The Glamorous Grind
Where grit meets glamour, and the law is always in style.
Hosted by attorneys Ilona Antonyan and Mila Arutunian of Antonyan Miranda LLP, The Glamorous Grind delivers bold conversations at the intersection of law, lifestyle, and mindset.
Each episode features riveting stories from inside the courtroom, celebrity interviews, and real-life legal battles that shape lives and headlines. From empowerment and entrepreneurship to manifestation and vision boards, we explore the hustle behind the glam with fearless insight.
No topic is off-limits! Expect unfiltered talk on relationships, mental health, success strategies, and building your legacy.
Subscribe for weekly episodes that go behind the glam and inside the grind.
The Glamorous Grind
Objection! TV Lawyering Is Hearsay, Your Honor
Your favorite legal dramas deliver killer lines; real court rewards clean records. We sat down to separate TV spectacle from courtroom reality—pulling scenes from Suits, Legally Blonde, Kramer vs. Kramer, Big Little Lies, and North Country—and traced what would actually fly before a judge with a packed calendar and zero patience for theatrics. The truth is quieter, more exacting, and far more interesting once you know where to look.
We unpack why a dazzling memory or elite diploma isn’t the same as being a great lawyer, and how mentorship can turn raw talent into sound judgment. From LSAT war stories and three-day bar exam stress to the precise way objections must be stated and preserved for appeal, we share the moves that matter: ask narrow questions, answer even narrower, and protect the record at every turn. Family court gets special attention—why self-representation is a trap when emotions run hot, how nonresponsive answers can sink a case, and the simple discipline of yes-or-no responses that keep judges focused on what’s admissible and relevant.
Along the way, we reset expectations about case value in employment and injury matters, drawing the line between wrong and illegal and showing how evidence, witnesses, and timing drive outcomes more than a single dramatic moment ever could. We also talk shop about the day-to-day: coaching clients, crafting depositions, negotiating strategically, and where AI helps (and where it won’t replace the human judgment that wins at trial). If you love the shows, keep loving them—just don’t bring their rules to court.
If this breakdown helps you see the law more clearly, tap follow, share it with a friend who quotes courtroom TV, and leave a quick review with your favorite “that would never fly” scene.
Want more glam during your grind?
New episodes every other Tuesday. Make sure you are subscribed on YouTube and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
🎙️ Hosts: Ilona Antonyan & Mila Arutunian
📲 Follow us on IG: @glamorousgrindpodcast
This is Hollywood would never be allowed in real court.
SPEAKER_02:I think that a lot of times, at least clients will come to me and they think because they've been wrong, they deserve a huge payout because of something they saw on the TV. Movies make law school look like a makeover montage. Trust me, real law school doesn't come with pink-sented resumes.
SPEAKER_15:I object! And wedding in court doesn't come down to who had the quippiest one-liner.
SPEAKER_04:You give me this, and I will work as hard as it takes to school those Harvard douches and become the best lawyer you have ever seen.
SPEAKER_13:But Hollywood does love to glam it up. Now you're basing your opinions on what you haven't seen. We're looking at your favorite legal shows and movies.
SPEAKER_02:Suits, legally blonde, big little lies, to name a few. And we'll separate fact from fiction. What's real? What's just for the cameras? And what would actually make it to court, let alone flying court? Welcome back to the glamorous grind, where today La meets Hollywood. First up, we have Suits.
SPEAKER_15:Have you ever seen Suits? Never, but I know my business partner grew up watching this, and I hear that all lawyers that I know pretty much have uh watched it.
SPEAKER_02:I have never watched it because, like, why would I want to watch what I do?
SPEAKER_15:Before I was a lawyer, I used to like to watch legal shows, but Suits was not on.
SPEAKER_02:I watched Law and Order. Like, I watched every Law and Order ever, but I never watched Suits.
SPEAKER_15:I kind of want to see it to compare if it's for real or not. Like, how close was their scripting relative to real life? Because most legal shows are pretty fake. Like they object and sit down. Or when somebody's about to win the case, somebody walks through the door and is like, I object, I have new evidence, and then that changes the whole story. That never ever happens in real course.
SPEAKER_02:Okay, let's see.
SPEAKER_03:We should hire you. Jesus, I'd give you the 25 grand as a signing bonus. I'll take it. Unfortunately, we only hire from Harvard. And you not only did not go to Harvard Law School. You haven't even gone to any law school.
SPEAKER_04:What if I told you that I consume knowledge like no one you've ever met and I've actually passed the bar? I'd say you're full of crap.
SPEAKER_02:I like his confidence.
SPEAKER_04:That's a Barbary legal handbook right there, right? Open it up. Read me something. Anything.
SPEAKER_03:Civil liability associated with agency is based on several factors.
SPEAKER_04:Including the deviation of the agent from his path, the reasonable inference of agency on behalf of the plaintiff, and the nature of the damages themselves. How did you know that? I learned it when I studied for the bar.
SPEAKER_15:Would you hire him? Absolutely. I would hire him and wish there were more applicants like this. If they passed the bar and they could recite things from any random page I opened, absolutely. He looks as sharp as my business partner. Now I can see why he was watching the show when he was young.
SPEAKER_03:You want this job so much.
SPEAKER_04:Why don't you just go to law school? When I was in college, it was my dream to be a lawyer. I needed some money. And Trevor convinced me to memorize this math test and sell it. Turns out we sold it to the dean's daughter. I lost my scholarship. I got kicked out of school. I I got knocked into a different life. And I have been wishing for a way back ever since.
SPEAKER_03:Let me tell you something. This isn't elementary school. This is hard work, long hours, high pressure. I need a grown goddamn man.
SPEAKER_04:You give me this, and I will work as hard as it takes to school those Harvard douches and become the best lawyer you have ever seen. I'm inclined to give you a shot, but what if I decide to go another way? I say that's fair. And sometimes I like to hang out with people who aren't that bright, you know, just to see how the other half lives.
SPEAKER_03:Move over. I'm emailing the firm I just found our next subsequent.
SPEAKER_02:I think that honestly, like the law school you go to and even your ability to like know the law, it doesn't necessarily make you a good lawyer. I I would definitely hire someone who didn't go to law school if I thought they were smart, driven, determined to work. I almost feel like someone like that would be more determined to prove himself than someone who went to Harvard Law.
SPEAKER_15:I think people sometimes just want to have a chance. Like I was at a business meeting today, and uh the woman I met with was talking about mentoring 20-year-olds that work for her, their new associates. You know, we're now in our 40s, and I was thinking, that would have been amazing when I was in my 20s. If somebody believed in me wanted to mentor me, perhaps I would have been even further along now, right? Not only do you have to take advantage of that opportunity if it comes along, it goes both ways. If you see potential in someone, see how far they can go and help them. But the other way around, if you get an opportunity, don't take it for granted. That could be your chance to potentially run the company or really move up fast if you want it.
SPEAKER_02:I think it's mentorship is highly underrated. And I think it's becoming more understood in our society now, how important it could be. I mean, when I was starting my practices, I mean, I don't know if you you kind of had the same experience, but when I started my first employment practice, I didn't know what I was doing at first. And there were mistakes that were made. And then eventually I realized like I could just ask people who have done this. Well, how did you do it? What worked for you? And it saved me so much time and energy to figure that out and set up really efficient practices from established firms that have made it work, and that was mentorship.
SPEAKER_15:It's great if you're open-minded to it, depending on your personality. Like I always, when I was a new lawyer, like to figure things out myself first and find an answer. And I'm pretty quick at finding answers and like knowing where to look and analyzing data. But I probably would have saved myself a lot of time if I had a mentor when I was younger. Whether it comes to business or law, I just went straight to the books and a lot of lessons learned, whether it's in business or law, you just learn by doing. I think it makes you better in a way because you figure it out yourself and you own it. It's not like, oh, you told me to do that and I tried it and that didn't work. You did it yourself, and then you figure it out quick next time.
SPEAKER_02:This is my favorite movie ever. I actually really relate to this movie.
SPEAKER_15:I was in law school when Legally Blonde came out, and I remember coming home for dinner after law school studying and watching it on TV before I would return back to the library to study.
SPEAKER_10:Hi, my name is Elle Woods, and from my admissions essay, I'm gonna tell all of you at Harvard why I'm gonna make an amazing lawyer.
SPEAKER_09:As president of my sorority, I'm skilled in commanding the attention of a room and discussing very important issues. It has come to my attention that the maintenance staff is switching our toilet paper. Well yes, Marco, I do. Once again, we joined Hope in the search for her identity. As you know, she's been brainwashed by the evil stuck in that.
SPEAKER_02:I can't remember what it's out of. Is it out of 181 or 180?
SPEAKER_15:I don't remember. I thought LSAT was stupid because it had nothing to do with law.
SPEAKER_11:Literally nothing.
SPEAKER_15:Nothing. I remember I drove to Kaplan classes to take LSAT. And after I became a lawyer, I'm like, what did this ever have to do with law school?
SPEAKER_09:And 143.
SPEAKER_10:I feel comfortable using legal jargon in everyday life. I am chat.
SPEAKER_02:And I use that every time everyone's like, You pass the barn the first time. You're 24 and you're a lawyer, and I'd just be like, What? Like it's hard. It is hard. Like it was hard. It was hard as hell. But you know, it's cool to say it to pretend like it's easy.
SPEAKER_15:Maybe now it's not as hard because what two-day. It's a two-day bar.
SPEAKER_02:I was still three days when I took it.
SPEAKER_15:People can do it from home crazy on their computers. When I did it, now I'll sound like an old lady if I say about 20 years ago when I took the bar exam. It was a three-day exam and only 27% passing rate. California had the lowest passage rate out of all the states. And now anybody can really pass the bar exam. So when we watched the first video and the guy didn't go to law school, but he was super smart and talented and had a potential. I'd rather hire a guy like that over somebody who has a law license because they may not really be a good lawyer.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I know plenty of people who have law licenses, took the bar and passed it on the first seminar, are just awful lawyers. But same. I mean, I took the bar 11 years ago, which feels like yesterday, but also three days and it was super high stress. You could not take it remotely. Downloading the software and being so scared the software would crash and then you're like tests wouldn't upload.
SPEAKER_15:I had to handwrite mine because it crashed, and I brought this huge crystal clock with me because I was terrible on time. I like take a long time to process everything. But on you know, when it comes to tests, I'm like, okay, this is for realistic. You brought a crystal clock with you? Yeah, I got it at Ross, and it was like they let you bring a clock. Yes, because I had to watch my time carefully. It was like a square crystal clock that I carried with me. Uh well, I had on my desk. And then my computer software did break. So I had a handwrite. And I have the most terrible handwriting. Oh my god. That even I cannot read my notes if more than 48 hours have passed and I didn't dictate them or you know, type them up. I loved the bar.
SPEAKER_02:To me, like the bar, taking the bar. I know it sounds crazy. I I loved it. I thought it was Wow, how can you love it? It was just so exhilarating to me to like go in and like for three days straight, I just like took the bar and I don't know. I just it just it just felt it was like the light at the end of the tunnel. Like, you know, when you're at a race and you're at the very end and you're like, oh my god, I see the finish line. That was at the bar with me. And I remember coming out of there and stepping outside, and I was like, Oh, I'm done. And then there was like this man outside, and he was smoking a cigarette and he had this heavy Russian accent. He's like, This is my ninth time failing before taking the bar. I'm pretty sure I failed again, and I was just like, Can have a cigarette? And I remember smoking a cigarette out there, and it was amazing. It was like the most exhilarating experience.
SPEAKER_15:Mine was not like that at all. I remember I didn't want to talk to anybody during the bar exam because I heard if you're gonna talk to other people, you're gonna freak out that you missed an issue. I drank Red Bull and ate bananas in my car in between the you know, the little breaks break we had. And um, I just wanted to be focused. But when I was done, I did come out and start talking to people who went to law school with me. And then that made me doubt myself because they're like, Did you identify this issue? Did you know this was tested? And I'm like, Oh no, I didn't see that issue, or no, I didn't see that issue. So then I thought I probably failed the bar. So when it was time to get the bar results, it was me and my friend from law school who were working at the same place together, and I ended up passing, and she didn't on the first time. So I called my family and I she's crying, so I can't be all happy about passing the bar exam that I've been waiting to receive the results for over like four months. I'm like, mom, I passed the bar exam. And she didn't believe me because I had to keep it down.
SPEAKER_02:So I uh passed the bar and I don't remember anything else because I got so drunk. I drank an entire bottle of champagne.
SPEAKER_15:Like you weren't sitting in a computer waiting to put in your own.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I was. I had a bottle of champagne on one side and a bottle of vodka on the other. And I was like, if I fail, it's vodka. Oh my god. Can't make the shit up.
SPEAKER_01:What was the longest personal relationship in your life, uh, outside of your parents or girlfriends?
SPEAKER_11:Objection relevance. I suppose that would be with my child.
SPEAKER_01:Whom you've seen twice in a year. Mrs. Kramer. Your ex-husband. Wasn't he the longest personal relationship in your life?
SPEAKER_14:Objection 352.
SPEAKER_01:Would you speak up, Mrs. Kramer? I couldn't hear you.
SPEAKER_15:I would object because well, I don't know if she's self-represented in this movie or if she has an attorney, so that she doesn't have to answer those questions that could be damaging to her case. Because you can object to a form of question, or if it's leading or suggesting an answer that may not be complete or true, and uh witnesses don't have to answer some of the questions that may assume certain evidence to be true that's not really true. They may answer yes to something that they have no other proof of other than admitting or saying yes.
SPEAKER_01:How long was that?
SPEAKER_12:We were married a year before the baby. And then seven years after that.
SPEAKER_01:So you were a failure at the one most important relationship in your life.
SPEAKER_15:He didn't even make legal objection, you said objection.
SPEAKER_01:The witness's opinion on this is relevant.
SPEAKER_15:It's relevant to what? No, I think the judge is wrong. And the the problem is that the lawyer objected without stating the grounds for legal objections. You can't just stand up and say objection. I mean, that's what they do in the movies. You have to have legal grounds under evidence code.
SPEAKER_12:I was not a failure.
SPEAKER_01:Oh? What do you call it then? A success? The marriage ended in divorce.
SPEAKER_12:I consider it less my failure than his.
SPEAKER_01:Congratulations, Mrs. Kramer. You've just rewritten matrimonial law. You were both divorced. Objection.
SPEAKER_15:You know, he is definitely harassing a witness. It's argumentative, and she should not have to answer that at all. I am speechless.
SPEAKER_01:Your Honor, I would like to ask what this model of stability and respectability has ever succeeded at. Were you a failure at the one most important personal relationship in your life?
SPEAKER_15:How is her opinion on whether or not she is a failure irrelevant? It doesn't matter. I mean, best interest of the child is always what's at issue. Is she a failure as a parent? If she says yes, I am, does that mean he's gonna give custody to the other side? If she says no, I'm not, does that mean he's gonna punish her because she does lacks self-awareness because he thinks that she is a failure? So it's definitely prejudicial.
SPEAKER_12:It did not succeed.
SPEAKER_01:Not yet, Mrs. Kramer. You were you a failure at the one most important relationship in your life.
SPEAKER_02:Jesus Christ. She is a lawyer. Can I represent her, please? I don't practice family law, but I'd represent her.
SPEAKER_14:I know it's fake, so I'm not gonna cry with you. This is just a movie, but this is sad.
SPEAKER_15:He loved you more than anything, and you didn't care, right? That would just be like the easiest no-prep lawyering. Before 1975, women had different rights than they did post-1975, and earlier than that, women couldn't known certain properties. It was different. The fact that divorce is looked down on, and maybe this movie is uh made a mistake where divorce is maybe it's an at-fault divorce, because California is a no-fault divorce. You could get divorced for any reason, you don't have to give a cause. The basis is irreconcilable differences. Hey, we just don't get along. Even if you have multiple lovers or whatever may be happening, court is not gonna give that any weight or consider it. But in certain states, that would have been like what 50 years ago, it was at fault state, and people had to prove that somebody did something wrong to either divide assets. I mean, we weren't practicing back in those days, we weren't even born yet. But I'm assuming it was a different environment, different atmosphere, and the laws were different, they weren't as protective, I think, of women's property rights. This is about custody and visitation, and most likely back in those days, women probably had more superior rights to children than men. I'm assuming they did. Because now I don't think back then men even wanted the kids. Possibly, depends who. It sounds like this guy may want it. Maybe he didn't want to pay child support because the more custody one parent has with the children, less just child support they're going to pay. So Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:Maybe that's that. But I'm not sure. I mean, I could see courts being very much favoring men back in the day. I don't know if it was this bad where she's literally just being harassed in every way, shape, or form. The laws are not being followed. They're not really asking any questions relevant to custody or the child's well-being. But uh I think that it was definitely worse than it is now.
SPEAKER_15:Yeah, I'm pretty sure women were significant disadvantaged in family court based on the laws that existed at the time.
SPEAKER_02:Okay, next we're gonna do Big Little Lies. I love this show. I watched it. I have not seen it.
SPEAKER_00:You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God.
SPEAKER_07:I do.
SPEAKER_00:Be seated.
SPEAKER_07:Okay, you're up. I love Nicole Kidman in this show.
SPEAKER_13:Mary Louise. Celeste? Your attorney made me out to be quite the bad mother. He was just asking questions. You answered them. Is it your observation that I am a bad mother?
SPEAKER_07:As I as you heard me tell Judge Cipriani when we were in chambers, I consider you to be a wonderfully committed parent. That's not the impression. As to my observations, yes. I have observed you being violent with the boys. I witnessed you throwing Max to the ground and shaking him. I saw you drive off wearing nothing but your jummies under the influence of who knows what. You say ambient. And you crash the car, in fact. So you're not okay. That's my observation. Which we can all accept after all you have been through. But I cannot accept these children being placed in such imminent peril.
SPEAKER_13:Did you ever report to child services that you believe my children to be in danger?
SPEAKER_15:I'm gonna stop right there because her answer was really long and it wasn't helping the mother who's asking the questions. She just asked, you know, do you think I'm a bad mother? And the witness could have answered yes or no. But instead, she continued talking and a lot more evidence against the mother came in. If the mother had an attorney, the attorney would move to strike the remainder of her questions as non-res the remainder of her answer as being non-responsive. Because the call of the question was, do you think I'm a bad mother? And she went on and on describing different facts without going into details of when certain things happened, who observed them when, and the the timeline. So being self-represented here is not helpful.
SPEAKER_13:I probably should have. So the answer is no. Yeah, it's it's no. Did you ever report to any other agency that you believed my boys to be in imminent peril? No. You suggested that I got violent with my sons. Is it your testimony that I am routinely violent with them? No, not routinely. Is it your testimony that I am often violent with them? No. But who knows what I haven't seen. So now you're basing your opinions on what you haven't seen? I'm not a trained lawyer, so the semantics. Please, would you would you direct your responses to me? I'm asking the questions.
SPEAKER_15:She did a good job.
SPEAKER_14:She's asking short questions and making her point.
SPEAKER_13:No, the truth of it is you saw me lose my temper with my son once. Where I overreacted, I pushed him to the ground once. Well, you would know that better than anyone, wouldn't you, as a young mother? Did you ever lose your temper with your boys? Well, this isn't simply about temper or temperature. Did you ever lose your temper while you were driving an automobile and caused the car to crash? Would you like me to repeat the question?
SPEAKER_15:There could have been objections to relevance, because it's not about the witness and what she did.
SPEAKER_02:If I remember correctly, it's coming back. The dad died, and the grandma is trying to take away custody from the mom.
SPEAKER_15:Okay, then I would draw my objection.
SPEAKER_13:I heard the question. It was obscene. Your son Raymond died in part because you lost your temper. Isn't that true? Objection. This witness has testified that I put my sons in peril. It is relevant to this proceeding as to whether or not she has ever killed a child in her life. Mrs. Wright, please sit. Please.
SPEAKER_02:Grandma's about to have a heart attack.
SPEAKER_13:Why are you doing this? Why are you doing this? I am simply trying to protect my children. Now the idea of you driving with my children in the backseat of your car while you lose your temper, that is terrifying to me.
SPEAKER_05:This is indecent.
SPEAKER_13:Are you suggesting this cross-examination should be limited to decency, Mr. Farber? This is right. You don't get to go at him. Indecent or not. This case is about mothering.
SPEAKER_02:That's powerful.
SPEAKER_15:Yeah, that was good.
SPEAKER_02:I think she uh got a lot more leeway here because she's self-represented and she's an attorney. I think in a normal situation, if it was just the grandma testifying, you know, on behalf of her son who wants custody, her temper would not be relevant. And that line of questioning would not be allowed. But because she's trying to get custody and she's accusing the mom of losing the temper, her temperament is directly relevant to whether or not she would be a better mom.
SPEAKER_15:On the whole, it's best to have an attorney represent you because family court is extremely emotional. Judges like to get down to the facts. If you get too emotional, then you may be interrupting the court. You may be going through the subjects that the court doesn't care to hear about because you're in the mode, something may be going through your mind, and you want the judge to know this. You can lose the battle over custody over the appearances in court.
SPEAKER_02:I would say I think that in any situation, in any case, self-representation is always a bad idea. I always think about this because I think really good advocacy, really good lawyering is neutrally applying the facts to the law. And no matter how smart you are, no matter how well educated you are, no matter how well caught up on the laws you are, if you're close to something and emotional about it, whether it's a personal injury case or a family law case or an employment case, I see pro say employment litigants all the time, even people who are lawyers. But because you're so close to it, you cannot neutrally apply the facts to the law. Really, you have to be like extremely like able to compartmentalize, which most people cannot do. So I would say in every situation, even if you're an attorney, you should always hire representation.
SPEAKER_15:It's difficult when you're you've been waiting for a court hearing for so long and it's finally your chance to have your story heard at the tell on the other side, so that you can convince the court to rule in your favor. If you don't have an attorney, you're likely going to want to give a lot more information that may or may not be relevant than the court has time for that day, or that the court has questions about. And it can you can say extra things you should not that maybe you think it's helpful to you, but it really isn't, because you're processing it differently. Then the court has to look through the lens of the law and how it'll to apply the facts to your case. So it could actually be damaging to you rather unhelpful, and you may not know that. And speaking too much in court can be damaging, even when you're asked questions. Sometimes just best to say yes or no rather than to keep talking because you may be opening the door for the other side to inquire further and give the court the snapshot at what may look make you look really bad. It's kind of like making a movie. I always say that. Being in court is like making a movie, and this is your chance through 20, 40 minutes to show those snapshots, kind of like a commercial to make a convincing story. And if you spend that time on something that's not helpful to you or it goes the wrong way, well, then you don't use your time wisely to make your case.
SPEAKER_02:So here's how I prepare every single one of my clients for deposition or if they're giving testimony. Like, here's the secret: you have to listen to the question, then repeat it in your head, process it before responding. And if you can answer with a yes or no, you answer with a yes or no. Don't ever offer up more information than you have to. So that's always my because people want to like just blurb out everything that's on their minds. And I'm always like, no, listen to it, do not respond. Do not respond. Repeat it in your head, think about what you're gonna say, and then respond and make it as succinct as possible. So the next one is North Country. I feel pretty stupid that I haven't seen this as an employment attorney. I think I'm gonna go home tonight and watch it.
SPEAKER_05:Do you know the difference between consensual sex and rape? Oh, yeah. But when you're having a good time like she was. No rape, that's for damn sure. Are you a virgin? No, I ain't a virgin.
SPEAKER_14:Objection, Your Honor, relevance?
SPEAKER_05:She can ask about my client's sexual history, but I can't ask this witness. No, you can't. Sustained. Why didn't you help her, Bobby?
SPEAKER_14:Objection?
SPEAKER_05:When you saw Josie being attacked.
SPEAKER_14:Ms. Ames's testimony has not been corroborated by evidence.
SPEAKER_05:Neither has his, and my client would like to prove that he's lying. I'm allowing it. For now.
SPEAKER_15:They can't argue with each other like that in real court.
SPEAKER_05:When you saw Josie being attacked, why didn't you help her? You know, you can use all the lawyer mumbo jumbo you want. Still was no attack. I asked around about you, Bobby. Folks say you're kind of soft. Well, anyone that said that, ain't man not to say it to my face. Are you a red ice player then? How's that? I had a coach used to say, win or lose, leave your blood on the ice. Good coach. Yeah. You're what coach should call a yellow ice player.
SPEAKER_07:Now he's so right.
SPEAKER_05:You watched him put his filthy hands on her and you ran away.
SPEAKER_15:That's objection compound. He asks has several questions all in one. And you and Assumes facts, not an evidence, and a whole bunch of other stuff. But he says, filthy hands. So right away, you can't, you know, you say hands, but you can't say filthy, because then that would make it objectionable. Plus, the compound part of it is he asked you put filthy hands and you ran away. You have to break down those questions. You saw him put his hands on her, correct? Yes or no? And then he then ran away, correct? You saw that, right? You know, but not together is one question. That would be objectionable. Let's see that the attorney object.
SPEAKER_05:Wouldn't like that. Your Honor. What was it like then? He held her down, spread her legs, jammed himself up inside her white.
SPEAKER_15:This is Hollywood. Would never be allowed in real court.
SPEAKER_05:Not this one.
SPEAKER_15:I love him. That'll not be allowed. There being opposing counsel should have objected. It's irrelevant. 352 prejudicial.
SPEAKER_05:You're gonna keep lying about your friend, or you're gonna stand up and be a man. Objection. I'm not lying. You wanna run right now, don't you? Fuck you. Alright, that's enough. You wanna run, Bobby? I didn't run. That was a zerved. You're gonna put your guts on the ice this time. What's it gonna be? Yellow or red? Yellow or red? Yellow or red? What am I supposed to do?
SPEAKER_15:Jesus, that'll never happen in court. Ever. Yeah, no. No way.
SPEAKER_02:He was the judge would just be pissed off at him and the judge would probably hold him in contempt and just not allow the line of questioning to continue.
SPEAKER_15:Yeah, you can't yell at witnesses like that. Another would object. And I don't know if there was a jury in this movie watching this. Um, if there's a jury, this would never be allowed in front of a jury. Plus, if the court then would admonish the attorney to behave, that would actually prejudice his case if that's how he is treating witnesses in front of a jury. And uh he could even give uh special jury instruction that could be damaging to the plaintiff's case.
SPEAKER_02:And here's the problem with if there is a jury watching it and then it becomes uh it's objectionable and the judge just lets it go, then later they could appeal it and say, well, the judge let in all of this testimony that was super objectionable, irrelevant, like bad testimony question, bad questioning, and then the court of or the appeal could be upheld, and then you end up having to retry the entire case.
SPEAKER_15:For purposes of appeal, the reason why we have court reporters and the reason why it's important for attorneys to carefully listen to the questions being asked, and then state legal objection on the record, you say objection, followed by the rule of evidence that you're objecting under. So for example, objection prejudicial, objection assumes facts not at evidence, objection hearsay, objection argumentative. There are many different objections. As long if you just say objection without legal grounds and then you take an appeal, you're probably gonna lose the appeal because there was no legal objection, there was no ruling in your objection. So technically there was no legal error. But if you made a legal objection as an attorney and the judge overruled it, you can then appeal it. And if the court got it wrong, then you will have legal basis. In this case, the court has a duty to control its courtroom, and an attorney should object to protect the record. That's why it's important to not be self-represented if you have a lot of mistakes.
SPEAKER_05:Well, for starters, you stand up. Stand up and tell the truth.
SPEAKER_02:Objection non-responde.
SPEAKER_05:You stand up for your friends.
SPEAKER_15:This would not happen in real court. You're on. Not like this. This is total Hollywood drama. When you're all emotional and may give you goosebumps, and it seems like, oh, he's an amazing lawyer. Look, he made us point and he broke down the witness, and this is amazing in real life. Don't expect that. That's not gonna be allowed. I think most people understand that when they're watching a movie, it's dramatized, and it's probably not the way it is, but you won't really know whether it's real lawyering or not unless you've been to the courtroom. Because what we see on TV are small claims proceedings like Judge Judy and other court proceedings. That's not the way it works in real court. The judges don't just get to stand there or sit there and state opinions and yell at people, and you know, in mediation or arbitration, which is televised, different rules apply. It's private. And uh, as I understand, they get paid to appear on a show, win or to lose. So they sell their story in real courtroom. The judge is on a tight schedule, they have a whole calendar, meaning limited time with a lot of matters to hear within one day. Some may be long, some may be short, and they have to get everybody in that short time frame so they can move on to their next calendar in the morning or afternoon or next day. So you have limited time, you've got to be very precise in what you're arguing and be ready to go. You won't get to um just speak your mind about your opinion on the case without referencing evidence and pleadings that support the issue.
SPEAKER_02:I think it's very wrong that Hollywood like glamatizes this process because I think that a lot of times, at least clients will come to me and they think because they've been wrong, they deserve a huge payout because of something they saw on the TV or on the news, or you know, the one thing that always gets brought up is like, well, how come you think my case is only worth X when someone like put a little hot coffee on them and got millions of dollars? And it's like it doesn't really work that way. There are court rules in the employment law context specifically, it's always a difficult situation because everyone who's ever fired thinks it's wrongful and thinks it's unfair. And I have to explain to them that there's a big difference between something that's wrong and something that's illegal, and unless I can prove that it's illegal, there's no case there. And also they're not, you know, case isn't worth millions of dollars just because they were harassed one time or two times. It could be, but most likely it's not, right? And you know, if they didn't make a complaint or if there are no witnesses, we can't make a case out of it. And a lot of people will watch things like this and see that, like, you know, but you can tell the court anything. No, you can't. You can only tell the court like very specific, relevant evidence that you can prove, or what witnesses will testify to um, again, that you can prove. And so I think at least from the contingency world where people are not paying by the hour and think that their case is worth an unlimited amount, it is very difficult to often manage expectations of consumers when they watch things like this and think that, you know, all of this could happen in the courtroom. You can just attack a witness and get any testimony you want.
SPEAKER_15:Well, I think most people watching this watch it for entertainment. And unless you throw this drama in, it won't be as interesting and lawyering won't seem as exciting. Because what happens behind the scenes is reading a lot of paperwork, legal research, preparing before you go and argue, and there's no screaming and badger badgering witnesses in a real court, you know, majority of the time. So for young people, when they watch suits or any of those shows where the lawyers passionately argue, I think they may look at these attorneys think that's so cool, they stood up for this client and they won, and I want to be like that. I think it inspires wanting someone to want to be a lawyer, to be a fighter for others and an advocate. For grown-ups who potentially have a legal issue, whether they're suing someone for personal injury damages or employment law or sexual harassment, yes, it can lead to unreasonable expectations, but they normally ask their neighbors around. They, you know, talk to friends to see who got what. And generally, I think people understand they're not gonna get the same type of award that in movies. They normally say, Well, my neighbor got a million dollars from being rear-ended, you know, that's normally here. And they forget what injuries one person had relative to themselves and what sort of medical treatment, for example, they had. I think it's pretty cool that Hollywood glamorizes lawyering. Yes.
SPEAKER_02:Does everyone think that your job is super cool and you get to fight for everyone's rights all the time? I don't know. Calls for speculation.
SPEAKER_15:I don't know what everyone thinks.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, and the reality is we answer emails once a day and write briefs and demands and complaints and discussions.
SPEAKER_15:Talk to clients and talk them off the ledge and give them legal advice. Um what's a better strategic way to handle difficult situations? So much therapy.
SPEAKER_02:Do you ever feel like you're a therapist?
SPEAKER_15:Well, our title is counselor at law, right? This is true. So it's helpful to have a degree in psychology. Fortunately, I have a degree in psychology, so I'm able to process the psychological aspects of family law and what they need or hear back to give them feedback. But then you have to know when to stop and move on to the legal issues because ultimately I'm not a psychologist. Psychologists are less expensive than good litigators, and you have to transition to the legal issues that have been retained to help with. Yeah. Lawyering is fun, and I think all areas of law are really fun. Employment law is fun because you have a lot of juicy, interesting cases, and you're able to help uh people who've been wronged, and you only take serious cases, no BS, no fake, frivolous stuff. So I respect that. Family law is exciting because you never ever hear the same story twice in 20 years that I've been practicing. It's always a different set of facts, stories that you could not come up with yourself if you're writing a book. And it's an honor to share in people's journeys through their difficult time in life, their divorce proceeding, custody preceding, um, any financial disputes they have, and to be able to help them. It's truly an honor. But and what we do, I think makes a great difference in people's lives. But it also makes a difference if you have a lawyer or not. You know, nobody likes paying attorneys. I hate paying attorneys, but you know, even attorneys sometimes need attorneys, and it's good to have a good one.
SPEAKER_02:You get what you pay for too. I love being a lawyer. I'm the crazy person when people uh tell me they want to go to law school. They're like, everyone's talking me out of it. I'm like, you should go to law school. Being an attorney is amazing. I think everyone should be attorneys. I want my kids to be attorneys, all of them. I just I think it's a great job, but with that said, I think it's a job that takes all of you in a lot of ways. You're always on call, you're always working. I won't I wake up in the middle of the night thinking about my cases. And I like that. I like that I have so much purpose in what I do. Uh, but it's not for everyone. And like a lot of people can't handle it, and they can be transactional attorneys and clock out at 5 p.m. and go home. But I think that AI is probably gonna get rid of a lot of those soon.
SPEAKER_15:Yes. I talked to your cousin the other day because he's a transactional attorney. I'm like, I've used AI had addressed pretty good contracts. So litigators will continue to have their jobs and people who are strong in negotiations and bring to the table more than obviously AI or computer can. Here's your glam tip: don't model your courtroom style after legally blonde. I'm so sorry to tell you, but it is not always appropriate to show up to court in a pink suit as much as I would love to.
SPEAKER_02:And remember, Hollywood and TV are entertainment. Real life, you need a lawyer who knows the law, not just a good one-liner. So, which legal show do you think gets the most right or wrong? Drop your thoughts in the comments. We want to hear them.
SPEAKER_15:And if you've ever been through the bourse court yourself, you know the real drama isn't scripted.
SPEAKER_02:Follow us for more breakdowns where we bring the law back to reality.
