Related Posts
Helloo 🎏 .. need your thoughts on below 👇
Can anyone refer me in Accenture ?
What will be in hand salary in Walmart ?
Pro
Additional Posts in Law
Pro
Any family lawyers here?
If I leave big law for ADA will I get canceled?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
No, because my child is a child.
You know he didn’t mean say it *to* the child, right?
I actually do a side-by-side slide deck of howThe Little Mermaid is actually a case study in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and law firm risk management—disguised as a musical fairy tale.
First, consider Ariel’s contract with Ursula. She gives up her voice in exchange for legs, but did she understand the terms? There was no clear explanation of the risks, no opportunity for negotiation, and certainly no independent counsel. This is a swimming violation of Rules 1.0, 1.4, and 1.8. A law firm presenting a retainer like this—ambiguous, one-sided, and unenforceable in equity—would risk serious ethical exposure.
Then there’s King Triton, whose personal bias against humans clouds his ability to act objectively. He tries to protect Ariel but also enforces a policy banning human contact. That’s a textbook Rule 1.7 conflict of interest—trying to wear two hats without disclosing or obtaining informed consent. Triton never pauses to consider whether his interests are impairing his judgment, which is exactly what lawyers must assess when their loyalties are divided.
Next, Sebastian the crab is in a precarious position as the apparent general counsel to the kingdom. When Ariel rebels and Triton demands answers, Sebastian tries to serve both. But as Rule 1.13 makes clear, lawyers for organizations represent the entity, not individual constituents. When interests diverge, you can’t be loyal to both the CEO and the whistleblower. Sebastian needed a memo clarifying his role—or at least a better risk management plan than “sing about it.”
Ursula’s fee agreement is another ethics disaster. A three-day term with soul forfeiture for failure is not just unreasonable under Rule 1.5—it’s unconscionable. There’s no writing, no clarity, and no consideration of fairness. Any lawyer offering a contingency fee with life-altering consequences and zero disclosures would be disbarred before their next client consult.
Ariel’s lost voice raises issues with Rules 1.6 and 3.3. Without the ability to speak, she cannot correct misrepresentations or clarify her own position. When Ursula impersonates her to manipulate Prince Eric, the danger of silencing a client becomes clear. Lawyers must preserve client confidentiality (Rule 1.6), but they also have an obligation to the truth, the tribunal, and the integrity of the process (Rule 3.3). A client who can’t speak can’t advocate—ethically or otherwise.
The “Kiss the Girl” scene? It’s unsolicited romantic solicitation, orchestrated by a crab and a fish choir. Rule 7.3 prohibits in-person solicitation of clients without prior request—especially when there’s music involved. Ariel’s consent is ambiguous at best, and Eric doesn’t know the terms. It’s another example of what happens when third parties push an outcome without client authorization.
Finally, the ending is a mess of unauthorized practice and contract enforcement chaos. Who voids the agreement? Is there a tribunal? Due process? The entire resolution bypasses the legal system, creating a Rule 5.5 problem. If Triton or Eric unilaterally nullifies a binding contract without legal authority, that’s not justice—that’s vigilante equity.
In short, The Little Mermaid isn’t just a story about love and transformation. It’s a warning about what happens when ethical obligations are ignored. Contracts without informed consent, dual loyalties, mismanaged client representation, and a complete lack of legal process lead to disaster.
This is brilliant! Thank you.
There should be more tongue-in-cheek legal analyses like this of movies and TV shows. Someone please make that happen if it doesn’t already exist….
Yes, and then my child and I have a deep, thoughtful conversation about contract law and its precedent, OP
We talk more about how she gave up her entire world and left her family for a dude she had just met.
👆🏻 Or similarly, don't sacrifice your voice for a man or anyone else
Doesn’t that depend on the age of majority for mermaids? She is 16 and apparently that is old enough to get married..?
Rising Star
This is a good thread. More of this. 🔥
The Little Mermaid is based on folktales, and folktales used to be one way to educate young people.
It’s possible ancient folktales and historical legal principles are intertwined—marriage contracts, for instance, have particularly ancient roots. Folktales may even have helped educate people about the risks of bad contracts.
So it’s fitting to have this convo with your child :)
Pro
I don't have a kid, but we definitely had a conversation about this in law school after we learned this concept.
Same here!
Mine actually asked that at age 7. We had a conversation about jurisdiction for about 10 minutes before she got bored
That is funny! I don’t have children and my niece and nephew are hellions that I don’t interact with if I can help it, but I would totally point this out. This post is actually helping me study for the bar in a state with no reciprocity with NY!