Welcome to the ultimate exposé that will make you rethink your love affair with the iconic TV series “Suits.” Sure, the show had an impressive run of nine seasons and even saw a rebirth on Netflix, but is it really the legal drama masterpiece we all believe it to be? While Gabriel Macht’s Harvey Specter charmed us into thinking he could single-handedly keep the show’s charisma intact—even after the exits of pivotal characters like Mike Ross and Rachel Zane—there’s a plethora of overlooked issues that deserve a courtroom of their own.
From failing the Bechdel test to multiple narrative loopholes and a glamorized yet flawed depiction of the legal world, “Suits” is far from perfect. Don’t get us wrong; the show managed to capture hearts and command a loyal fanbase, sealing the deal with a series finale that could only be described as a fan-service fiesta. However, behind the sharp tailoring and witty one-liners, the series has its own set of legal issues.
20. Harvey and Mike’s Superhuman Expertise
In the real legal world, there’s no way Harvey and Mike could be experts on every area of law, like in Suits. Successful lawyers specialize in one field, but these dynamic duo somehow juggle transactional and litigation work across multiple practice areas.
Their convenient expertise lets them swoop in and save the day in any case. But real lawyers have to tap colleagues to fill skill gaps. Just imagine the hijinks if Harvey had to call in favors to build a legal dream team!
19. Mike’s Secret Defies Belief
Mike concealing his lack of legal credentials was a key Suits storyline. But let’s get real: this bombshell should have detonated Mike’s career by season 1’s end. Lawyers thoroughly investigate opponents for any weakness.
Are we supposed to believe nobody uncovered Mike’s lack of degree and work history? His career should have combusted quicker than a Samsung Galaxy Note 7. Kudos to the writers for squeezing 9 seasons out of this increasingly implausible secret.
18. Harvard Fetish Defies Legal Reality
Law firms favor Ivy League grads, absolutely. But Pearson Hardman’s “Harvard only” rule for associates is just absurd. Do Mike’s Photoshop skills also give Harvard the world’s only credible law program?
The policy shrinks their recruiting pool drastically. And how did the Yale-educated Jessica stomach waive in these less-qualified Harvard alums? Pearson Hardman must offer one heck of a 401k to get away with such foolishness.
17. Where’s the Tedium and Paper Cuts?
Movies and shows glamorize law, but Suits takes it over the top. Big firm life has perks, but its dark side deserves screen time, too! Where are the dreary offices overflowing with files?
The grueling hours researching cases and proofing documents? And how about those nasty paper cuts from handling 1,000-page exhibits? Give us a taste of the real legal grind! Even just a paper-cut montage would add some well-needed realism.
16. These Lawyers Must Take Youth Serums
It makes sense that junior lawyers Mike and Rachel look young in Suits. But name partners Jessica, Harvey, and Louis also defy age logic. Big law partners are greying closer to retirement, not gracing magazine covers in their early 40s.
Did Jessica discover the youth serums from The Curious Case of Benjamin Button? Do Louis and Harvey hit hourly infrared therapy beds between trial prep sessions? Because looking so fresh-faced in huge roles raises some serious questions.
15. Harvey’s Reckless Gamble on Mike
Harvey’s arrogance makes him feel above silly rules, sure. But staking his career on unqualified Mike is another level of risk! Did he really trust a total stranger over his own livelihood?
What if Mike was an undercover journalist or squealed under pressure? Even a legal prodigy wouldn’t warrant jeopardizing Harvey’s future. This partnership was made in TV fantasyland. Because, in reality, no lawyer pops champagne over finding an imposter friend whose mistakes can ruin them both.
14. Suits’ Snappy Pace Belies Legal Reality
Suits races along at a thrilling clip for TV. But in the real legal world, complex cases crawl rather than sprint. Life’s not an endless string of clutch 11th-hour wins. It’s paperwork and research grinding slowly through the motions.
Suits simplify the bureaucracy, messiness, and sluggish speed that defines big litigation. Its rapid-fire excitement fuels great entertainment but makes for unrealistic attorney training! After this adrenaline rush, real-world law seems destined to bore Harvey and Mike into early retirement.
13. Mike’s LSAT Scam Suspends Disbelief
Mike’s pre-lawyer scam of taking LSATs for others is clever enough. But practically speaking, it makes little sense. Test-takers can’t disguise themselves with hats per strict rules. And papers get handed to officials, not dropped sneakily into bags.
Mike’s lackadaisical deceit succeeding once is improbable, let alone repeatedly! Suits ask us to suspend disbelief and imagine officials are blind to such slack flimflammery. At Pearson Hardman, Mike has ample legitimate chances to fast-talk his way out of jams. So why lean on this far-fetched scam backstory?
12. Mike’s Forgiveness Defies Legal Reality
Given Mike’s long-running fraud, his punishment fits the crime. But his rapid redemption doesn’t track. With his record, Mike couldn’t work in law again, much less rejoin his old firm so soon! And his closed cases should get retried, causing total chaos.
Suits sweep away the messy fallout a legal imposter would cause in the real world. Mike earns a clean slate through charm, not legal protocol. For a law show, Suits sure takes artistic license when holding Mike accountable to the justice system it depicts.
11. Peacocking Lawyers Make Dubious Drama
Law firm betrayal and politics absolutely drive the real-world drama. But Suits oversells the backstabbing and peacocking. At a fierce rate, characters switch sides and seize power, and Pearson Hardman should really crash and burn.
Constant leadership coups and rebranding cause more chaos than prestige in the long run. Suits make its lawyer’s soap opera stars jockeying for attention and title rather than cool-headed professionals. To sustain such outsized drama, these lawyers must put theatrics above providing sound counsel.
10. Mike’s Lack of a Law Degree Prolongs the Crime
Had Mike enrolled in law school while working, Harvey’s crime would have become an ethics breach, not a felony. Sure, it’s still improper by Pearson’s policy. But it’s better-unlicensed practice than unlicensed fraud! Mike’s studying law shows drive to properly qualify.
It keeps the courtroom temporarily off-limits, buying time until Mike passes the bar. This path doesn’t dodge consequences, but it steers clear of the jail time Mike’s long-term laziness earned him on Suits.
9. Radioactive Law Firm Miraculously Recruits Talent
Pearson Specter Litt should be nuclear after the Mike debacle. What aspiring lawyer wants that taint? The firm hemorrhaging staff is realistic. But are we really meant to buy that no applicants would sell their soul for a shot, scandal be damned?
In cutthroat law, many ignore questionable ethics for a high-profile job. Perhaps not Harvard’s cream of the crop, but hungry talent. Suits stretch credulity, pretending this radioactive firm can’t land a single recruit. Let’s just say Pearson’s HR director earned their salary post-scandal!
8. Hardman’s Stupendous Affidavit Blunder
Hardman’s no fool…until Suits needs him to be. His falling for Mike’s fake affidavit is like Sherlock Holmes missing an obvious clue. This slippery lawyer built his career on scrutinizing documents. We’re expected to buy he didn’t inspect something so damaging closely?
In this pivotal TV moment, logic falls to plot necessity. Because for the story to progress, even savvy Hardman must suffer a temporary TV ‘brain drain.’ That lapse would be an embarrassing pink slip-worthy blunder for such a calculating tactician in the real legal world.
7. Mike’s Password – His Fatal Flaw
For computer passwords, legal prodigy Mike picks his name and birthday. That’s egregiously basic from someone boasting genius intellect and recall. Mike should devise an uncrackable code only he could remember.
This clumsy password instead exposes Mike’s naivety about securing data. He lacks the experience and judgment expected from a big firm lawyer. Suits use Mike’s weak password as shorthand for his fish-out-of-water status. But for suspension of disbelief, let’s pretend genius Mike got hacked and learned his lesson before the FBI accessed his computer.
6. Mighty Researchers…Powerless Against Books!
When Suits need to depict arduous legal research, they use stacks of books. Visually, it signals boring work to viewers effectively. But today’s lawyers rely on searchable online databases, not dusty pages. Still, the show leans on an outdated trope because, visually, books still equal studious legal minds at work.
Never mind that Mike and Rachel likely hadn’t touched an actual law textbook in years! For authenticity, their long nights should be spent with eyes glued to computer screens in dark offices, not theatrically flipping pages under lamplight until they find a smoking gun precedent.
5. Suits Sentences Leonard to TV Death Row
Leonard Bailey faced a lethal Suits plot twist: the death penalty. But this drama defied real New York law – the state banned capital punishment years before Leonard’s trial. His fictional death sentence heightens the stakes for the lawyers nobly fighting for his exoneration.
In reality, Leonard should be serving life, not lethally injected. Suits prioritized plot intrigue over legal accuracy. Exonerating a death row inmate makes for juicier television than commuting his existing sentence to life imprisonment. But this slip sacrifices authenticity for entertainment.
4. The Napkin Contract’s Sloppy Legal Loophole
That napkin contract ensnaring Hoyt’s company makes for high-stakes TV drama. And the writers get props for including contract law tenets. But any competent lawyer could’ve voided Hoyt’s napkin contract while citing his intoxication.
Pearson Hardman’s legal eagles surely know tipsy tycoons scribbling company collateral on napkins rarely holds up in court. Drunk minds make legally unsound decisions. Suits should’ve saved Hoyt easily…if accuracy was the goal. But for entertainment, even Harvey overlooks this obvious loophole.
3. HR Must’ve Been Napping During Mike’s Hiring
Here’s another Mike Ross plot gap. How did he sneak past Pearson’s HR team and background checks? No Harvard degree should warrant big alarm bells before Mike even meets Harvey. This slick hiring conveniently ignores the scrutiny landing a big law gig normally involves.
Perhaps the payroll department was busy? Or does Pearson automate hiring with minimal oversight? Either way, Mike’s hiring requires blissful ignorance from the gatekeepers. Harvey’s rule-flaunting makes no sense if HR red flags Mike’s lack of credentials immediately.
2. Donna’s Out-Of-Character Evidence Annihilation
Super-savvy Donna destroying evidence for Harvey seems careless for someone so principled. When emotions run high, logic often loses, sure. But for their bond, Donna should know Harvey wants no rule-flouting favors.
Approaching him first would’ve led to an above-board solution. Her act violates Harvey’s integrity and makes his job harder. It’s uncharacteristically short-sighted. But the plot required drama, so consistent characterization takes a backseat. In the real legal world, this rash error would carry lasting fallout. But on Suits, even principled pros make reckless judgment lapses when the writers need them to up the ante.
1. Suits Sidelines Strong Women to Spotlight Suitors
Does Suits pass the Bechdel test measuring female character depth beyond romantic roles? Not quite. Despite its formidable women, relationships often eclipse more substantial storylines. Jessica manages a law firm, but fights revolve around Hardman. Rachel’s a law student, but drama surrounds Mike.
Even superstar legal secretary Donna rests on Harvey’s plot necessity. There’s an effort to improve, but Suits defaults to using capable women to support male leads rather than letting them consistently stand on their own. Here’s hoping its proposed spin-off can let these women truly shine without suitors steering their stories.
The 7 Things That Happen on Every Suits Episode
1. Suits’ Tired Trope: Belated Confession Time
Suits leans hard on characters keeping secrets until a big dramatic reveal. But real drama stems from the telling, not the kept secret itself! The rote formula of delayed confession followed by “Why didn’t you tell me sooner?” dulls the intrigue over time.
How about someone confess preemptively for once? Or mutual secret-telling bringing couples closer? Suits could rip from headlines and have the big reveal go public via leaked email. There are plenty of fresher ways to handle revelations besides the same coy concealment and belated confession song and dance.
2. The Constant Cruelty Aimed at Louis
Yes, Louis is the office eccentric. But does he deserve such an avalanche of cruelty and harassment? The constant ridicule crosses from understandable social avoidance into outright bullying. After a certain point, it’s just mean-spirited piling on the office pariah. Give Louis a break! With allies so scant, it’s a wonder he doesn’t bring a weapon to work.
Louis may never win Mr. Congeniality, but he doesn’t deserve to be the unprotected outlet for everyone’s pent-up aggression, either. Let’s dial it down several notches before Louis snaps. Even weirdos merit basic professional kindness.
3. Suits Fall into Sorkinese at Times
Suits’ rapid-fire banter occasionally ventures into West Wing-esque Sorkinese. Witness this exchange:
Donna: So, what did you say in the message?
Rachel: I said that I couldn’t stop thinking about our kiss.
Donna: You kissed him?
Rachel: Yes.
Donna: Where?
Rachel: On the mouth.
Donna: Where did it happen?
Rachel: In the library.
Donna: The Pearson Hardman library?
Rachel: No, the Library of Congress.
And here’s a scene from Sorkin’s The American President:
Beth: You kissed him?
Sydney: Yeah.
Beth: You didn’t tell me that.
Sydney: I kissed him.
Beth: Where?
Sydney: On the mouth.
Beth: Where in the White House?!
Sydney: In the dish room.
Beth: The dish room?
Sydney: The China Room.
Now, identical it’s not. But the influence is evident, down to Donna’s role paralleling devoted assistants like West Wing’s Donna. Suits succeeds on its own terms, but occasionally, those terms feel derivative of that Sorkin style.
4. Donna Deserves More Than Flirtatious Smirking
Donna has skills far beyond flirting and bouncing one-liners. Too often, she’s relegated to sassy quips while the big boys handle the real legal work. Her loyalty to Harvey seems less valorous and more pathetic when her competence takes a backseat.
Donna’s smarter and more capable than smirking asides suggest! As the true brains behind so many wins, Donna merits storylines befitting her value. The writers scratch the surface of who Donna is outside work and Harvey. But there’s still untapped potential for this multidimensional woman beyond accessory to the leading men.
5. In Suits, Sleeveless Outfits Defy Office Thermostats
Sure, Suits isn’t aiming for documentary realism with its fashion. But its female lawyers sport many a sleeveless shell and tank dress. Visually, it conveys power dressing. But in offices requiring suits for men, temperatures cater to jackets. Baring arms suggest it’s a balmy 72 degrees.
Are these women’s space heaters impervious to chilly air conditioning? Could solving global warming be as simple as setting offices to “Donna” temperature standards? Suits embraces fantasy in portraying office environments tailored to stylish sleeveless outfits. But we’d love more empowered women’s workwear for the real-world office!
6. Suits Only Allots One Swear Per Episode
Someone gets one “s**t” per Suits episode. Such rationing might squeeze every curse for impact. But restraint risks characters sounding less natural. The writers presumably aim for authentic dialogue’s rhythm and flow. So why limit organic swearing that conveys genuine frustration or anger? Network TV censors may necessitate this quota.
But cable shows demonstrate cursing in moderation enhances realism. Perhaps Suits could lobby for two s**ts per episode? It’s a small change that could organically amp up dramatic moments between colleagues without artificial limits on expression.
7. Passing the Bechdel Test Remains Elusive
Does any Suits episode pass the Bechdel Test for female character depth? The signs point to no. Despite its formidable women, relationships rule. Jessica leads a firm but fights with Hardman. Rachel’s a law student, but her growth connects to Mike. Donna’s Harvey’s rock. While office politics necessarily intertwine, capable women like these deserve development unrelated to the men.
Suits linger in a dead zone where its ladies discuss work but only in service of their male colleagues’ arcs. There’s untapped potential for feminine insight into the law itself, not just the lawyers. Here’s hoping future episodes can organically pass that Bechdel test by truly spotlighting substantive women.