1. Summary of Case from The Good Wife television show (episode: Alienation of Affection and Fraud)

a. Include: Plaintiff and defendant Facts and outcome of the case Present evidence crucial to proceeding

In the Good Wife television show’s episode called “Alienation of

Affection” the plaintiff is Mr. Huntly and the defendant is the law firm where

the main character of the show, Alisha, works at. There were multiple

defendants in a complicated case. There were four lawyers involved: Alisha,

Will, Diane, and David Lee. They were each given summons papers stating

complaints against their actions during one of their previous divorce cases.

Additional complaints stemmed from the equity partners who shared equally

responsibility for profit and losses.

Mr. Huntly filed a claim against the law firm and sued them for

‘Alienation of Affection’ because the couple had reconciled after the divorce

and wanted their assets returned. Mr. Huntly’s first claim was based on an

old state law in New York, ‘Alienation of Affection’ which is one of seven

states who still has this law on the books.

Mrs. Huntly had hired the law firm for the divorce case. Mr. Huntly’s

complaint is an intentional tort against the law firm. More specifically,

fraudulent misrepresentation tort, claiming the defendant caused the

plaintiff to be an injured party and suffered damages because of the

defendant’s actions of reckless disregard for the truth and misrepresented

material facts and conditions. (Business Law. McGraw-Hill Create p. 69). Mr.

Huntly claims the stripper photos used in the divorce case against him was a

setup from the divorce lawyer, David Lee. Therefore, the divorce would have

not happened and he would still own his original assets prior to the divorce if

the law firm had not fraudulent misrepresented their actions.

Specifically, his old company called “Bubble Elastic” was now worth

$44 million dollars. The plaintiff claims the law firm caused their divorce in

order to earn profits from the liquidation of the couple’s assets. The law firm

had a contract that earned 5% profit from sale of this asset after the divorce

was final. The law firm was acting on behalf of Mrs. Huntly in order to

liquidate the assets and split the assets 50/50 in the divorce.

The lawyers met and interviewed all parties involved in a deposition.

Mrs. Huntly stated that she tried to reconcile with Mr. Huntly twice during the

divorce proceedings. The reason the lawyer’s assistant sent the stripper to

meet with Mr. Huntly was to have him drink only, not for sex, which Mr.

Huntly acted on his own accord to do. He drove home that night and was set

up for an arrest for a DUI so that Mrs. Huntly could win full custody of their

daughter. Mrs. Huntly was unaware of this and how David Lee’s assistant

hired a photographer to take pictures of Mr. Huntly kissing a stripper as well.

Mrs. Huntly decided it was only a kiss and was now fully reconciled with her

ex-husband and saw the photos as a simple kiss and nothing more. Since it

was not David Lee who set up the meet with Mr. Huntly and the stripper

personally, he did not consider it as a purger against himself during the

deposition.

When the plaintiff could not use the photos of Mr. Huntly kissing a

stripper against the defendant, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Preston, used

another tactic. He went after Alisha for fraud. Mr. Preston claimed she used

her personal divorce experience to talk Mrs. Huntly into going through with

the divorce the second time she tried to reconcile her marriage. Alisha stated

she was only there to comfort her.

The deposition comes to a break so they can discuss their next

strategy. Will points out that Mrs. Huntly signed a conflict of interest waiver;

therefore, there is not a fraud case. Except, the show needs just a little extra

drama by adding the conflict of Alisha not filing the paperwork correctly, or

perhaps it was lost, because it was her first year working at the firm and

made a mistake. However, this claim did not hold either because David Lee

and Will magically found the paperwork when they looked through an old

employees files during that case.

Naturally, Mr. Preston did not believe the missing rider from the waiver

could show up from nowhere at the exact moment it was needed. Mr.

Preston called in the old employee, Carey, into the deposition for questioning

about the recently discovered rider. He wanted to prove the rider was a

forgery. Carey backed up Alisha, and stated that they shared an assistant

and that the files could have possibly been filed incorrectly. That the

defendants where an ethical employer and there was nothing in it for him to

make this statement. After Carey’s testimony did not go well for the plaintiff,

Mr. Preston said they were going to test the ink to see if it was recent or

older.

Diane receives a tip about the plaintiff in this case towards the end of

the show that Mr. Huntly was cheating again. The defendants provided

photographs that proved he was cheating again. The entire case was

dropped because the ex-wife, Mrs. Huntly, decided she wanted to end the

relationship again. The case against the lawyers was automatically dropped.

The complaints from the equity partners were also settled and the show

ends.

2. Assume the role of a legal critic reviewing the show. Focus on the legal issues in the show and present your factually supported opinion about:a. the plaintiff and defendant;b. and how the case should have been decided versus how it was actually decided in the episode.

Opinion article:

I love television drama. It leaves me hanging on the edge for the next

episode almost every time. I enjoy the TV show on CBS called “The Good

Wife”. In a recent episode called ‘Alienation of Affection’, the plaintiff was a

man who wanted his cake and eats it too. The fact that one of his companies

was sold during his divorce was now worth 44 million dollars made him feel

emotionally upset that he lost out on this money. All of their assets were sold

in the divorce in order to split assets in half to distribute as liquid assets. His

ex-wife, Mrs. Huntly, was a naive woman who reconciled with her ex-

husband and supported him in the case against the law firm. Mr. Huntly’s

lawyer, Mr. Preston, was eager to gain his commission from the law suite and

did not fully investigate the case before proceeding. He did not ask the right

questions to reach the truth.

The defendants, Alisha, Will, David Lee, and Diane, are all smart

lawyers who may or may not bend the truth. Without evidence it is difficult

prove, in order to defend their position to protect themselves. That is the job

of a lawyer to protect their firm under the law as it can be proven as fact and

evidence.

The case should have been decided differently if the right question was

asked. Instead of asking if David Lee hired the stripper to meet Mr. Huntly,

his lawyer needed to ask a broader question. A better question would have

been to ask if anyone who works for their law firm hired a stripper to

interfere with the case to steer it their way. The lawyer’s assistant would

have been questioned and had to confess the truth in order to avoid

purgering herself. In real life, the case would have been settled. The law firm

would have taken a hit with all of the equity partners and lawyers and

lawyer’s assistants should be in jail for interference tort.

In the episode, the conflict of interest waiver that Mrs. Huntly signed

was enough for them to win the case because even if the ink was new,

Alisha’s best memory is what the law is based on, which was that she did

have the rider. They chose to expose the husband of his cheating another

time because it was the concrete way of settling the case in their favor. The

feelings and relationship of their marriage by keeping the cheating a secret

was not even considered. Like I said, a man who wants his cake and eats it

too, always bites off too much and loses the entire cake.

Thank you for listening. This has been a JessicaNorthey.com

production.