IM YourOnlyOne

Define "normal" couple.

You and the OP are both forgetting that this is a law drama. There is such a thing as a pre-nuptial agreement where soon-to-be-wed couples lay down conditions on their marriage and make it legally binding.

He's a lawyer so it shouldn't be a surprise if they do have one and it was stipulated that abortion is an option and the wife can decide about it anytime with or without the husband's knowledge and/or consent. She probably was the one who included that, and he agreed to it.

Even if we assume there was no pre-nuptial agreement, that it was only a verbal agreement, it will open a can of worms. Things that won't help them in their respective careers. For example, "He's a lawyer and he didn't put it in ink? Is he a really good lawyer?" And, "What kind of wife forces her husband to agree they won't have a child?"

Remember, this is in Korea, not the EU or the US.

The pre-nuptial agreement is the game changer here. It's a law drama so it's safe to assume they had one. So, 2025 or not, "her body, her decision" or not, if the pre-nuptial agreement exists, they both agreed to it, including the abortion, automatically.

If they have a pre-nuptial agreement, which is legally binding, logically speaking she can abort anytime if she wants to, the pre-nuptial covers that.

In that scene where the 1ML simply went to the bathroom was him sorting his feelings and thoughts. His feelings are angry, hate, betrayed. But his thoughts are "pre-nuptial agreement, she has every right to do so, I'm a lawyer I should know that".

It will all come down to if they did have a pre-nuptial agreement or not. Simply agreeing without putting it in ink can be easily questioned in court these days. 2hile yes, verbal agreements are as good as putting things in ink, it is harder to prove and thus can be made to appear it never happened.

If this was the case, then the 1ML probably didn't sue her and opted for or agreed for a divorce. He knew he won't be able to sue her because they only had a verbal agreement, and no doubt, an agreement that was made at the spur of the moment just so she'll agree to get married. Which in turn will just open another can of worms if discussed in court.

So, him filing for a divorce or agreeing to it is him giving his feelings justice, "she didn't discuss it with me".

But if they do have a pre-nuptial agreement, he can't get angry over her decision for abortion (assuming she did, it could've been a miscarriage). Again, a pre-nuptial is legally binding. Since he's a lawyer, he probably also agreed to stipulate abortion and leaving the decision to the wife.

Though I'm suspecting her first pregnancy was his. Then she aborted it, or intentional miscarriage, because they had a pre-nuptial agreement.

Then after the divorce, they only got married after 2 years so they can use the "we just ended up that way" excuse. And this time she's open for a kid because, well, her first pregnancy was his.

I think she aborted or intentionally miscarriaged because she knows he's a very good lawyer. They need to cover up they cheated so she can get an equal share for their divorce.

Of course, this is assuming she really did cheat with the best friend. Because if you think about, it could all have been an innocent incident. A real miscarriage or something. And if they did have a pre-nuptial agreement, logically speaking she has the right to abort anytime since the pre-nuptial covers that legally already.

And 2 years later, she and her ex-husband's bestie naturally fell for each other. This time, she's open to having a child too. She may not be evil at all, just the circumstances.

We'll find out next week. 😝

Another positive about this show, they're tackling new cases instead of the usual/common ones. Or, they add a new layer or dynamics to a common one.

For example, the kid and mother. That's new in law dramas, even in Western shows.

It's one the cases aren't boring. So far all are fresh for the audiences. We get to learn new things too.

Edit: removed "Then they added new dynamics to a common case her father/uncle went through." It's from Law in the City. 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks to Ivy for pointing it out.

It got even crazier lol. The 1ML qnd new husband were besties. 😅😅😅

I guess that's why he became like that. Detached. Very logical. Business mode. The hurt and pain.

Ahh, it didn't go all the way to the court.

I thought it went to court, and no one questioned the lawyer who scared the employer. 😅

Thank you! 🙇🏽

Yep. He was holding himself back. He could've done more. He kept things within what's acceptable in courts. But still nailed it hard.

Sadly, you're right there are many kids smothered that way. They may not react simylarly as in the fictional kid, and though his condition is real, kids will still grow up thinking what they're doing is correct or fine because their parents said so.

It's one thing to care and protect but it's totally another to do it excessively. They don't realize that once they're gone, their kid will be alone without knowledge and experience to actually think for themselves.

Yes. We often dismiss something implausible but someone who genuinely cares should be extra careful.

It's similar to unintentional hypnotism. After a thorough study years ago (I think it's a decade already), the way authorities question anyone were changed to avoid it. There were indeed incorrect admission of crime because the way they were questiones inadvertedly planted the idea of them committing the crime.

Our mind is indeed mysterious. Our words do have power. Parent or not, we really should be careful.

It's a good thing they tackled this case.

SG: "I decided to quit."

Later

SG: "I applied for PhD"
Everyone else summary: "You're going to quit?"

Me: I'll assume it was because they weren't listening or they thought he was making a joke. 🤣 If I don't do that, it means they didn't check the flow of the conversation. 🤣🤣

When do you owe someone?
1. You asked someone if they can lend you money. You probably also told them, out of desperation, you'll pay a ridiculous interest. = You owe them.
2. Both of you agreed you owe them later. For example, "If I help you with your project, you owe me later, agreed?" Or, "If I answer you assignment, you owe me." You can owe someone without money getting involved.

Not every help is you owing someone. People say it's "gratitude". No, that's false and gravely misunderstood. "Gratitude" simply means being deeply thankful. No more. No less.

Strictly speaking, you shouldn't even feel "gratitude" if you owe them later. Why? Because the help wasn't free, you're going to pay them back for it one day. Honest people will even tell you, "Don't thank me, you owe me later."

You are only thankful, you only feel gratitude, if you receive something without any strings attached. That's what gratitude is. A deep thanks, period. If you're bothered with how to express that, you can:
1. Pay-it-forward (the best option)
2. Build a statue honoring that person (this is overboard but valid 🤣)
3. Tell other people how good they are (but don't tell them "If you need help, ask this person", they're not charity, well, unless they did they you to)

Do you now see the difference?

That's true gratitude. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with owing someone or paying it back. If you really need a way to express your true gratitude, then pay-it-forward.

I can totally relate to Foundation chair. You're more than happy and satisfied to see others succeed—especially those you helped—where you failed.

She wanted to be a lawyer but life took a hard turn and made her a business tycoon instead. She used that hard-earned money to help other people. And then watching them from the shadows as they become successful.

My only reaction is it would've been better if she said, "Just pay-it-forward" instead of, "Just keep doing what you're doing, that's how you repay me". I guess Koreans, or at least the writer and director, haven't heard of "pay-it-forward".

It's a better principle than what she said. It firmly establishes that
(1) you helped them out of the goodness of your heart without expecting anything in return;
(2) you reiterate that they don't owe you anything and they can feel at ease; and
(3) you are sending a teaching them a very important life principle: do not hesitate to help others too if and when the opportunity arises. (It doesn't mean you'll help everyone, and it doesn't mean it has to be financially.)

But either way, our dear Lawyer is already doing exactly that, paying-it-forward. A simple way of connecting someone to the foundation is paying-it-forward because otherwise that someone is more likely not going to make that connection.

(He's even going to sponsor the guy himself but through the foundation. Which is very wise too, you avoid any potential issues that might arise. (Often, jealous people whispering evil assumptions.))

Which is good for the foundation as well. They can't possibly know everyone who deserves their help. Introducing people, especially from those they helped before, can change people's lives.

Though they didn't say pay-it-forward directly, that's exactly what it is.

Don't pay back the people you helped you, because that will negate their voluntary help. Pay-it-forward by helping others and teach them to do the same. Do not confuse this to paying someone you owe. (More on this below.)

That poor kid. Kids are very vulnerable. Parents should be very careful and mindful. Stop using the excuse "I did it because I love you". No. You don't love your kid. You love yourself.

I love the scene where the 1ML was crushing the mother. I do the same when someone tries to blame me for their mess, and I always enjoy it. It's so sweet.

You start slow. You lead them on to a corner. But you don't point fingers at them, instead, you make them realize it themselves. There is no perfect crushing defeat other than them trapping themselves. And then you hit the final nail on their coffin with one strong blow.

BOOM. The end. They buried themselves 6 feet under. You just guided them gently.

😈😈😈😈😈😈😈

I can't wait for them to take on a case related to hard of hearing. She can speak KSL so it's inevitable she'll have a related case later. I'm more excited about it.

How did she get out of misrepresenting herself as an attorney when they confronted her friend's former employer?

Based on the dialogues, that was how she was convinced to take law. In other words, she isn't even a law student yet.

Korea doesn't have a law against pretending to be a lawyer? 😲

I mean, we have TINLA and IANAL because that law is very common everywhere.

TINLA = This Is Not Legal Advice
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer

Anyone noticed they were drinking coffee from a whiskey glass?

It must have been cold, no-ice, coffee. 🤣🤣🤣 Otherwise, that doesn't make sense, they'll burn their hands and that type of glass has a limit on hot temperature. 😅😅

Here's what I think:

1. She aborted the child because of their pre-nuptial agreement OR she did because it wasn't his.
2. He pieced together everything, he's a lawyer, his brain is wired that way.
3. Both of them agreed to divorce
4. Years later his ex-wife got married and is now pregnant

LOL. This is like the third or fourth show in less than 30 days I saw an age gap war. 😅

What I'm saying is, I think if an age gap is not your cup of tea, it seems to be a trend for the next few months. There's even an on-going Pdrama with an age gap debate too, so it's not only in Kdrama.

There's YoonA's and HanNa's upcoming show too, already have an active age gap war. 😅