Getting it Wrong: Top 10 Least Realistic Legal TV Shows
By Noah Bolmer
For those seeking an accurate portrayal of the justice system, a lot of popular shows fall short—leading to some truly outlandish, but fun scenarios. We’ve looked at the best, but this time, we check out 10 legal TV shows that, while entertaining, are far from accurate in their depiction of law.
Ally McBeal (1997–2002)
Ally McBeal takes viewers on a surreal journey through the life of the titular young lawyer (Calista Flockhart), working at a Boston law firm. This show is legendary for its fantastical elements, including musical numbers in the courtroom, dancing CGI babies, and characters experiencing vivid hallucinations that reflect their inner turmoil.
Cases frequently serve as little more than a backdrop for exploring the characters’ quirky personal lives, romantic entanglements, and psychological states, rather than offering an accurate depiction of legal proceedings. Courtroom scenes feature bizarre arguments based on emotional appeals rather than legal precedent, and highly unconventional conduct from lawyers and judges alike that would simply never be tolerated or allowed by a real-world judicial system. Even with its exaggerations, Ally McBeal sometimes touches upon the genuine emotional toll and ethical dilemmas that lawyers can face.
Expert Bonus: Check out S2E13 “Angels and Blimps” for expert testimony on divine accountability as a child sues God, and S3E9 “Out in the Cold” for a psychology expert’s take on therapeutic ethics.
Suits (2011–2019)
Suits throws viewers into the fast-paced world of a high-stakes corporate law firm. The core premise revolves around a brilliant college dropout, Mike Ross (Patrick J. Adams), who, despite never attending law school, lands a coveted associate position working for the sharp corporate lawyer Harvey Specter (Gabriel Macht).
The show is notorious for its implausible legal maneuvers. Characters routinely engage in unethical practices like ex parte communications with judges—a clear violation of judicial ethics in the real world where all parties usually are present. They manipulate evidence and resolve incredibly complex, multi-million dollar cases with astonishing speed—a stark contrast to real-world litigation that can drag on for months or even years due to meticulous discovery, motions, and scheduling. The emphasis is heavily on sharp banter, power plays, and personal drama—often sidestepping the rigorous research, procedural rules, and bureaucratic hurdles that define real-world legal practice. Despite its dramatized nature, Suits does effectively highlight the intense, high-pressure environment found in top-tier law firms and competitive spirit within the profession.
Expert Bonus: Check out S3E11 “Buried Secrets” for a forensic accountant getting cross-examined for bias and inconsistency.
How to Get Away with Murder (2014–2020)
This high-octane series centers on the brilliant, charismatic criminal defense professor Annalise Keating (Viola Davis) and her ambitious law students who quickly become entangled in a murder plot. How to Get Away with Murder is a thriller packed with shocking twists, intricate cover-ups, and highly improbable legal outcomes, where major criminal cases are wrapped up at breakneck speed.
The students are shown handling real, complex criminal cases from their very first semester, a completely unrealistic scenario, as first-year law students have no such authority or practical experience. The show frequently depicts characters engaging in illegal activities like tampering with evidence, disposing of bodies, and obstructing justice—all while avoiding real-world consequences for extended periods. The rapid progression of major criminal cases from accusation to trial, often over a matter of days or weeks, is also profoundly unrealistic, as real criminal trials can take months or years. Nevertheless, the show does effectively showcase the intensive work ethic and competitive drive in law school.
The Grinder (2015–2016)
The Grinder is a meta-comedy built around the absurd premise of an actor, Dean Sanderson Jr. (Rob Lowe), who, after playing a lawyer on a hit TV show, genuinely believes his on-screen experience qualifies him to join his family’s real-life law firm, run by his brother, Stewart Sanderson (Fred Savage). The show’s humor stems entirely from this deliberate mistaking of fictional legal knowledge for actual legal expertise.
It overtly exaggerates courtroom scenarios, with the actor-turned-lawyer frequently quoting lines from his old show or relying on dramatic flair and emotional appeals. As a satire of legal dramas, its lack of realism is not a flaw but an intentional comedic device. By openly making fun of common tropes, The Grinder implicitly highlights some of the prevalent inaccuracies found in more serious legal dramas. Despite strong critical and audience reviews, it was not renewed for a second season.
Expert Bonus: Check out S1E19 “A System on Trial” where a forensic accountant is brought in to testify about financial discrepancies in a wrongful termination case
Night Court (1984–1992)
A classic sitcom, Night Court is set during the night shift of a Manhattan municipal court, presided over by the unconventional Judge Harry Stone (Harry Anderson), alongside Assistant District Attorney Dan Fielding (John Larroquette) and Public Defender Christine Sullivan (Markie Post). The show heavily emphasizes comedic situations involving eccentric defendants, bizarre cases that defy logic, and the quirky personalities of the ensemble.
Legal procedures are simplified, distorted, or completely ignored in favor of delivering punchlines. Realism is sacrificed for humor, with trials concluding in outlandish resolutions or the judge issuing rulings that would likely be overturned immediately on appeal. Stone’s constant personal and unprofessional conduct is far removed from the strict ethical guidelines of actual judges. Despite its comedic focus, Night Court occasionally depicts the high volume and often mundane nature of misdemeanor cases that pass through lower courts.
Expert bonus: Check out S4E17 “Dan’s Operation” where a medical expert witness is brought in briefly to testify about surgical standards and negligence.
Boston Legal (2004–2008)
This spin-off of The Practice follows the eccentric lawyers of Crane, Poole & Schmidt, particularly the ethically flexible Alan Shore (James Spader) and the unpredictable senior partner Denny Crane (William Shatner). While often praised for its sharp dialogue and exploration of moral and ethical dilemmas, the show frequently sacrifices legal realism for dramatic effect.
Lawyers frequently engage in highly theatrical and emotionally charged arguments that would likely be shut down by a judge for being irrelevant or inflammatory in a real court. The show’s closing arguments often become impassioned monologues that cover everything but the actual evidence presented. Cases are driven by the personal crusades of the characters rather than legal strategy. Despite these liberties, Boston Legal frequently used its platform to tackle complex and controversial social and political issues, sparking discussion on topics relevant to real-world legal and ethical debates.
Expert Bonus: Check out S2E2 “Schadenfreude” for a forensic pathologist testifying regarding the effects of a mood-altering drug, and getting cross-examined; and S3E6 “The Verdict” where a neurology expert is brought in to explain the standard of care.
Matlock (1986–1995)
Matlock features an astute, Columbo-like defense attorney, Ben Matlock (Andy Griffith), who almost always gets his clients acquitted by exposing the real killer, usually through dramatic courtroom confessions. The show’s formula relies on the murderer breaking down on the witness stand or being revealed through a last-minute piece of evidence uncovered by Matlock—often in the final moments of the trial.
This dramatically differs from real trials, where such spontaneous confessions from the perpetrator are exceedingly rare. Furthermore, the discovery of incriminating evidence is a long, arduous process—not a sudden, dramatic revelation in the courtroom. The focus is squarely on the “whodunit” mystery and the reveal, rather than the intricate details of legal procedure. Even so, Matlock did consistently emphasize the vital importance of thorough investigation and attention to detail in building a defense case.
Expert Bonus: Check out S4E14 “The Witness” which features a medical expert testifying about the cause of death for a barroom victim.
Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law (2000–2007)
This animated Adult Swim series is an unapologetically absurd parody where former superhero Harvey Birdman (Gary Cole) becomes a lawyer, representing classic Hanna-Barbera cartoon characters in outlandish legal battles. The show’s humor is entirely derived from its complete disregard for legal accuracy, making it intentionally unrealistic. Courtrooms frequently devolve into chaotic free-for-alls, with talking animals, physical comedy, and judges making arbitrary rulings that have no basis in law or procedure.
There are no rules of evidence, no decorum, and often no logical connection between the “arguments” made and the verdicts rendered. It is a satirical take on legal dramas, intentionally subverting any notion of realism for pure comedic effect. In its own satirical way, Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law sometimes manages to highlight the truly bizarre and occasionally illogical aspects that can arise in legal proceedings, albeit pushed to an extreme.
Expert Bonus: Check out S1E2 “Very Personal Injury” for a very loose parody of expert testimony, based on the famous Hot Coffee case.
The Tony Randall Show (1976–1978)
This sitcom features Judge Walter Franklin (Tony Randall), a Philadelphia judge, focusing primarily on his personal life and the comical situations that arose from his judicial role. While the show certainly dealt with legal themes, like Night Court, its main objective was comedy and the cases often served as a mere vehicle for humor rather than accurate depictions of judicial proceedings.
The show simplifies—or outright contorts—legal processes to fit the sitcom format, prioritizing the personalities and predicaments of the characters involved. The portrayal of judicial duties and courtroom decorum was heavily skewed for laughs, bearing little resemblance to the strict protocols and ethical responsibilities of a real-life judge. Despite these comedic liberties, The Tony Randall Show occasionally shed light on the personal pressures and ethical considerations that a judge might face. Though nominated for a Golden Globe, it was cancelled twice, and never received a third season.
Perry Mason (1957–1966)
The original Perry Mason is famously known for its predictable formula: the brilliant defense attorney Perry Mason (Raymond Burr) ensures his client is always innocent, and like Matlock which followed, he almost always gets the true culprit to confess on the witness stand during cross-examination. This iconic Perry Mason moment is a cornerstone of the show but is incredibly rare in real courtrooms.
Real trials are complex, lengthy, and very seldom feature dramatic, spontaneous confessions, nor do defense attorneys routinely cross-examine the actual perpetrator into a confession. The show often streamlined investigations and courtroom procedures for narrative efficiency, glossing over the painstaking discovery process and rules of evidence in favor of a tidy ending. Nevertheless, Perry Mason consistently emphasized the vital importance of a vigorous defense and the fundamental duty of a defense attorney—to protect their client’s rights.
Expert Bonus: Check out S3E18 “The Case of the Singing Skirt” for some questionable ballistics expertise, and S6E28 “The Case of the Witless Witness” where an autopsy surgeon testifies about the cause of death.
Conclusion
Nobody wants to watch Perry Mason meticulously file pre-trial motions, or Harvey Birdman tell Johnny Quest that he simply doesn’t have a case. Entertainment is job one in producing great television, and we wholeheartedly recommend everything on this list, with a side of skepticism—and popcorn.
For over 30 years, Round Table Group has been connecting litigators with skilled and qualified expert witnesses. If you are interested in being considered for expert witness opportunities, contact us at 202-908-4500 for more information or sign up now!