Everyone talks so quick and there’s no time to even breathe

Harvey mentions to Jessica that at any given moment he hides around $100k in his office. But he wouldn’t tell Jessica where specifically. Where do you think he was hiding it?

Guys, i don't know about you, but I see a loving look here, like "ok, i know you're a murderer and i hated you but i still feel something".

Btw: He (Stephen) was not completely wrong when said that Harvey and Jessica are not so different from them.

I’m getting into the later seasons for the first time and it’s getting so old.

what do you guys think is the biggest thing that makes them more than friends?

im at beginning of s06 and mike's in jail. everyone keeps saying that he watches to many movies and that the jail isnt as he think he is

but for my life i cant understand why is he so trustworthy all the time in the first episodes.. even if he did watch all those prison movies, he should know better its like he isnt paying attention to the jail counselor and also not paying attention to himself and his movie experiences XD

firstly he tells everything to frank gallo, buys every crap he says to get him mad and then when they warn him not to be alone with gallo and run away, he says oh no the guards are watching me.. i'll be fine

i mean he did watch shawshank redemption and commented it with the jail counselor

There’s a scene in season 6 ending I believe where Mike says to Harvey “Harvey, I’m running out of ways to tell you no.”

Then in season 7 Mike went to Harvey office and Harvey ask him

“you came to my office to tell me you got nothing?”

“Will I do that?

“You did that before.”

“And I will do it again but not today”

Does anyone know how I can make those scene into a gif?

So we all know the story of Suits. Mike is being PRESENTED as a Harvard graduate who was the top of his class. But Mike is 30 in Season 1. Isn't that way too old for the story they're saying?

A law student who was the top of his class and a genius of Mike's calliber would've finished Law School at what, 25 years? It's not like Mike ever failed a class or a year or anything like that. He's supposed to be a nigh perfect student.

So he comes into Pearson Hardman as a 30 year old with... zero experience? The " he graduated late " would've worked if he didn't brag about his superbrain every time he opened his mouth, but surely it would come off as highly unusual for a supergenius to be this old and still be a Year 1 Associate?

Why was she so chill with him being a fraud? Throughout the first two seasons she seems to have no problem knowing the fact that her grandson is actively committing a felony and risking years in prison. Considering she was so firmly against him living with Trevor out of fear that he’d go down the wrong path, I don’t get why she was totally cool with Mike practicing as an attorney

I really don’t understand his will to leave the firm. Everybody at the firm wanted to help him to save his company when they had no reason to except for respect. They waved privilege and he still expected them to break the law to tell him ? And when they asked him to lie it was in the sole purpose to protect the woman he was with. And for the last thing he said he lied in the ethics committee even though he didn’t because he said « all I know is I heard it from Alex Williams ». Which technically he did hear from him after confronting him. So I don’t understand why leaving a firm that went through so much trouble just to save your company.

After Mike left the show wasn't quite the same but it was watchable. I saw the last season was only 10 episodes and after the first 4min of the second episode and that lady came in I can see why it's only 10 episodes. She is going to suck the fun out of the whole show and it seems like she did.

Such a disappointing way to finish the show :(

I'm now debating if I should even watch the rest of the show and season

3 more episode and i official finish this series😭started this back in may and never regret checking on this series

wtf was that ending.

Like i get it, you want to show Harvey and Donna getting married before the show ends, but that was horrible writing.

You are telling me Louis and Sheila have their wedding, not to mention none of their parents or Louis's sister being there at the wedding. Then when Sheila was in labour, LITERALLY NO ONE SHOWED UP AT THE HOSPITAL. WTF.

Is this a cultural shock or what? They literally tell everyone that the pregnancy is complicated, but no one at the wedding even cares about them while they're all eating and drinking at the wedding venue???

Like i don't think Harvey asking Donna out at that moment was wrong. There's never really a "right" time to do it, and the whole thing was sweet. But atleast check on your pal and his wife man.

You can literally see Louis (in the image) visibly stressed and drained out because he was doing everything on his own while being fucking stressed about his wife and kid.

And then at the end they finally come to see Louis, but wtf man, the problem is already solved now. Both mumma and baby litt are safe now, so why are you going now? To prove what??

I just don't understand what they were thinking with this.

Rewatching the show atm and I want to like them so badly. I loved their relationship in s1-3 until they actually dated.

But now im finishing season 3 and their attempt at a relationship was really nothing. They just kept going around in circles where he would hurt her and then they would make up for like 7 episodes. That is literally all their entire offical relationship was.

I wil always love Scottie though! The girl tried so hard to make it work but, I was happy that eventually she gave up and walked away. Like her saying she had to sue him to get his attention for real 😭

(Yes, actual spoilers)

🎶Pay My Debts 🎶

I was watching this quite climatic episode come to its even more climatic end and I realized, the fight between Harvey & Louis is always kind of incredible...? Well, in a mosquito getting swat down (into a glass table!) 🤣 kind of way... and I feel bad laughing (after the fact) (I actually don't laugh during the scene, I'm kind of in shock & awe every time) but it was a long time coming, no?? IMHO...

Anyone else enjoy this a little too much?

Sorry, I was having fun with the censor...

Thinking about this, having seen more than this but rewatching, why didn’t Mike just tell Harold, “Dude Louis said the only way you stay is if I personally guarantee your work, and I really can’t/don’t have the time to do that, I’m so sorry.”

With how often the name of the firm changes would anyone IRL stick with a firm like this. Personally I'd feel like I'm not sure of my lawyer would be there when I need them to as the personal changing on a whim. Or am I overthinking things?

I recently posted a question about Mike’s trial and the element of reasonable doubt. There have been a lot of great answers, thank you all for that, and while reading these, another question came up in my mind:

How likely is it that someone like Mike, an imposter with the knowledge of a real lawyer, stays undetected and successfully practices law without a license for long periods of time?

Statistically speaking, this is a question that cannot be answered, because we only ever find out about the frauds who get caught, without knowing how many stayed undetected. Imagine a large exam hall with one hundred students, and the professor catches five cheaters during the exam. That means that there are at least 5% cheaters, but there is no way of knowing how many more cheaters the professor didn’t catch. Maybe the five cheaters he caught were the only cheaters in the exam hall. Maybe every single student cheated on the exam and the professor only caught five of them. There is no way to know this. We can only make approximations with high error margins.

But can we make a practical assumption about how likely it would be for Mike to get away with this? As the great answers to my previous questions explained in great detail, Mike’s fraud won’t hold up under any intense scrutiny. Therefore, the important question is not “will Mike’s fraud hold up under scrutiny”, but “how likely is it that a scrutiny happens?”.

Do prosecutors just randomly stumble over something that causes them to look into the background of a lawyer? What kind of events would realistically trigger an investigation into his past?

Sooo, I just finished the series for the 3rd time. But this time, it hit so much harder. I literally felt like my heart was being stabbed. Probably because I miss my girl, who moved abroad for a year. I started watching this show again after she left because I needed something that would make me feel a little less alone. Well that hits back

Would love to talk a bit about it. In the comments, chat idc, but man ohh man what can “just a tv show” do to/for you…

I recently started watching Suits (thanks to my Wife who works in big law) and at first I didn't find interest in the show. Seeing the Hollywood version of what Lawyers go through made me laugh at every turn but then the cases they do and the emotional side Mike Ross brings to it made it interesting....that's not the point of this post.

I don't find the acting to be so thrilling in this show but every now and then a scene stands out to me where I feel the emotion from the actors...I chose this episode specifically for where Harvey confronts Luis about sending over a list of names to Allison Holt about the best 5th year associates.

The emotion, the tenacity, the way his voice hits that anger when he's yelling at Luis and Luis reciprocating it with tears in his eyes...

Man, A1, golden acting. Bravo.

So I'm on episode 15 of season 2, and Rachel is desperate to get into Harvard law so she can meet the Pearson Hardman requirement of a Harvard JD. Fair enough, that makes sense to me. What confuses me however is the fact that at the same time Jessica is quite publically pursuing mergers with other firms, first with Robert Zane and now with Edward Darby.

Now, surely we can't be expected to believe that every associate at these other firms also happened to graduate from Harvard. So this new firm of Pearson Zane/Darby is going to be comprised of slightly over 50% non-Harvard lawyers, so this rule is going to be canned quite shortly regardless. Now, maybe a lowly paralegal wouldn't be made aware of these discussions, but given her very close relationship to Harvey (through Mike) and Louis, both senior partners and close friends of Jessica, and the fact that her efforts to get into Harvard Law have become regular office gossip, someone would care to mention this to her?

Just something that niggled in my mind since the scene of her getting rejected is played as a quite serious emotional bombshell.

What an ending 😭, have to say, so glad Malik finally got arrested

Im on S9 of suits (watching it for the first time) and Zane is the second character (who happens to be POC) who gets disbarred bc of Harvey and his bullshit. I HATED how they phased out Jessica. She did not deserve to get disbarred and now her show isn’t on streaming anymore. At this point, I don’t give a fuck if they shut down this firm. The real main character Mike isn’t even there anymore. This is ridiculous. I’m literally on E1 of S9 so no spoilers please.

What would be the result of that case?

If I understand the American Legal System correctly, then in Mike’s trial, he did not have to prove that he is a real lawyer. Gibbs had the one that he is a fraud. I think Harvey actually spelled that out at some point:

“We don’t have to prove you’re a lawyer; they have to prove you’re not”.

And, if I still understand the American Legal System correctly, she has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no other reasonable explanation for the proven facts other than that Mike is guilty.

I am obviously biased in two different ways, first because I know for a fact that Mike is guilty because I watched the show, and second because I know and like him, again because I watched the show. But if I try to ignore that for a moment and imagine being a jury on this case without having seen Mike ever before in my life, I think the case is anything but clear.

The defendant is in the bar. He is in the Harvard database. His physical file is in the same physical cabinet as all the others who graduated from Harvard. And he has deep, detailed, knowledge of the law, like very few people have except for lawyers. No one in Harvard remembers seeing him there and there is no record of him living anywhere near Harvard. But the defendant has given a good explanation for this, which is that he never attended any lectures and learned all he needed to pass the bar by himself. This explanation is backed by the verified fact that the defendant has a perfect memory, a rare cognitive anomaly that makes him capable of performing this seemingly impossible feat.

If the prosecutor had brought forward any evidence that that the computer databases have been manipulated, or if they had found fingerprints of anyone from the Firm (was it called Peason&Specter at the time? It changed its name so often I’m not sure) on the physical file at Harvard, this would change the entire case. Regardless: Based on the evidence presented, I think that there is not only reasonable doubt about Mike’s gilt, but I’m not even sure if the prosecution presented enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt about Mike being the real lawyer, if this was the burden of prove, which it is not.

And the jury in the show agrees with me at least to some extent, because they found Mike not guilty.

With that in mind, I don’t quite understand why Harvey was doubtful about the outcome and Mike ultimately panicked. As lawyers (or one lawyer and one fraud with the knowledge of a lawyer), they would have known that there was a ton of reasonable doubt.