"Law & Order" Right to Counsel (TV Episode 1993) Poster

(TV Series)

(1993)

User Reviews

Review this title
4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
The ethics of the profession
bkoganbing7 August 2014
I have to disagree with the previous viewer. First of all at different times in the judicial process on this show the DA's office discovers they're trying the wrong person. Some of those times make for interesting viewing and some of the best Law And Order episodes. But if you take the ethics of the profession seriously if exculpatory evidence comes your way you HAVE to share it with the defense. As an aside the defense is NOT obligated to turn over evidence that would show the client to be guilty.

To be sure many ADAs are interested in a conviction rate. But Richard Brooks is not one of them. When he left the show as a regular he became such a defense attorney. This episode truly belongs to him.

A 61 year old heiress is stabbed to death and evidence points to Richard Cox as the perpetrator. He's 41, her boyfriend, and a con artist in his own right. He looks real good and he's got a rap sheet in Connecticut.

So on the advice of the victim's lawyer whom he knew he retains a legal aid attorney Mary Mara who cops a plea. But then the doubts and exculpation come.

Whatever Brooks doesn't own in this episode belongs to Darrell Larson. This is the white shoe of white shoe lawyers, Harvard Law, the works. But the man has issues as you will see in this revealing episode.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
For richer, for poorer
TheLittleSongbird16 July 2020
Season 3 was a solid season on the whole and as good as the previous two. Not perfect and relatively inconsistent, but all the episodes prior to "Right to Counsel" ranged from good to outstanding. "Prince of Darkness" being especially good and "Helpless" being the only (still above average) disappointment, with it being the only episode of this window to not handle one of the season's more difficult subjects tactfully enough.

"Right to Counsel" slightly disappoints too. It is still a good episode with a lot of great things and anybody that loved Richard Brooks on 'Law and Order' (counting me as one of those people) will be delighted. It just felt a bit bland this time around, after seeing some of the previous Season 3 episodes being tense and emotionally powerful, especially "Prince of Darkness" and "Extended Family", this was a little disappointing. It is still worth seeing though, this just had to be reiterated before people started to think that my thoughts on it were negative.

Other episodes of 'Law and Order' before and since do better at addressing important, relevant and controversial issues in an uncompromising and emotionally impactful manner. "Right to Counsel" slightly lacked that.

Also would have liked the ending to have been more rounded off and that it took more time to unfold. A common problem in Season 3.

However, "Right to Counsel" is a great showcase for Brooks, who is terrific here. Giving one of his best performances of all his too short time on the show. Jerry Orbach really has fitted very well as Briscoe, out of all the lead detectives on the show when first introduced to me Briscoe was the one that settled the quickest. Also really enjoy his chemistry with Chris Noth, also solid, the wisecracking welcome levity and not jarring.

The case could have been more on an emotional level but is neither simplistic or convoluted and is always involving. The legal scenes as always are interesting and intelligently written. The script overall likewise, while the production values and music are typically good. The theme tune has always been memorable without ever being annoying.

Concluding, quite good but didn't have me jumping out of my chair. 7/10
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Money is the root of all.
rmax3048239 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
A wealthy elderly woman is found stabbed to death in her apartment. The police arrest a younger man who was her love and who had a record of larceny for an incident in his youth. The man needs the money, no question, and the will leaves him a good deal, but there's no real evidence against him. His lawyer is a woman with a sort of store front operation out of Brooklyn who has a history of dealing down pleas. The suspect agrees to confess his guilt in exchange for a reduced sentence. But when he "allocates" -- that's Latinistic legalese for describing his crime in court -- his account is slightly discrepant with the facts.

The suspect goes to the slams alright but Robinet feels there's something wrong. The detectives look more closely into the background of the suspect's counsel and find that the vast majority of her cases have been pleaded out. She's only tried three in court and lost them. That is to say, she's not a very good lawyer.

Further probing reveals that the suspect selected her on the advice of the rich old lady's executor, the guy supposed to interpret and administer her will. The executor needs money desperately too, and he get's as his fee a chunk of the twenty million dollar estate. Physical evidence turns up against him and the innocent man is quickly released, no doubt with a sympathetic shrug.

The episode doesn't raise any very general issues. The problem is specific to the legal profession. The executor sent the first suspect to an attorney that the executor knew would wind up with the equivalent of a guilty verdict.

As usual, the characters and images are convincingly New Yorkish. The cops make wisecracks and sling moues around with abandon. They show annoyance when they're informed that they've arrested the wrong man, but they're pleased when they're told they can now arrest an attorney. Logan smiles and comments, "With pleasure." (Pretty amusing.) What I found -- well -- not exactly "dubious" but something that heightened my skepticism was when Paul Robinet realizes that the suspect's allocation is not quite right and this prompts the DA's office to pursue further channels of investigation.

I mean, the case is all wrapped up. A rich old lady has been murdered and her younger boy friend needs money and kills her in order to get it. Q.E.D. The guy is now in jail. Would a real DA have threatened to screw up their own conviction? That conviction is another feather in their cap. Maybe they would have, if they were as idealistic as Stone and Robinet.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Wherever there's a will there's a way
safenoe25 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Richard Cox guest stars as Steven Gregg, who is the young lover of a very wealthy New York lady who is (not that it's relevant) around 20 years older than her. Anyway, Richard Cox in this episode kind of looks like a mix between Jerry Seinfeld and Robert Kardashian.

But who's the guilty party here, we ask, with Assistant District Attorney Paul Robinette, delving into the evidence and confession of Gregg, which isn't what it seems to be.

I'm enjoying catching up on the early seasons of Law and Order, but I miss Phil Cerreta. Anyway, Lenny Briscoe is okay and kind of brings that Harry McGraw element to the series, i.e. Law & Harry McGraw.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed