An Unplanned Break for Television

At Abnormal Use, Jim Dedman asks, "Why is discovery rarely, if ever, depicted on lawyer television shows?"--

When is the last time you saw a witness being deposed on a lawyer television show? When is the last time you saw a young associate in a frightful warehouse in the middle of nowhere performing document review? When is the last time you saw a lawyer responding to discovery requests or lodging objections to same? Is it that such tasks are not cinematic in nature? Surely, that’s not it.

I think Dedman is correct when he surmises that the people who write television shows don't have the legal experience from which to create scenes about discovery. (He has some other theories too--read his post.)

On the other hand, didn't L.A. Law have some scenes involving document review? And depositions too? But that was years ago. I was in law school and barely remember (although I do remember, unaccountably, the rule against perpetuities.)

Movies, of course, are a different matter. There's lots of discovery in the movies. Not that the movies get it right. See, e.g., a post I did once about Ron Motley as depicted in The Insider, "'Wipe that Smirk Off Your Face!' And Other Things Plaintiffs' Lawyers Don't Really Say to Opposing Counsel."

But how to solve the discovery-on-TV conundrum? I think Jim Dedman could solve it himself by producing or writing for TV. That would be a lawyer show I'd actually watch!

Comments

[Ron Miller]

I think the problem is discovery is largely boring! I think you do see a decent number of depositions on television, tho.

[Evan Schaeffer]

Too boring for TV--at least the discovery I'm usually working on ...

[Jim D]

It's definitely too boring for TV.

[business litigation florida]

I agree, that would be pretty boring for TV and I'd be very surprised to see if they did this. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out.