# Alan Shore vs Harvey Specter



## Sherlōck (Jul 20, 2013)

In a trial case where a person sues Tobacco,pharmaceutical,Motor Vehicle [whatever] who will win?

Alan [Boston Legal] representing Plaintiff & Harvey [Suits] defendant.


----------



## Solar (Jul 20, 2013)

I don't remember many episodes outside of one or two where Harvey is actually in court defending someone or prosecuting. He usually tries to keep things from going to court in the first place. 

Both seem to hold the same position in their respective companies more or less (with Alan not officially being Partner out of hate from what I can see) so they should be in the same general area of skill. While Harvey does have a lot of hype, I would have to go with Alan assuming he has more on-screen feats of being in court. 

To be fair though, I haven't watched Suits since last season ended so maybe someone can remind me of Harvey's in-court abilities.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 20, 2013)

From entertainment stand point, these two characters interacting with each other would be awesome. I have'nt seen Boston Legal or The Practice in a long while so can't comment on this. Should probably rewatch suits as well.

Harvey is'nt above playing dirty, don't recall if Alan was willing to do the same. Boston Legal+Practic/Suits crossover would be awesome though.


----------



## Poxbox (Jul 20, 2013)

Alan could probably win a fair trial due to Harvey avoiding the courtroom like the plague and thus giving Alan the edge in experience.
Harvey won't give him one. I'm assuming that this is a "bloodlusted" trial, meaning both sides go all-out. That means Harvey will intimidate the plaintiff, try to influence (or possibly extort the judge) and get rid of the jury if they lean towards the opposition.
That's what all-out Harvey looks like. I don't know how far exactly Alan would be willing to go, but if he stays within the bounds of the law, he does not stand a chance.

Depending on how good a case the plaintiff has, I see this ending in either a win for Harvey in the trial (7-8/10 if it comes to that) or a low-ball settlement.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 20, 2013)

Harvey uses Donna, Alan counters with Denny


----------



## Sherlōck (Jul 21, 2013)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Harvey is'nt above playing dirty, don't recall if Alan was willing to do the same.



On a few occasion Allan did play dirty but he tries to win it the legit way most of the time. Of course if he thinks his client really deserves something they he doesn't hesitate to get in the mud.



> Boston Legal+Practic/Suits crossover would be awesome though.



Totally agree.



Tranquil Fury said:


> Harvey uses Donna, Alan counters with Denny



Denny Crane.



Poxbox said:


> Alan could probably win a fair trial due to Harvey avoiding the courtroom like the plague and thus giving Alan the edge in experience.



Yes,I have barely saw a court room trial in front of Jury in Suits to be honest.



> Harvey won't give him one. I'm assuming that this is a "bloodlusted" trial, meaning both sides go all-out. That means Harvey will intimidate the plaintiff, try to influence (or possibly extort the judge) and get rid of the jury if they lean towards the opposition.That's what all-out Harvey looks like. .



Alan wants to show whole world about the dark side of corporate world.Harvey tries to keep it under the rock.Their mindset is totally different.

Shirley said to Alan  _"you so often refer to lawyers as unprincipled soulless whores."_

Alan once said about himself _"you'll recall I once advised you to flee the practice of law 'cause it's an ugly occupation,which calls upon its participants to do ugly things.I am very accomplished in the practice of law, Jerry_



> I don't know how far exactly Alan would be willing to go, but if he stays within the bounds of the law, he does not stand a chance



He also once falsified an affidavit and committed a fraud on the magistrate.

There are few other examples I forgot.So in time of need he can play dirty but he prefers not to.



> Depending on how good a case the plaintiff has, I see this ending in either a win for Harvey in the trial (7-8/10 if it comes to that) or a low-ball settlement.



Alan was called Miracle worker of Underdog. He even made high profile characters look like underdog to win cases.He won against Big Tobacco,Homeland Security & lots.And with big numbers.

If it goes to trial where Harvey showed no expertise Alan will win 8/10 IMO.


----------



## Poxbox (Jul 21, 2013)

Dastan said:


> ...
> Alan wants to show whole world about the dark side of corporate world.Harvey tries to keep it under the rock.Their mindset is totally different.
> 
> ...
> ...


Harvey is far from having no expertise in trials. Just less than Alan. In the beginning of his career he worked 2 years as Assistant D.A. for the stated purpose of gaining trial experience.

But after looking at Alan more closely I have to revise some of my statements.
Alan is actually willing to go further in terms of breaking the law than Harvey is. Alan straight up broke criminal law to help his clients on more than one occasion.
But the difference in mindset matters here. Alan does what he thinks is best for the client (e.g. when he had an unlicensed doctor remove a bullet instead of going to the hospital. It hurt his case but helped his client.). Harvey does whatever it takes to win and does not give a shit about the client. The former helps in feeling like a winner and getting thanks from the client, the latter helps in actually winning cases.

"Miracle worker" and the like is just hype which Harvey also has plenty of.

Alan still mostly relies on a sympathetic jury. Other than relying on that he has two fatal flaws: Clowns and Exes. Encountering either makes him unable to function which will earn him a loss against an enemy like Harvey (who will undoubtedly find out about both in his background check).

Not to mention that Alans client probably won't share the "let the world know"-attitude and work more along the lines of "how much can I get out of this?". Making it easy to reach a settlement without ever talking to Alan or entering a courtroom.


----------



## Sherlōck (Jul 22, 2013)

Poxbox said:


> Harvey is far from having no expertise in trials. Just less than Alan. In the beginning of his career he worked 2 years as Assistant D.A. for the stated purpose of gaining trial experience.



Well did he try those cases himself or did he just see it & took participation in research & such not actual debate in court room?

Still against Alan its not really enough.



> "Miracle worker" and the like is just hype which Harvey also has plenty of.



Harvey title is best closer as he closes case without taking it to court.



> Alan still mostly relies on a sympathetic jury. Other than relying on that he has two fatal flaws: Clowns and Exes. Encountering either makes him unable to function which will earn him a loss against an enemy like Harvey (who will undoubtedly find out about both in his background check).



I am not really sure how anyone will exploit such weakness? Anyway Clown's fear is not that much an issue & despite going against Exe's he still won the case.

Not to mention he is not foreign to the idea of exploiting other's weakness. Only few comes to mind. Among those one was to buy Shirlei naked picture,Aspergar Syndrome against Jerry,also one against Douglus Kupfer a fellow attorney.



> Not to mention that Alans client probably won't share the "let the world know"-attitude and work more along the lines of "how much can I get out of this?". Making it easy to reach a settlement without ever talking to Alan or entering a courtroom.



Unless the number is satisfactory to Alan himself,if he thinks his client is being poorly treated he would advise against it & promise to get him higher. Since that's what he does. But totally depends on client that part.


----------



## Poxbox (Jul 22, 2013)

Dastan said:


> Well did he try those cases himself or did he just see it & took participation in research & such not actual debate in court room?
> 
> Still against Alan its not really enough.
> 
> ...


Harveys origin story is not depicted in the series. We can only assume that he did try the cases during the time of his life he specifically dedicated to gaining trial experience.

Again: Hype is irrelevant. The kind of hype is, too.

Unfortunately for Alan Harvey does not have such blatant weaknesses. Alan has Kryptonite level weaknesses whereas Harvey has no such specific or drastic ones. And really? You can't imagine how making the opposition babble unintelligibly or completely seize functioning could be exploited?
He did recover from it in the series. And Superman conveniently survives Kryptonite as needed. That's PIS.


----------



## Sherlōck (Jul 22, 2013)

Poxbox said:


> Harveys origin story is not depicted in the series. We can only assume that he did try the cases during the time of his life he specifically dedicated to gaining trial experience.



Probably,probably not. 



> Again: Hype is irrelevant. The kind of hype is, too.



Not really hype as much as truth to be honest.



> Unfortunately for Alan Harvey does not have such blatant weaknesses. Alan has Kryptonite level weaknesses whereas Harvey has no such specific or drastic ones. And really? You can't imagine how making the opposition babble unintelligibly or completely seize functioning could be exploited?



What the fuck he would do? Bring a clown in the court & make him seat in the audience or dress himself as clown?

Or use one of his old girlfriend to get to him? Did that ever worked? His Ex's tried hard both sexually & legally to win cases against him while it stall him a bit it didn't really change any outcome.



> He did recover from it in the series. And Superman conveniently survives Kryptonite as needed. That's PIS.



Now its PIS? Alan is not someone who never lost a trial. He did.He is not undefeated *Danny Crane*. Him not losing against clowns & exes shows he overcame those fear. 

Arguing clowns & Ex's will work against him even though it never worked is silly.


----------



## Poxbox (Jul 22, 2013)

Dastan said:


> Probably,probably not.


And people probably, probably not enter the ROSAT to train. Don't make me look for the quotes about his past with such a ridiculous claim.



> Not really hype as much as truth to be honest.


Oh, so Alan can perform actual miracles now? Please refrain from wanking.



> What the fuck he would do? Bring a clown in the court & make him seat in the audience or dress himself as clown?
> 
> Or use one of his old girlfriend to get to him? Did that ever worked? His Ex's tried hard both sexually & legally to win cases against him while it stall him a bit it didn't really change any outcome.


Harvey has to discredit him before the jury or his client. If Alan loses either his case is over. And yes it has worked on him every single time. Being able to eventually reconstitute himself doesn't invalidate the weakness.


> Now its PIS? Alan is not someone who never lost a trial. He did.He is not undefeated *Danny Crane*. Him not losing against clowns & exes shows he overcame those fear.
> 
> Arguing clowns & Ex's will work against him even though it never worked is silly.


Looking like an idiot without impacting the outcome of a trial is very much PIS. People don't forget his stammering because he gives one good speech. And he will lose the trust of his client if he looks that weak even once. There is also a big difference between a random person (an Ex) exploiting his weakness to get ahead in a case and Harvey Specter using them for that same purpose.
To expand on my terrible analogy: Batman with Kryptonite would still be useless against Superman. Wonder Woman with Kryptonite on the other hand would sodomize Supes.


----------

