* In 'Identity Crisis' Mike seems worried when the hacker changes the Harvard website to show that Mike went there. He seems to forget that they just had the hacker commit dozens of felonies in two countries. The HollywoodHacking aside, as lawyers they would be perfectly aware how extremely illegal their actions are. If any of this ever got out the firm would be ruined and Harvey, Mike and Louis would go to jail.
** The hacker in question has never been caught before, IIRC. If she gets nicked, they're presumably waaay down the list.
* Ok, why did Mike ''have'' to break up with Rachel? Sure, it probably wouldn't be the best to tell her that he's not really a lawyer, but why is breaking up presented as the only option? It just doesn't seem like [[FalseDichotomy such a black and white issue]].
** I found that incredibly odd as well. Psych dodges around a similar issue, and I would have felt they might have handled it that way. But I guess it's just how Mike is, even though that is not much of a reason.
** Mike is a loyal guy and trusts those close to him a lot. He doesn't like hiding truth from them, even if it's for the best. Look at how he felt about "backstabbing" Trevor by dating his ex-Jenny. So by becoming close with Rachael he felt honor bound to be honest with her. That's why he wanted to tell her the truth. He doesn't like basing personal relationships on a lie.
** It may also be a combination of Harvey's HonorBeforeReason tendencies rubbing off on him combined with the events of several episodes making him realize that a lie of this magnitude ''will'' come back to bit him in the butt in a big way. Also, of course, Mike knows how loyal Harvey is to him (at least insofar as risking his job for Mike's) so he may feel an equal obligation to be loyal to Harvey as he does to be truthful to Rachel. If we add in this assumption, then the only real way to meet both obligations is to not date Rachel.
* Pretty much every single company and employer does background checks on prospective employees nowadays, usually by the manager. So how'd Mike and Harvey get around ''that'' one?
** Anyone of those in the interview were going to be vetted by Harvard before being allowed in front of Harvey, so they likely trusted Harvard and Harvey would have said he had Donna look into the guy. Then everyone trusted Donna. Or at the very least they feared her.
** You'd be amazed how all too often, those "background checks" don't actually happen, or are done in very haphazard style. People have risen to fairly important government positions that they were in no way qualified for thanks to no one doing the diligence and checking their backgrounds. There's a certain degree of RefugeInAudacity at play here; they slip through partly because the companies don't expect anyone who doesn't meet the qualifications to even apply, seeing as how they'd know they'd fail the background check coming into it.
* Did Jessica have Monica Eton blacklisted among the other law firms? Monica is a Harvard educated lawyer and should have had no problem getting a job at another firm after Jessica fired her.
** It's a super competitive industry where Ivy League-educated lawyers are not the exception but the norm. I'm not sure if Monica Eton was fired or forced to resign but Pearson Hardman is established as a pretty big firm in Manhattan. When employers hear you are from Pearson Hardman, they'd probably ask for a recommendation letter, or ask your former employer about you; Jessica probably didn't say very nice things about Monica and stuff like this gets spread around quite easily. Sooner or later, other law firms would probably decide not to take the risk of employing you.
** This may [[FridgeBrilliance also be an early indication that Jessica is willing to mislead people for her own purposes.]] Engaging in an office affair is not (usually) a sacking offence, and has nothing to do with your work. Most law firms wouldn't consider it a big deal. A law firm ''would'' be interested if Jessica had said Monica had engaged in [[ExactWords ethically dubious behaviour.]] Sure, ethically dubious behaviour- ''but not ethically dubious in the eyes of a law firm.'' Jessican could have blacklisted Monica and there would be very little to even say that Jessica was wrong - but she certainly didn't "do the right thing."
* How exactly does Mike keep getting cornered by all the stuff you're supposed to know if you went to Harvard; the Harvard song, the square pizza thing and similar? Surely, after the first couple of times, a guy with an eidetic memory and something to hide would use google to learn enough to put up a believable pretense?
** Because most people don't think to consider little details like types of pizza, probably. Though most of this was earlier on; by now he's probably got some more info stored up if need be.
* Okay, something this troper wonders is why Harvey is scared that Rachel would learn Mike's secret. Jessica, Donna, and he know it already, and allow him to stick around. He does good work and wins cases. The hardest part, it seems, would be to keep Rachel from flipping her lid considering how angry she was over the fact that he took the LSATs for other people.
** Edit: aaaand, answered in the season finale.
** Not really, we still don't know what she'll do when things are, ah, calmer.
** one of the ads for the new season shows that she is trying get him fired. So that was probably what Harvey expected to happen.
*** In the actual episode it was AllJustADream.
* Remember when Mike said he passed the bar w/o going to law school on a bet? How did he get around to taking the bar in the first place? Can any random schmo just take it in New York, such that Mike could simply sneak in, take it, and get a bar number? Because otherwise, how could he appear in housing court in the first season or in 2x11 when representing that kid that killed Albert Chung when he was driving while high?
** Yes, any random schmo [[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_take_the_Bar_Exam_without_going_to_Law_School can.]]
** Actually, no: any random schmo can't. New York State allows persons who are "reading the law" to take the bar exam. "Reading the law" means that rather than attending law school, the applicant has instead studied under a judge or practicing attorney for an extended period of time. In-universe, Mike's practical experience at Pearson-Hardman would probably qualify him under the "reading the law" exception. However, New York State requires that such persons have completed at least one year of law school study (Rule 520.4 for the Admission of Attorneys). This would disqualify Mike from being allowed to take the bar exam without being able to provide proof of that year of study.
*** Also, passing the bar examination is not the only requirement for acceptance into a state's bar association:
**** With the exceptions of Maryland, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin, admission to the bar in any state in the U.S. is contingent on the applicant passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE), an examination covering the professional responsibility rules governing lawyers. This test is not administered at the same time as any U.S. bar exam. Most candidates usually sit for the MPRE while still in law school, right after studying professional responsibility (a required course in all ABA-accredited law schools), while the material is still fresh in their memory. Mike never got past undergrad.
**** Applicants wishing to be admitted to the bar must also be certified (usually by the state bar association) as having the good moral character and fitness to practice law, and apply to that state's authority responsible for licensing lawyers and pay required fees. Upon approval by that authority, the admittee takes an oath to comply with the rules governing the practice of law in that state, and receives a certificate of admission.
** Based on all of this, it's hard to imagine that Mike has been admitted to the bar and is therefore licensed to practice law in New York State, even with his ability to pass the bar exam itself. The characters would've needed to do a lot more than fake his entry into Harvard's graduate database to get him admitted to the NYS Bar Association, and they've [[ArtisticLicense glossed that over]] [[CriticalResearchFailure pretty thoroughly]].
* Where does Harvey get off being pissed at Mike about his (lack of) loyalty in 2x16 when he himself has just proven spectacularly less than loyal to Jessica? He doesn't even have the catch-22 Mike did (which he may or may not know about), just his own ego/ambition.
** Because he 'was' being loyal, in his eyes. Essentially, he didn't trust Darby's firm because Dana pulled the whole stunt because she's smitten, and Harvey doesn't trust her because she cheated on her fiance with him. So, trust issues, and trying to keep Jessica out of things. Or so goes his explanation.
** Also it's essentially pointing out one of his character flaws. That he can be so self-absorbed that he waves away or justifies his own indiscretions but as soon as someone else takes a move he doesn't like, he sees it as betrayal.