User Reviews

Very good first episode.

Kathy Bates shows she is still a great actress with a very polished performance as a patent lawyer who after being fired is now defending the less well off members of society in the criminal court.

This is of course a very well used and very successful formula for TV having been used many times before in for example Petrocelli. There is a good injection of humour and the three main players have a very good chemistry with each other.

It remains to be seen if it will survive as it has been put up against Hawaii five-o which may prove to be a serious mistake as far as the ratings go.

This is well worth watching and taping if you are an addict to the not very good drama from Hawaii.

I'm not sure what show the other reviewer was watching because Harry's Law was fantastic. I am a huge fan of Kathy Bates so maybe I am not entirely impartial but I found this show to be clever, witty, intelligent and very entertaining.

The other reviewer had way too many expectations from one episode. It was just the pilot. This is where we ARE suppose to find out about the characters and so the focus was rightfully towards them. Yes the 'You're out of order' speech is something we have heard before, but that was the point. He was trying to point out just how stupid the case was and succeeded. Kathy Bates character managed to get in 2 accidents, defend a client, hire staff, meet the locals and find more new clients. Sounds like she did a heck of a lot to me. More than the girl whose only focus was on shoes.

I loved Harry's courtroom speech. It really showed her talent. I was also impressed by all the other actors. All characters were very believable and likable and I look forward to watching them every week. I very rarely openly laugh at a show and this was one time I did. Twice. I smiled, I cheered and I was impressed. This show is highly entertaining and anyone who didn't catch it missed out. I hope that Harry's Law will be around for awhile cause I see myself loving it thoroughly.

I like Harry's opening moments getting a black guy to fall on her and a car hitting her; her spunky girl shoe salesperson; her Jr partner

...BUT and it is a big BUT;

i found the court cases they are deciding to take to have very little to like. The premise seems to be "if you feel sorry for the they defendants should just be found not guilty". Since the neighborhood where her office is seems to be where the stories come from, the stories don't seem to have much life or hope for change to them. i am over seeing a rotten nasty grandma getting off of an armed robbery charge Scot free when she held a gun to a mans head and threatened to blow it off for the money in the drawer.

The question will always be: how do we find entertainment and yet not be preached to by socialists who take themselves too seriously. We see you and do not agree.

Given its liberal slant, "Harry's Law" promises to be an interesting show. When patent law gets her depressed, Harriet shows her boredom and promptly is fired. That's probably the best thing that has happened to her. Opening up a store with unlikely people, including someone she fought a patent case with, Harriet soon finds herself being caught up in a protection racket and defending someone whose on trial for buying drugs a third time. Along the way, her associate defends the protection con artist when the latter shoots a person holding up a store.

Liberalism abounds here, but thanks to the fine acting of Kathy Bates and the great writing, the show succeeds. It is well paced and Bates, as always, delivers her lines like the pro she is.

The nickname of Harry is inane, but who cares? We are about to embark on something really good.

I just watched the premiere episode. Having really been looking forward to the show, I wanted to see it succeed. But having just watched an episode of the Defenders before watching this pilot episode, I was left wanting so much more. This show had a strong first few minutes. Funny, clever, and intriguing as far as characters are concerned. But the moment that two attorneys start arguing politics in a courtroom and another reprimands a judge and goes nuts without any consequences, I start to question how hard this show is trying. To me, it's trying way to hard. Viewers are too smart for these Hollywood antics. We've heard the "No, you're out of order" line too many times to accept it from an another show, especially one trying to make a unique name for itself.

Overall, I loved the antics and personality quirks I saw in the sneak peek clips much more than I did in the show because there just wasn't enough Kathy Bates in the pilot. The episode was split into telling not only her story but the story of what turned out to be three other co- workers. As far as the cases are concerned, both were handled unrealistically. A guy is busted for the third time for cocaine use and the judge lets him off? I understand the heart of the story but honesty it's hard for me as a viewer to see any light at the end of the tunnel when I know there's no case to be had. It's like the writers wanted to show off Bates' ability to fluff up the jury and then give us an unexpected twist with a guilty verdict and then surprise us again. In reality they just tied the story in a lot of knots and then had to get themselves untied quickly in hopes of capturing the emotional points with viewers and hoping they would overlook the craziness of the situation. Unfortunately the suspension of disbelief for this show's credibility is quickly lost the moment any of the court scenes began.

I really hate to be so critical of a show but there's just so much potential with Bates' character if the writers would stay away from cheap thrills and easy payoffs, stop complicating the story with unrealistic speeches and lots of political dead weight, and for goodness sake give Harriet something to do! She spent almost the entire show getting hit by cars and walking around with her arms at her sides. Brittany Snow's blonde secretary did more work miraculously cleaning up a filthy shoe store in the course of a few days than Bates' did solving the case. I wanted her character to shine but how can it when the first case she's given is one that is impossible to solve because there's no mystery!?! "We can't win this case", that's what she says. And as a viewer you totally agree with her. You're not even holding out for the bit of evidence that will save them because there's no one to save. The guy's guilty. This all boils down to writing. Change writers, save the show. Keep going with this simplistic, political- talking-point mediocrity and Harriet will be better off selling shoes.

When I got the news that this series was canceled I was really angry and confused. The series had good viewer ratings, so what pushed the TV channel management towards canceling it is beyond me.

Series is about a former patent law lawyer ( Cathy Bates ) who had enough of the same boring cases, got herself fired from a major law firm and started over in a former shoe shop in a bad neighborhood.

Cathy Bates plays an awesome role of a grumpy old lady who is actually tired of everything. Her law firm expands because more lawyers want to join her.

All of them have style of their own.

Series shows in a good detailed way how the case is being prepared and how are thing done in court. It's very educational, and because actors are so good in their roles and entertaining and you can't wait for the next episode.

Everyone who is interested in law I advice to go and watch the episodes.

I thought I would enjoy this new series - it has much to offer but when an old lady who robs a store with a loaded pistol is found innocent and set free is a little too much for me. Just because you are old (how old is old) and poor (how poor is poor) gives you the right to take from someone else and be ready to harm someone???? I can understand if the writers had her stealing food instead of the cash drawer and it turned out the gun was not loaded or a toy gun, but instead the writers gave the green light to take and harm if you don't have it - they pointed out it was the government's fault - why is it the government's fault if the woman did not have money - they did not steal from her or take away her funding - she just outlived her savings - I am a senior citizen and feel sorry for people in this person's predicament, but I also have a belief you can not harm people who have because she does not - even though the store keeper had funds in his cash drawer, he still has bills to pay, taxes to pay, and now he is out. I know it is a TV show, but let us not give crazies more ideas to commit crime!!!! There can be other ways to create a comedy.