Real Lawyer Reacts to Reynolds v. Reynolds (Cereal Defense) It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

AlmightyArceus : Anyone stuck here wondering just HOW Charlie read the certificate?

Daniel Axelrod : I love how your name is legal eagle but you know nothing about bird law

Lee Campbell : Sunny has a whole episode about arbitration. Hero or Hate Crime? s12 e6. Do that next!

brolo : But, Legal Eagle... Where is your certificate of not being donkey brained

J Murphy : Poor LegalEagle has to lay awake wondering how his channel went from trying to educate the masses on legal stuff to a channel for It's Always Sunny fans to congregate.

pissoffyoutubejustletmefuckingcomment.hodor. : Charlie was 100% not being facetious when he jumped over to Dennis' side

Corto Maltese : "Sometimes you get screwed because everyone else is on the majority" couldn't say it better.

Cody Caron : I cannot trust LegalEagle. His hands are to small for a masculine non-molesting man.

Mitchell Kmatz : Charlie was out of his element on this trial. Everyone knows his specialty is Bird Law.

Redneck Rufus : Season 12 Episode 6: “Hero or Hate Crime” is an arbitration episode

Reese Flores : It’s only fitting to do It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia S12 E6 Hero or Hate Crime next........

Real Slick : it’s fun to see this guy to try and make sense of this show

alienboyguitar : I didn't know John Krasinski is a lawyer by day

Bad Jokes : What an oddly specific channel. I'm so glad I found it

Mark Wallner : Filibuster...

OPEN MIND : Make a video about the Chewbacca episode 😂

William Howle : Lawyer: I think Charlie is being facetious here? Me: lol...no, he's not.

Brad Schroeder : Could you do the arbitration of who gets the scratcher ticket? In an episode in season 12

Logan Huff : I think "My Cousin Vinny" would be an interesting movie to go into

Caleb Andersen : Objection: Charlie is not a bird expert; he is a Bird Law expert.

Kyle Blackmore : at this point I would want to watch your reviewing every episode of Sunny, regardless of episodes being in court or arbitration, simply due to the number of crimes and other ethical questions that arise during their normal day-to-day lives.

Chris G : Okay now I really wanna see an episode breaking down the OJ trial.

Ryan Stein : A Legality Check of Season 12 Episode 6, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. "Hero or Hate Crime?" The gang seeks help from a professional arbitrator. It is the final installment to date of legal proceedings in the series.

Brian Maurer : John Krasinski?

Jakk Frost : I have to say that technically, in the end it was ultimately Frank's fault again. The conditions of the test stated that Frank would be driving, with Charlie giving directions. Dee was speaking during the test as well, providing a distraction, but by the agreed-upon rules of the test, Frank should not have been paying attention to her directions, he should only have been paying attention to Charlie.

SlightlyCrookedWorkshop : $10 says that when this guy decided to be a lawyer he never imagined he'd be discussing, as a legal expert, a fictional TV character not having Donkey Brains, on the internet.

tealfartface3 : Please review the always sunny episode "hero vs. hate-crime" they go to multiple arbitrators to settle a case about hate speech.

White Heterosexual Cis Male : Can you PLEASE do Better Call Saul Season 3 Episode 5? I think it's really authentic, but some tricks in there which I would love to see you comment on.

Coach Los : Lmao little do you realize Dee always gets her car ruined by the guys and they never pay for it. The irony is so sweet and beautiful! Lol You should really watch the show! It’s the best!!!!!

Elliot Wright : Objection: DareDevil! DareDevil! DareDevil! Do DareDevil next!!

Ryan Miller : “ i think Charlie is being facetious here..” sir you clearly overestimate the mental capacity of Charlie Kelly

Rob Speed : Objection! Dee was hoping to set precedent among the group, not legal precedent.

sandon skuce : Do Daredevil trials

Nikolai B. : I don't understand the end. Why did that giant bird have to pay for the damages?

hysterix5543 : Daredevil, I think the people vs the punisher would be a good thing to cover

Chris Garcia : Please do "hero or hate crime" episode of always sunny!

tytylerrr Tyler : u never see legal eagle's legs who to say hes not wearing pajamas

Egbert Aethelbald : "Can read words on a page." Classic.

Jorge Gonçalves : "I can't believe this is coming as a result of this stupid show." Not the show, really. They (the characters) really do a lot of stupid things, as a result of the premise of the IASIP series, but this is pure comedic gold.

winkledorf17 : I'm a lawyer now

stone snake : You should really review the "Hero or hate crime" episode, where they hire a arbiter to solve their argument.

Chad Hero : As far as Burden of Proof, Dennis has the Burden to prove Frank was at fault, but doesnt have to prove he (Dennis) didnt have donkey brains

Samantha Port : You should do "Hero or Hate Crime?" next!

crunch9876 : The lawyer completely misunderstood the scene at 9:35. Dennis was saying that he didn’t have to proof he wasn’t donkey brained, they had to prove he was. The lawyer thought he was making a statement about the whole trial.

WhimsicalEloquence : You've made a pretty significant error here and while I appreciate this is meant to be entertaining it's also meant to be education and this could seriously mislead someone trying to learn about law. The case (if we can call it that) in Reynolds v Reynolds concerns an accident made by Frank and would be a case of Tort law, under the tort of negligence - though this will obviously vary by jurisdiction. However you cite the case of Hadley v Baxendale, and also state it limited damages to those "reasonably foreseeable as a result of your negligence". However this case had nothing to do with Negligence or Torts at all: it was a contract case where the crank deliverer (Baxendale) had breached his contract with Hadley. Indeed, even when this case was cited in the American Supreme Court it was to ground the extent of damages arising from the breach of contract, not negligence, and is incorporated into American *contract* law in Restatement (Second) of Contracts. This could seriously mislead someone studying law trying to understand the distinction between tort and contract cases or indeed what the test is for damages in each and which authorities ground these. You've also made two other minor errors in your knowledge about English law. While I appreciate that this is an American channel, if you're going to discus English law you could make sure to not make errors. The Court of Exchequer is not equivalent to American Supreme Court: first because (since 1873) it no longer exists and secondly, when it did exist, still was not equivalent to a Supreme Court. At the time of the case, the Court of Exchequer was one of the *three* common law courts of first instance. The closest equivalent to the American Supreme Court in the sense of being a court of final appeal was the House of Lords. It should also be noted that English cases are said orally as "A and B" even though they are written as "A v B".

Dannoh! : Do the world series defense

Dana Xu : An actual attorney referenced the "Chewbacca Defense"...instant sub

RichardandAjvideos : You should do your thing on season 12 episode 6, “Hero or hate crime” And the movie “Fracture” with Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling. Be very interested to see your take on it. I found it fascinating.

Basement Warrior : OMG I've never clicked a video so fast.

Screwed&Chopp : Why call the show stupid? It's not meant to be 100% accurate to the real world, it's a comedy about narcissism and it nails it.. Come on dummy :D