The Good Wife Season 4 Review “The Seven Day Rule” January 27, 2013 Reviews, The Good Wife This review of The Good Wife is going to be relatively short because I am a bit under the weather this week. I really hope it’s not the flu. At any rate, there was some pretty good movement on most of the major storylines and the pacing of this episode was much better than some of the past ones. A few thoughts about “The Seven Day Rule”: The case of the week was a young attorney named Deena who was engaged to the aptly named Neil Gross. Gross wanted Deena to sign a pre-nup (that his law firm drafted) and she was more than willing to sign because she didn’t believe that they would ever get divorced. Good thing for Deena, her father had serious reservations about the pre-nup so he sought the advice of Lockhart and Gardner. The problem with the pre-nup was that it was heavily weighted in Gross’s favor. Basically, if (or when) they got a divorce, Gross would keep everything he had and Deena would basically be left with nothing. David, Carey, and Alicia tried to make Deena see that signing the pre-nup as is was a bad idea. David made the very valid point that although Deena and Gross may never get divorced, she still needed to plan for the worst possible outcome. She needed to protect herself. She would hear none of it. Gross had her convinced that the pre-nup as written was just fine. She agreed to everything Gross wanted. David and Carey tried several different tactics, but ultimately they were able to get what they wanted for Deena because of Gross. Apparently, Gross had a child from a one night stand 4 or 5 years go and he was paying the child’s mother. He didn’t tell Deena about any of that, so when they confronted him with it he agreed to David and Carey’s revisions to the pre-nup. Will and Diane confronted Louis Canning in court about the firm’s debt. Will and Diane were seeking an extension on their deadline to pay off their debt. They argued that they had made great strides in the past five months of cutting down their $60 million dollar debt by half. They asked the judge to give them another 5 months based upon that forward progress. Then Canning showed up in all his sleazy glory. First, he came to the court using his handicap to obtain sympathy. Then, he attempted to manipulate Clarke into helping him get dirt on the firm. Finally, he offered Alicia a job at his firm. When Clarke testified that Louis tried to bribe him, the judge was (understandably) disgusted with Canning and granted Will and Diane an extension. I’m trying to understand Louis’ endgame here. The only upside I can see to him purchasing the firm is to take out some of his competition. But that doesn’t seem like a significant enough impetus to explain his behavior. He seems to be constantly flirting with the line of legally ethical practice. He lies. He cheats. And the absolutely most despicable thing he does is use his handicap to manipulate those around him. It makes him a horrible human being with very little few redeeming qualities. I’m a little confused by Alicia’s temper tantrum. Alicia was offered a partnership position in the firm and initially she was ecstatic. Then, David came along and took some of the wind out of her sails. He informed her that becoming an equity partner in the firm meant that she was going to have to make a capital contribution of $600,000 dollars. That would take the wind out of anyone’s sails. She was looking into borrowing against her mortgage, but when she told Peter about it, he was happy for her and told her he would front her all the money. She was good with it again until she found out (from Louis in court no less) that Will and Diane had offered partnerships to 4 other associates. She realized that they’d offered the partnerships so they could get the $600,000 capital contributions from all of them. So, Alicia proceeded to pout. I don’t understand her reaction. She has worked hard and she’s done a lot for the firm. The fact that they offered other people who possibly hadn’t been there as long as her or didn’t have as many hours billed as her doesn’t take away her achievement. Why did it matter the reasons she was offered partner? If that’s what she wanted and the firm was willing to put that kind of faith in her, then I don’t get the problem. Did she no longer want to be partner simply because she felt it wasn’t a “pure” offer? That’s just stupid and it made her seem kind of dense. This was a pretty solid hour and it was nice to see Nathan Lane and Michael J. Fox pop up again this week. So what did y’all think of this week’s The Good Wife? Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) WorkingWoman Alicia’s behaviour is not dense, but just a bit naive. It’s typical of many women in the workplace who feel they should only be rewarded for the quality of their work, and for no other reason at all. For many, the fact that there are other business reasons involved taints the offer, or somehow lessens the reward, just like winning the lottery and then finding out that you’re sharing the prize money with 4 other people. It’s disappointing. But as Diane so eloquently – and a bit harshly – tells Alicia at the end, she’s not being realistic. Whatever the reason for being given this opportunity, the fact is she’s been given it, and she should make the most of it. Jessica Breaux That’s exactly what I mean by she was being dense. That law firm is ultimately a business, and she should understand that there are other considerations besides her feelings/ego going into management decisions. That’s why I liked Diane’s words of wisdom to Alicia at the end. Yes, she may have been a bit harsh, but it was the truth. Alicia knows that she’s worked hard and she knows the contribution she’s made to the firm. That’s why she was offered the partnership. If she were a lousy attorney, Diane and Will wouldn’t have made the offer even if they need the money. Pete Chrismont Wow, I can’t believe someone who’d call herself “Working Woman” would be such a total beeotch to WORKING WOMEN. Not to mention your comment is stupid & totally off the mark. You call the partnership an OPPORTUNITY??? And say Alicia is the one being naive??? Uh..NO. You are. She was only offered the partnership so they could get a truckload of money out of her. That was clear given the partners’ offering the same thing to so many associates with very little time at the firm. With the firm on the brink of bankruptcy & owing $30 million – and if you had a brain in your head you’d know you have to pay outside debt before repaying staff – she puts herself at huge financial risk, she could lose more than half a million dollars at the same time she loses her job, if the firm goes under. And you give DIANE CREDIT??? for being REALISTIC??? Bull, she’s being manipulative and self-serving. I cannot believe you’re actually so dense yourselves that you think this is some reward being given to Alicia – Canning’s offer was more legitimate than Diane & Will’s. Yes, the law firm is “ultimately a business”, but if it has to stay afloat on the financial backs of its staff, it’s a cr#ppy business & one that should be dealt with as such – in other words, with great suspicion & fiscal prudence. But hey, WorkingWoman, I’m sure you’re more than happy to give a near-belly-up employer every dime you have & will have for the next 10 years -right?