I'm kind of a sucker for legal shows. If there's a courtroom scene, I'll watch along and try to guess objections and evidentiary rulings. It's never perfect because the actual law is a lot more boring than is appropriate for TV. There are a lot of basic objections based on form that don't end up really creating drama that are missing from the shows -- things like this:
Plaintiff's attorney, on direct: Did you then go back to the restaurant to get your coat?
Defense attorney: Objection. Leading.
Judge: Sustained, re-phrase counsel.
Plaintiff's attorney: Where did you go?
* * *
But that's not really something "wrong," so much as "edited out" to make a more watchable show.
Regarding specific shows:
Boston Legal's fun. I've only seen a few episodes, but my father-in-law's really into it, so I know about it. It's obviously comedy, though, so I don't get into the legal stuff too much.
I've watched a lot of Law & Order, and they base a lot of their episodes on real cases. Back when I was in law school, my roommate and I were working on a problem in one of our classes based on the "Inevitable Discovery Doctrine," specifically
Nix v. Williams. We took a break to watch L&O, and what do you know -- it was the
Nix episode! That was cool. The law they use in L&O is pretty good. I learned New York criminal law, which is sort of peculiar, and the show got it right a lot more than it got it wrong.
Speaking of "real life" court shows, a professor of mine in law school is friends with
Judge Alex, so he had him come in and lecture to us. Apparently he was a real judge. #1 -- every woman in the room swooned upon his entrance (ridiculously handsome dude). #2 -- he revealed that they have a staff dentist on hand to deal with all the parties who are missing teeth. That was about the gravity of the class discussion.
Cleo