The Boston Herald, finding the show "guilty of inanity," was rude enough to point out that:
In this universe, justice is dispensed on the basis of personal relationships between the court representatives. The defendants are pawns between rivals, roommates or lovers who look to one-up each other.
Never has the justice system looked so silly.
Or so hairy, for that matter, based on the overflowing locks of the hero of the show (Feige himself, but handsome and able to get lots of babes?)
But, oh dear, not even all the faithful are happy. The exquisitely sensitive Seth Abramson, himself a literary PD (he's a poet, dontcha know?) has lots of problems with Feige's little show, which he derides (quite accurately) as loaded down with "trashy talk, sex, skimpy clothing, and absurd courtroom melodrama." He's got ten questions about the absurdly unrealistic show (seconded by A Public Defender) , and Feige responds to him here. Interestingly, Feige offers no defense for the show beyond 1) it shows how much the PDs "care" for their really, truly, human clients; and 2) it shows how the "system" is broken, a recurrent theme for Feige.
Feige's problem has always been that he confuses losing cases as a defender with the "system" being "broken." But as I've mentioned before, even Feige admits the "error rate" (i.e., wrongful convictions) is very small, in the neighborhood of .5%. No one wants any error, but given the fact that the justice system only asks for proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction and not metaphysical certitude, the system is far from being broken.
Which may explain why TNT needs all the long hair, skimpy clothing, and sex to sell this show to viewers.