode of…
I’ll state flat out, this post may have been inspired by a slight dab of wine. Still, I’ve run into a phenomenon that I’ve mostly been able to avoid by watching only fantasy and Disney movies:
FILM/TV WRITERS WHO DON’T GOOGLE THE LAW
(OR DIDN’T BOTHER TO ASK A LAWYER)
Among other things, I made the weird choice to go to law school which, like film school, managed to ruin me for even more of my favorite pastime: watching films and television (aka Netflix). Most of the time, I can ignore the faux pas entertainment industry writers make when I consume their characters’ dialogue, but…seriously? I mean, there ARE lawyers on any given film or show…just ask one! This goes for any kind of career or sensitivity reading. Twitter has a lot of people on it, who knows–if you ask, maybe someone in the field will answer!
So, as this is a pet peeve of mine, I wanted to share this piece of advice with all my #amwriting fellows out there: GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND. Indeed, in this instance, using the internet to look up legal terminology is not like WebMD.
Like with most other aspects of writing our your character’s backstory and dialogue, if you’re going to write anything outside of your realm of knowledge, i.e. a legal scene or a lawyer speaks (or literally any other profession), do yourself a credibility favor and Google that s**** before you publish or broadcast it. It just looks sloppy if you don’t.
For instance:
#Arrow
“Your honor…we would like to serve notice* to the defense pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 15 [blah blah blah] request the death penalty**.”
*Totally not how “notice” is given in law. There’s pretty much always going to be a written document filed with the court in advance of any hearing. See, there’s this whole ‘no surprises at trial’ thing that the law kind of abides by (at least in the U.S.), called discovery (and other criminal laws that I don’t dabble with).
**OMG. Seriously? 10 seconds on Google will tell you that Federal (whole other issue I won’t get into of why isn’t it in State court) Rules of Criminal Procedure (Yay! They got that right) Rule 15 is about…depositions (interviews given under oath), NOT the death penalty. Like…and since they didn’t even bother to go with a fake state statute (presuming they live in a fake state because it’s fiction), they can’t even argue that the rule they cited is unique to their state–FEDERAL RULES ARE A NATIONAL (50 state) STANDARD. Also, if you’re invoking the federal death penalty, there are serious limitations of applicability. Obviously, at the state level, it depends on whether the state allows it.
Speaking of depositions…
“Ah, here are the Jergen depos.”
I will admit that, if you Google ‘deposition’–or even ‘deposition transcript’–you may not immediately determine the issue with the file folder being held above. As a lawyer in civil litigation, however, my reaction is:
That’s because if any writer on the Arrow ever bothered to ask a lawyer, ‘”Golly, what exactly does a deposition look like?”, said lawyers would show you something like this:
People usually talk for HOURS at depositions, and the pages are double spaced with sizable margins…so, unless something/someone cancels the deposition early, it’s literally never going to fit in a file folder shown above.
Continuing with the not-really-a-theme-but-we’ll-call-it-that of trial/criminal law, enter:
HEARSAY
(AKA THE CATCH ALL FOR LAZY WRITING)
[*Yes, I realize that’s not the actual poster. But, I’m a geek.]
Honestly, I do my best to ignore the legal idiocy that goes on in a lot of films because, well, you get posts like this one if I don’t. I managed to see the Hitman’s Bodyguard and then go two full days before my brain couldn’t take it anymore and made me painfully aware of how silly the premise was (legally speaking). This, in spite of the fact that my brain managed to not (really) care about the issue with humans “only using 10% use of our brains” in Lucy! (*cough* watch #mythbusters *cough*). But, since this movie hit my ‘nerd nerve’, I have to say something about it.
So, the whole premise of the film is that the Hague (the United Nation’s international criminal court) trial for BAD MAN was dependent on Samuel L. Jackson’s character’s testimony because…somehow…other eyewitness testimony given about stuff BAD MAN did in front of said witness (i.e. shoot and kill his family right in front of him) wasn’t good enough? Apparently such testimony is inadmissible “hearsay.” Again…not to beat a dead horse, or anything, but…
For reference, “Hearsay” is an OUT OF COURT statement offered for truth of the matter asserted (aka “Bob told me at school that Cara is a thief, thus it must be true.”) So…if a dude is testifying IN COURT about something that HAPPENED TO HIM by the BAD MAN…literally how could that be any different that what SLJ is offering? Like, maybe if it was ACTUAL hearsay, that’d be one thing, but it was first hand knowledge of BAD MAN’s illegal activities so…just LAZY. Don’t do this! YOU ARE BETTER THAN THEY ARE!
Since criminal law is not my forte…I move onto the area of law which IS my forte:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
JIBBER JABBER.
I’ve probably posted about this on Twitter, but I tend to re-watch the same shows when I’m cooking so that I don’t care if I miss anything, and these, in particular, always bug me. 
“We’ve stolen your food patents so…you’re screwed.” [paraphrasing]
My reaction: ORLY?
And a little bit of: SAY WHAT?
Number 1: Patents are (by intent) PUBLIC.
Seriously, that’s the point. They’re a monopoly on a [utility/design/plant] for a limited time, and in return for that monopoly, the inventor makes public how to recreate the [thing] so that when the patent runs out, everyone else can make it. Hello, Generic Brand Stuff.
Number 2: Most likely they’d be a trade secret.
Trade secrets can last indefinitely if you’re good with security, and so a lot of companies don’t bother patenting stuff since (1) trade secrets are potentially cheaper and (2) potentially last WAY longer than the protection offered by patent law. See: Coke/KFC seasoning/etc.
Granted, I might give these writers the benefit of the doubt and say the characters stole the BAD GUYS’ ‘patent applications’ or ‘research’ for their patents…but that’s not what made it into the script. Nope, they just said they stole the guy’s food patents, and so he was pretty much screwed. GOOGLE, my friends!
Finally, because I started in copyright law as an attorney, I reach my ultimate HATE for these legalese fails:
“This POTATO is VerdAgra’s intellectual property. [So far so good!]. You violated our COPYRIGHT.”
With a little…
Some…
And a huge…
RIIIIIIGHT…uhhuh…suuuuure!
Why? BECAUSE [AS GOOGLE WILL TELL YOU:]
(1) Copyright can protect a lot of things…but a vegetable is NOT one of them–that would be a patent (see above).
Actually that’s it. That’s what Google would tell you.
And thus concludes Hanley Brady’s rant on television law in non law-related shows.
(I can’t watch t.v. about what I do for a living…just seems like unnecessary torture).
As such, I leave you with this lovely GIF:
