Suits Episode 2- Part 1

Suits Season 1 Episode 2 (1x2) - "Errors and Omissions"

Violations of 1.1, 1.3, 5.3b, 5.5, 8.4(a), possibly 8.4(b).
At the beginning of the episode, Harvey wants Mike to go back to the office to file a patent. Mike says, "but I don't know how to file a patent." Harvey replies, "figure it out." Mike is demonstrating that he is not competent - he is violating MR 1.1, which states that competent representation (which lawyers are required to have) "requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." Here, Mike has demonstrated that he does not have the legal skill and preparation reasonably necessary to help this client when he cannot fill out the client's patent. Even though Mike is not a lawyer, the rules treat him like one when he is being supervised by an attorney (which here is Harvey Specter). Therefore, Harvey is violating rule 5.3b because Mike Ross is violating 1.1. Because Mike Ross is not competent to fill out a patent on his own and Harvey knows this, Harvey is not taking reasonable efforts to ensure that Mike is conforming with the Rules of Professional Conduct. In fact, when the patent is later denied, Harvey tells Mike that Harvey is responsible for him saying he told the client that it was his fault that the patent was not filed on time. Additionally, by asking Mike to fill out a patent he is assisting him in the unauthorized practice of law, which is a violation of MR 5.5 and MR 8.4(a). If helping Mike in his unauthorized practice of law is a criminal action, then Harvey is also violating MR 8.4(b) which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other aspects." Finally, because the patent was not filled out in time, and the delay caused the client to lose the patent, it could be argued that Harvey is in violation of MR 1.3, which states, "a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."

Violation of Model Canon of Judicial Conduct 1 and 2.
For a refreshing change, we depart from all of Harvey Specter's ethical violations and move to Judge Pearl, pictured above, in episode 2. Judge Pearl denies Harvey's motion because he believes Harvey slept with his wife. Listed below are two of the four Judicial Canons all Judges must abide by:

Canon 1: A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Here, by denying Harvey's motion and embarrassing him in open court, Judge Pearl has not upheld the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and is violating Judicial Canon 1.

Canon 2: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently. Here, Judge Pearl's duties included ruling on a patent motion. He ruled based on his feelings toward Harvey Specter, not based on the law, and so he is violating Judicial Canon 2.

Violation of Model Canon of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, and 3
Here, the judge is at it again. After Harvey returns to speak with Judge Pearl, Judge Pearl offers him a deal: if he will sign a paper saying that he slept with the judge's wife, the judge will grant his injunction.  Here, Judge Pearl again is violating Judicial Canons 1 and 2, and here he is even violating Judicial Canon 3, which states, "a judge shall conduct the judge's personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office." Here, he is using his potential ruling on the injunction to get a favorable ruling in his personal divorce action with his wife. This is in direct violation with three of the four judicial canons.

Normally there would also be a violation of 8.3(b) for Harvey here, because once Harvey knew of the illicit deal, he had a duty under 8.3(b) to report Judge Pearl. Surprisingly, Harvey Specter follows the rules and has the judge investigated at the end of the episode.

Violation of 8.4(b)
Louis Litt, another partner at Pearson Hardman, strong arms Mike into smoking pot with a potential client. Because marijuana possession and use is still illegal in New York, Louis is not only conspiring with Mike to break the law, but is actually coercing him to do it. While smoking marijuana in this day and age will probably not be considered a criminal act reflecting adversely on Mike's fitness as a lawyer (under MR 8.4), coercing Mike to do so will be, and so Louis will be violating 8.4(b), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."