How the Magic of Contract Law Saved the World in Doctor Strange

February 12, 2017

It is not often that Contract Law saves the world, but when it does, it is a doctor conducting the negotiations.

Doctor Stephen Strange stopped Dormammu from destroying life as we know it on Earth by bargaining with him. The key terms included Dr. Strange would end the time loop that had trapped Dormammu in exchange for the safety of Earth. As an added term, Dormammu would accept Kaecilius and his Zealots into his Dark Dimension. The goal of Kaecilius’s plan was to ultimately bring Dormammu’s timeless Dark Dimension to Earth. Would that make Kaecilius a third-party beneficiary to Doctor Strange’s bargain with Dormammu?

Courts have weighed the issue of what are the rights a third person who benefits from a contract, but is neither the promisor nor promisee. The English view was that a third-party had no enforceable rights. See, John Edward Murray, Jr, Murray on Contracts, Third Edition, Copyright 1990, citing Vandepitte v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Corp., A.C., 70 (1933), Tweedle v. Atkinson, 1. B. & S. 393 [1861]; Bourne v. Mason, 1 Ventirs 6 [1669].

The “American” view of third-party beneficiaries was first definitively explained in Lawrence v. Fox 220 N.Y. 268 (1859). As the legal sorcerer Murray explained, Holly (Party A) loaned $300 to Fox (Party B) and told Fox that Holly owned $300 to Lawrence (Party C), who Fox agreed to pay back. Murray on Contracts, page 754, citing Lawrence v. Fox. Lawrence was not paid back, sued, and ultimately recovered, based on the principle that “where one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third person, the third person may maintain an action to enforce that promise.” page 755.

Dr. Strange’s bargain included a term that gave Kaecilius exactly what he wanted: timelessness without death in the Dark Dimension. Legally speaking, Kaecilius was a third-party beneficiary of Strange’s contract with Dormammu. Unfortunately for Kaecilius, he should have read the warning about the spell to go to the Dark Dimension.

Axanar: Boldly Going Where No Fan Film Has Gone Before

Neel Chatterjee

February 6, 2017

By Neel Chatterjee and Cathy Shyong

There is no greater fan base than the fan base for Star Trek. Trekkies love celebrating the original TV show, the follow on series, and the completely awesome movies (let’s leave Star Trek VI out of this…..actually we can’t). They wear costumes inspired by the films and shows, write their own stories, and create tons of cool YouTube videos. This “fan fiction” is so fundamental to Star Trek, it is hard to imagine where someone will go where no man has gone before and cross the line to where the owners of the rights to Star Trek would actually take a phaser set to kill to kill the work celebrating Star Trek.

Alec Peters, a well-known Star Trek blogger, took a major attack to his work. He decided to start an independent company called Axanar. His stated goal was to produce a professional-quality, full-length Star Trek film named “Axanar.” It was fan fiction on steroids, or, as it were, ketracel-white. Axanar would act as a “prequel” to the original series and would tell the story of Garth of Izar, a legendary Starfleet captain who fought in the Battle of Axanar. Garth of Izar, the story goes, inspired Captain Kirk and other Starfleet officers.

This project could not be funded with Tribbles. So to fund the project, Axanar used crowdsourcing websites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo. It raised over a million dollars from fans around the world. Axanar hired professional actors and crew members, many of whom had worked on the original Star Trek series. Axanar did this independently of Paramount and CBS, who own the intellectual property rights to the Star Trek enterprise, and did not license any rights from Paramount and CBS. A tremendous amount of the work in Axanar was created by Alec Peters and his colleagues.

In 2014, at San Diego Comic Con, Axanar premiered a 20-minute preview film, “Prelude to Axanar,” to showcase the Axanar concept. “Prelude to Axanar” discusses the events that will be covered in the full-length film in a “mockumentary” style. Upon the release of “Prelude to Axanar,” Paramount and CBS sued Axanar for copyright infringement in the Central District of California.

Copyright infringement occurs when there is (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of original elements of a work. Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006). Copying can be shown through substantial similarity of a work. In the Ninth Circuit, substantial similarity requires both an “extrinsic” (objective) and “intrinsic” (subjective) comparison of the original work and the allegedly infringing work. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1398 (9th Cir. 1997).

The Court found objective similarity by applying a test in “a Vulcan-like manner.” The extrinsic test has three steps: the court must “dissect” the work into elements, then “filter out” and disregard the unprotectable elements, and compare only the protectable elements of the work with those of the allegedly infringing work. It is important to filter out the nonprotectable elements because “scenes à faire,” or elements flowing naturally from generic plot-lines, are not protectable. Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2006). For example, “electrified fences, automated tours, dinosaur nurseries, and uniformed workers” flow necessarily or naturally from the concept of a dinosaur zoo. Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir. 2002).

The line between scenes à faire and protectable expression is not always clear. On one hand, a “masked magician dressed in standard magician garb whose role is limited to performing and revealing the magic tricks, for example, is not an especially distinct character differing from an ordinary magician in a manner that warrants copyright protection.” Id. at 1019. On the other hand, a Batmobile, or “a fictional, high-tech automobile that Batman employs as his primary mode of transportation,” is distinctive enough to be protectable. DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2015).

The Court found the following elements protectable:

Garth of Izar. The court ruled that this legendary starship captain is entitled to copyright protection. Garth of Izar appears as a live action character, so he has “physical as well as conceptual qualities.” He is famous for his exploits in the Battle of Axanar and his exploits are required reading at the Starfleet academy. The court noted that “Garth’s identity as a Federation hero sufficiently delineates him and sets him apart from a stock spaceship officer.”

Klingons and Vulcans. The court noted that these species “may be entitled to copyright protection.”

Klingons are a “militaristic, alien species” from the planet Qo’noS and are long-time enemies of the Federation. Klingons have distinctive physical features including ridged foreheads, dark hair and skin, upward sloping eyebrows, and the men have facial hair, as shown below:

Paramount Pictures Corp. and CBS Studios Inc. v. Axanar Productions, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E, Dkt. 88-70 at 7.

Vulcans are a species that values logic and reason over emotions. They are advanced technologically and are part of the Federation. They have pointed ears and upswept eyebrows; the men usually have bowl-shaped haircut:

Paramount Pictures Corp. and CBS Studios Inc. v. Axanar Productions, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E, Dkt. 88-70 at 9.

Costumes. The court viewed several Star Trek costumes as artistic and likely to “contain original expressions protectable under Copyright Act.”

Setting aside the general awfulness of Star Trek VI, the Court found copyrightable expression (even poor quality content can be copyrighted….For example, The Adventures of Pluto Nash has copyright protection). Specifically, the court found that a Klingon officer’s uniform from Star Trek VI – The Undiscovered Country is likely copyrightable. The uniform is a “gray tunic with shoulder covers and a red neckpiece” and is depicted below:

Paramount Pictures Corp. and CBS Studios Inc. v. Axanar Productions, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E, Dkt. 88-70 at 7.

The court also found that the Vulcan Ambassador Soval’s uniform—an “Asian-style long robe and a drape decorated with Vulcan writing”—is also likely to be copyrightable.

Paramount Pictures Corp. and CBS Studios Inc. v. Axanar Productions, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E, Dkt. 88-70 at 14.

Other elements: planets, spaceships, plot points, sequence of events, dialogs, mood, and theme. The court noted that elements from Star Trek might be protectable, including the following:

Planets (Axanar, Qo’noS, and Vulcan)
- Military spaceships including Klingon battlecruisers, Vulcan ships with an engine ring, and Federation spaceships
- Space travel elements such as spacedocks, Vulcan buildings (cathedrals with sword-blade shaped domes, federation logo, stardate, transporters and warp drive
- Weapons such as phasers and photon torpedoes
- Plot points, sequence of events, and dialogs from Star Trek
- Mood and theme of Star Trek as science fiction action adventure

The tension between this holding and the “scenes à faire” doctrine is palpable. Many of these other elements of Star Trek (especially military spaceships, space travel elements, weapons, plot points, and the mood and theme) flow naturally from the fact that Star Trek is a science fiction movie. Other science fictions films like Star Wars have similar elements. The Court nevertheless found that, although these elements might not be individually copyrightable, “they are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship.” The law establishes, however, that the copyright protection on a combination of unprotectable elements is often “thin” and protects against “only virtually identical copying.” Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 812 (9th Cir. 2003); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994) (Apple GUI consisting of overlapping windows, folders, icons, etc. is entitled to only “‘thin’ protection, against virtually identical copying”). The Court did not so limit Star Trek’s protection.

Ultimately, the Court found substantial similarity between “Prelude to Axanar” and Star Trek under the extrinsic test. He left the task of applying the intrinsic test (determining whether the total concept and feel are subjectively similar) up to the jury. The Court further determined that Axanar is not entitled to the fair use defense, in part because it is not a “parody”; it is a feature film meant to replace and compete with the original Star Trek films. Additionally, even though Axanar is to be distributed for free on Youtube, it is commercial in nature because its creators stand to gain indirect commercial benefit, such as increased viewership and job opportunities.

Shortly after the opinion issued, on January 20, 2017, Paramount Pictures and CBS settled with Axanar. Under the settlement agreement, “Prelude to Axanar” can live long and prosper. Axanar can also proceed to make its full-length feature film, which will be shown on Youtube, commercial-free, in two fifteen-minute segments.

At around the same time, Paramount Pictures issued official Guidelines for Star Trek fan films. The Guidelines limit the title, length, fundraising, filming, and distribution of fan films. The film also must be “a real ‘fan’ production” in that the creators, actors, and participants must be amateurs and cannot be compensated. In short, Paramount Pictures seems to be fine with fan films, as long as they remain exactly that.

Cathy Shyong

Cathy is an intellectual property lawyer in Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe’s Silicon Valley office. Cathy represents high-tech companies in e-commerce, software, and consumer electronics. Cathy also counsels companies and nonprofits on intellectual property licensing and general commercial contracts. Cathy maintains an active pro bono practice litigating cases involving constitutional rights. Cathy previously served as a law clerk to Chief Judge Claudia Wilken and Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Cathy’s favorite video game is Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney; surprisingly, her experience as a lawyer shares few similarities with the game.

For more on this case and the settlement, check out the podcast with Neel Chatterjee and Josh Gilliland.

Livewire Could Sue for More Than Copyright Infringement

Josh Gilliland

January 31, 2017

The Supergirl episode “We Can Be Heroes,” showed Livewire having a very bad week. She was kidnaped from prison, held against her will, and experimented on to create super-villain-soldiers. Livewire complained to her mad scientist tormentor that she could sue him for copyright infringement. Livewire should seek legal counsel, because she has more than one legal claim.

Livewire can sue the state of California for negligence, because she was kidnapped from her own cell due to a massive security breach. The State’s negligence allowed a henchmen to falsely impersonate a prison guard, assault a real guard, free one inmate, assault a prison psychiatrist, and kidnap Livewire.

The prison’s negligence allowed an imposter to enter the prison. Under California law, a “…public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.2(a).

It was the failure of the prison security system that allowed an imposter to enter the compound. If the security lapse was not the fault of any specific individual, a general theory of negligence pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 could provide Livewire a means of recovery against the state, because of the lack of ordinary care in maintaining a secure prison allowed her to be harmed. “But for” the prison being breached, Livewire would not have been kidnapped and tortured.

The aptly named “Bad Science Man” by Mon-EL is also subject to civil liability for his intentional torts on Livewire. First, “BSM” had a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Livewire, which is the act of forcibly taking another person to another location under Cal. Penal Code § 207. Second, BSM then violated Livewire’s personal liberty by physically restraining her on a chair in a warehouse, which would be false imprisonment under Cal. Penal Code § 236. Third, BSM’s experiments to drain Livewire of power were done with the intent to cause her pain and great bodily injury, thus meeting the legal definition of torture under Cal. Penal Code § 206. Livewire could sue “Bad Science Man” for these willful acts pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.

The State is likely the “deep pocket” for suing, because “Bad Science Man” did not appear to be well-funded. Regardless, an attorney would need to conduct their due diligence before bring any claims on Livewire’s behalf for the best litigation strategy.

It’s Really a Good Idea to Get a Warrant Before Bugging a Senate Office

Josh Gilliland

January 25, 2017

The [fictional] Senator Ellen Nadeer has engaged in domestic terrorism, kidnapping, murder, conspiracy, insurrection, and a host of other no-no’s for any sitting Senator on Agents of SHIELD. Phil Coulson and Yo-Yo set out to plant recording devices in the Senator’s office in the “Stamford Wing” of one of the Senate Office Buildings in the episode “Wake Up.” While an excellent homage to Marvel’s Civil War, why didn’t Coulson get a search warrant for a United States Senator?

There have been members of Congress investigated by the FBI in the real world. Generally speaking, law enforcement agencies must get a search warrant before conducting a search of property to comply with the 4^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The warrant requirements for wiretaps for intersecting written, oral, electronic communications require an application the authority for the application and the following:

(a) the identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application, and the officer authorizing the application;

(b) a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that an order should be issued, including (i) details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed, (ii) except as provided in subsection (11), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted, (iii) a particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted, (iv) the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted;

(c) a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;

(d) a statement of the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained. If the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication has been first obtained, a particular description of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of the same type will occur thereafter;

(e) a full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the individual authorizing and making the application, made to any judge for authorization to intercept, or for approval of interceptions of, wire, oral, or electronic communications involving any of the same persons, facilities or places specified in the application, and the action taken by the judge on each such application; and

(f) where the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain such results.

18 U.S.C.S. § 2518(1)(a)-(f)

Jemma Simmons arguably would be the best SHIELD Agent to make the application as the investigating officer for SHIELD, because she both “treated” Vijay Nadeer, Senator Nadeer’s brother, and investigated the Senator’s property to find Vijay. Simmons could explain that the status of Vijay is unknown and that the Senator is connected with the domestic terrorist organization known as the Watchdogs. The duration for the investigation could be for a reasonable amount of time for investigating the terrorist connection, possibly 30 days to see what contact takes place.

Executing search warrants on members of Congress can be complex because of the Speech and Debate Clause. In one of the rare cases of searching a Congressman’s office, the Congressman who was the subject of the search warrant should have had an opportunity to review files to see if they were protected by the Speech and Debate privilege, prior to the Government removing the files from his office. United States v. Rayburn House Office Bldg., 378 U.S. App. D.C. 139, 147-48 (2007).

A wiretap a Senator’s office would throw the Speech and Debate Clause out the window, because everything the Senator Nadeer did and said would be recorded. In one case with a state senator under investigation that authorized a wiretap, the requirement that no other investigative means would be effective, because the state senator told a cooperating witness that he would not include himself in any incriminating conversations with third-parties. See, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2518, referencing United States v Bankston (1999, CA5 La) 182 F3d 296, reh den (1999, CA5 La) 1999 US App LEXIS 25466, cert den (2001) 534 US 1043, 122 S Ct 620, 151 L Ed 2d 542 and revd on other grounds, remanded sub nom Cleveland v United States (2000) 531 US 12, 121 S Ct 365, 148 L Ed 2d 221, 2000 CDOS 8942, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 11849, RICO Bus Disp Guide (CCH) P 9970, 2000 Colo J C A R 6139, 14 FLW Fed S 3 and revd on other grounds, remanded sub nom Goodson v United States (2000) 531 US 987, 121 S Ct 476, 148 L Ed 2d 450, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 12031.

Other cases with wiretaps have rejected the Speech and Debate Clause where members of Congress engaged in racketeering. See, United States v. McDade, 827 F. Supp. 1153, 1180 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

The same logic would apply to Senator Nadeer, because being in a conspiracy to conduct domestic terrorism, murder, kidnapping, insurrection, and treason, are not legislative acts protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. Director Mace, Phil Coulson, and Jemma Simmons should have consulted with a SHIELD attorney, or turned the matter over to the Department of Justice, so the FBI could have properly executed a warrant for the investigation of Senator Nadeer.

Join us for X-Men and Star Wars at San Diego Comic Fest 2017

Josh Gilliland

January 23, 2017

We are very excited to return to San Diego Comic Fest with a new Star Wars panel and mock hearing based on the X-Men. The X-Men mock hearing is being argued by law students from McGeorge and California Western law schools. United States Magistrate Judge Mitch Dembin will preside over the mock hearing. The law students are briefing their arguments, which will be posted on The Legal Geeks before the mock hearing.

Rogue Law: We Are One with the Force, Saturday, 1100am, Palm B.

US Magistrate Judge Mitch Dembin, California Judge Carol Najera, Megan Hitchcock, Esq., and Joshua Gilliland, Esq., from The Legal Geeks, are all Star Wars fans. Rogue Law will discuss the legal issues from Rogue One, A Star Wars Story, including the Empire drafting Galen Erso to build the Death Star, whether Cassian Andor killing Tivik was murder, and the desertion of Bodhi Rook. The panel will debate whether the Dark Side an addition or a lifestyle choice.

X-Men Mock Trial on Mutant Rights, Saturday, 300pm, Montgomery Theater

Are Mutants human beings? Can Mutants be forced to Register with the Federal Government? Could Sentinels be used to summarily execute unregistered Mutants based on their DNA? US Magistrate Judge Mitch Dembin will preside over this fictional mock hearing inspired by the X-Men comics and movies. Law students from California Western and McGeorge law schools will argue over a motion to stop the Government, involving Civil Rights and National Defense after a mass casualty incident caused by Mutants.

Check out the mock DOJ and DOD memos authorizing the use of Sentinels on Mutants!

XMen_DOJ_Memo

Data Security Lessons from Rogue One

Josh Gilliland

January 19, 2017

How was the Empire’s data security on Scarif? Privacy attorney Jack Yang joined me at Illusive Comics to geek out over Star Wars, discuss Rogue One, how the Doctrine of Fear did not encourage effective information security best practices, and the legal issues with Bring Your Own Droid to work policies.

Deep in discussion on Star Wars, data privacy, and Black Series action figures.

Listen to Us on Stitcher

Link to Google Play

The Trauma of Being She-Hulk After Marvel’s Civil War II

Megan Smith

January 16, 2017

Jennifer Walters, formerly known as the Incredible She-Hulk, has been struggling ever since the end of the events of Marvel’s Civil War II. At the beginning of the event, Walters is knocked unconscious in a battle royal between a passel of various superheroes and Thanos, the mad Titan; she spends the rest of the event in a coma, sometimes being visited by former teammates, but otherwise missing in action. Although she makes it out of Civil War II alive and with a new solo series (entitled simply, Hulk), it’s clear she’s been changed for the worse.

We see her trauma in the major life changes she decides to make at the start of her new series; she now remains in her human form, forswears crime-fighting, and returns to her legal practice. Whereas she used to remain in her She-Hulk form as both civilian and superhero, that body now brings with it traumatic memories of her last fight. Even thinking about what happened (and the family and colleagues she has lost) causes her to break out in a sweat and double over in pain. She also appears to be separating herself from the people she knew in her superhero life. When Patsy Walker, aka HellCat, texts her to see how she is, Jennifer doesn’t respond. When she leaves work, we see her lock herself away in her apartment alone.

Based on the Mayo Clinic’s helpful website and her own behavior, it appears that Jennifer now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Symptoms of PTSD include recurrent, intrusive, memories of the traumatic event (check); avoidance of talking about the event or to anyone related to it (check); changes in emotional reactions, including irritability, overwhelming guilt, shame, or anxiety (check); and negative changes in thinking and mood, including difficulty in maintaining close relationships and a loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities (double-check). Jennifer is plagued by thoughts she cannot control, has cut herself off from the superhero world she once loved, and is anxious and irritable due to this trauma. It certainly looks like PTSD.

Attempting to juggle PTSD and any job is hard enough; trying to do that within a licensed profession is a different ball of wax altogether. Attorney licensure is regulated by the bar of each state. In New York, where Jennifer practices, the appellate division of the supreme court for each geographic division of New York (called “departments”) determines whether a person “possesses the character and general fitness requisite” to practice as an attorney in the first place; they also determine whether to sanction or disbar an attorney from practice. NY CLS Jud §90.

Attorney discipline generally happens through a court case filed by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) in the department where the attorney practices law. New York law provides that whenever the DDC petitions the “court to determine whether an attorney is incapacitated from continuing to practice law by reason of physical or mental infirmity or illness […] this court may take or direct such action as it deems necessary or proper to determine whether the attorney is so incapacitated, including examination of the attorney by such qualified experts as this court shall designate.” 22 NYCRR §603.16(b)(1).

The appellate division is “authorized to censure, suspend from practice or remove from office any attorney and counsellor-at-law admitted to practice who is guilty of professional misconduct, malpractice, fraud, deceit, crime or misdemeanor, or any conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and the appellate division of the supreme court is hereby authorized to revoke such admission for any misrepresentation or suppression of any information in connection with the application for admission to practice.” NY CLS Jud §90(2).

There’s no allegation that Jennifer lied or hid any information when she became an attorney (she did not gain her powers or experience mental illness until well after she was already licensed, and it appears that her She-Hulk alter-ego has been common knowledge since then). There’s also nothing to suggest that she has engaged in any fraud, deceit, crime, misdemeanor, or any conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (think: lying to police or blackmailing clients).

The concern for Jennifer lies with the specter of professional misconduct and malpractice. There are not many New York state attorney disciplinary cases involving mental health issues that have reached the appeal stage, and many of the ones that exist seem to purposefully shroud their details to protect the attorneys’ privacy. The few details we have, however, are illuminating: they are either cases where the diseases themselves have made the attorneys incapable of performing legal work (because they were removed from reality, as the attorneys in In re Cohen, 92 AD 2d 139 (1983), In re Colp, 185 AD 2d 43 (1993), and In re Dickson, 196 AD 2d 399 (1994), were) or they are cases where the effort of dealing with the mental illness made it impossible for the attorneys to keep up with their work. This second category of case includes In re Guran, 126 AD 2d 216 (1987), (where the attorney was too mentally disordered to prepare for his own disbarment hearing); In re Jordon, 202 AD 2d 141 (1994), (where the attorney’s severe, chronic, depression and resulting mental fragility caused her to engage in unspecified misconduct); and In re Rochlin, 100 AD 2d 263 (1984), (another severe depression case where the attorney lied to clients and fabricated legal documents because he could no longer keep up with his work).

As everyone knows Jennifer Walters used to be the She-Hulk, it seems unlikely that a psychiatrist interviewing her would think she’d had a break from reality when she talks about the fantastical cause of her pain. With the severity of her panic attacks and the physical manifestations of her stress, however, it seems possible that Jennifer’s trauma may lead to her neglecting her work and engaging in bad behavior to try to keep up. If so, a petition by the DDC and a court order could force her into a psychiatric evaluation and a pause from her life as a lawyer.

Without her superhero or professional identities, who would Jennifer Walters even be? If she’s unwilling or unable to treat her PTSD, we may just find out.

1...515253...138 Page 52 of 138