Sever Ties
A self-centered, big-city, corporate lawyer finds himself between a rock and hard place when assigned to represent a multi-billionaire client set on ruthless exploitation of his hometown.
Share
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I agree with you. It’s unlikely to get away with the legal side of the story, without backing it properly. I will let it sit for a while. I might have another angle on the exploitation.
I value your input.
I agree with you. It’s unlikely to get away with the legal side of the story, without backing it properly. I will let it sit for a while. I might have another angle on the exploitation.
I value your input.
I’m taking a wild guess that you are one of those heretics who don’t genuflect before the altar of the limited liability corporation.
Neither do I.
That said, in the current environmental regulatory and legal environment, I find the premise improbable: that is, that the CEO thinks he can foist the contamination on the town and evade clean up costs, now and in the future. If he knows he is donating a toxic time bomb that will inevitably detonate, then he would surely know his corporate ass will be hauled into court to pay cleanup costs.
Further, he would know that the company will get bitch-slapped with punitive costs in court that (combined with the clean up costs) could drive his company (and himself) into bankruptcy. So the bottom line –and CEO’s genuflect before the bottom line — is that it would be cheaper to acknowledge and pay for the cleanup.
Now if the CEO thinks he can actually get away with dumping the toxic dump on the town, that the company will profit, then he is either stupid or insane. Corporate chief antagonists can be greedy, arrogant, and callous — but they can’t be stupid. Otherwise, they are unworthy antagonists: their diabolical genius is what makes them so dangerous — and interesting.
That leaves the insanity defense: if you know of some arcane, perverse and perfectly legal legerdemain that would enable the CEO & company to escape all legal liability and blowback, then you have the potential for a credible and interesting story.
Or if your story is “based upon” or “inspired by” an event where a company (in the EPA era, since 1970) did try to foist a toxic dump in the making on a town and almost succeeded. Truth is stranger than fiction. And more interesting and compelling.
But if the fiction is stranger than the truth….
fwiw
I’m taking a wild guess that you are one of those heretics who don’t genuflect before the altar of the limited liability corporation.
Neither do I.
That said, in the current environmental regulatory and legal environment, I find the premise improbable: that is, that the CEO thinks he can foist the contamination on the town and evade clean up costs, now and in the future. If he knows he is donating a toxic time bomb that will inevitably detonate, then he would surely know his corporate ass will be hauled into court to pay cleanup costs.
Further, he would know that the company will get bitch-slapped with punitive costs in court that (combined with the clean up costs) could drive his company (and himself) into bankruptcy. So the bottom line –and CEO’s genuflect before the bottom line — is that it would be cheaper to acknowledge and pay for the cleanup.
Now if the CEO thinks he can actually get away with dumping the toxic dump on the town, that the company will profit, then he is either stupid or insane. Corporate chief antagonists can be greedy, arrogant, and callous — but they can’t be stupid. Otherwise, they are unworthy antagonists: their diabolical genius is what makes them so dangerous — and interesting.
That leaves the insanity defense: if you know of some arcane, perverse and perfectly legal legerdemain that would enable the CEO & company to escape all legal liability and blowback, then you have the potential for a credible and interesting story.
Or if your story is “based upon” or “inspired by” an event where a company (in the EPA era, since 1970) did try to foist a toxic dump in the making on a town and almost succeeded. Truth is stranger than fiction. And more interesting and compelling.
But if the fiction is stranger than the truth….
fwiw
Oh, and the father of the CEO is dead and buried. The CEO is the true antagonist, although that will not be clear to the reader/viewer from the start.
Oh, and the father of the CEO is dead and buried. The CEO is the true antagonist, although that will not be clear to the reader/viewer from the start.
Valid questions.
I’ve been toying with this back and forth a bit.
Making it a generic time and place allows you to focus on the story and the people in it. You can pretty much hammer down what laws and regulations are in effect without having to defend them and still be credible. = Less research.
Putting a place and time in the story would make it more legit (maybe?), but would need some real life cases to base it off to be able to justify actions according to real world law. = More research.
With that said, I do have some hours put into the research. Considering characters, settings and environmental law, this would be a perfect fit for Michigan, late 80s, early 90s.
I know this is logline.it and not howshouldiwritemystory.com, but how would you go about?
Valid questions.
I’ve been toying with this back and forth a bit.
Making it a generic time and place allows you to focus on the story and the people in it. You can pretty much hammer down what laws and regulations are in effect without having to defend them and still be credible. = Less research.
Putting a place and time in the story would make it more legit (maybe?), but would need some real life cases to base it off to be able to justify actions according to real world law. = More research.
With that said, I do have some hours put into the research. Considering characters, settings and environmental law, this would be a perfect fit for Michigan, late 80s, early 90s.
I know this is logline.it and not howshouldiwritemystory.com, but how would you go about?
One other question: what’s the time period? Is it contemporary or set in the past, in another decade before the EPA and stronger enforcement of environmental regulations and more aggressive (and successful) litigation of environmental hazards?
And is the story set in the United States?
One other question: what’s the time period? Is it contemporary or set in the past, in another decade before the EPA and stronger enforcement of environmental regulations and more aggressive (and successful) litigation of environmental hazards?
And is the story set in the United States?
To the public he’s a kind gentleman. In truth, the opposite.
To the public he’s a kind gentleman. In truth, the opposite.
Hmm. The description of the son as a “kind gentleman” in your outline seems to conflict with the description of “a multi-billionaire client set on ruthless exploitation”. Does the latter refer to the father? And if so, is he still alive and the power manipulating events behind the scene?
Who’s what? Who is the bad guy, the real antagonist in the story?
Hmm. The description of the son as a “kind gentleman” in your outline seems to conflict with the description of “a multi-billionaire client set on ruthless exploitation”. Does the latter refer to the father? And if so, is he still alive and the power manipulating events behind the scene?
Who’s what? Who is the bad guy, the real antagonist in the story?
Thank you for your elaborate answer dpg! It’s much appreciated.
The outline for the story is this (and please bear with me; english is not my first language):
— START OUTLINE —
In the yet-to-be-named hometown of said lawyer there’s an old petroleum refinery on it’s last legs. The refinery has been the major industrial complex in the area over the years and the livelihood of many families in and around the town.
As an act of kindness the son of the founder of the plant, which is the CEO of the company referred to earlier as the lawyer’s top-client, is giving company-owned land back to the community as a part of the dismantling of the plant.
As if that wasn’t enough, the kind gentleman of said company is also putting millions in an educational fund, encouraging the community to progress and move forward. A true hero. All is good.
There’s a catch, though. Corporate documents hold information regarding leaking underground storage tanks. By estimations made by experts, within the corporation, the leaking tanks will have to be addressed within two years. If not, the leaking tanks are highly likely to poison the only groundwater reservoirs in town and the same experts’ calculations have figures in the hundreds of millions to make the water safe.
If the documents are kept a secret, ten years down the road the place will most likely be uninhabitable.
The lawyer is sent to mediate and negotiate the terms of the “gift” and make sure the soon-to-be-contaminated land is in the ownership of the good people of the town. He is after all “one of them”.
This negotiation is the dealbreaker for the lawyer to make the youngest senior partner in the history of the firm. It’s also, by far, the greatest fee in the history of the firm. Something that will make them kings of the hill.
By accident the lawyer overhears a conversation about “The Document”.
Should he investigate further and possibly break the deal? What does he owe the town he left almost twenty years ago?
— END OUTLINE —
Does that make sense? Is it interesting/plausible enough to expand on?
Thank you for your elaborate answer dpg! It’s much appreciated.
The outline for the story is this (and please bear with me; english is not my first language):
— START OUTLINE —
In the yet-to-be-named hometown of said lawyer there’s an old petroleum refinery on it’s last legs. The refinery has been the major industrial complex in the area over the years and the livelihood of many families in and around the town.
As an act of kindness the son of the founder of the plant, which is the CEO of the company referred to earlier as the lawyer’s top-client, is giving company-owned land back to the community as a part of the dismantling of the plant.
As if that wasn’t enough, the kind gentleman of said company is also putting millions in an educational fund, encouraging the community to progress and move forward. A true hero. All is good.
There’s a catch, though. Corporate documents hold information regarding leaking underground storage tanks. By estimations made by experts, within the corporation, the leaking tanks will have to be addressed within two years. If not, the leaking tanks are highly likely to poison the only groundwater reservoirs in town and the same experts’ calculations have figures in the hundreds of millions to make the water safe.
If the documents are kept a secret, ten years down the road the place will most likely be uninhabitable.
The lawyer is sent to mediate and negotiate the terms of the “gift” and make sure the soon-to-be-contaminated land is in the ownership of the good people of the town. He is after all “one of them”.
This negotiation is the dealbreaker for the lawyer to make the youngest senior partner in the history of the firm. It’s also, by far, the greatest fee in the history of the firm. Something that will make them kings of the hill.
By accident the lawyer overhears a conversation about “The Document”.
Should he investigate further and possibly break the deal? What does he owe the town he left almost twenty years ago?
— END OUTLINE —
Does that make sense? Is it interesting/plausible enough to expand on?
The logline sets up a situation, a dilemma, and an interesting one, but it seems to me it would benefit from clarification and a tighter focus on the nature of dilemma and the nature of the exploitation.
Does between a “rock and a hard place” mean that the lawyer is merely trapped in an ethical dilemma? Or more: that he has family and friends who stand to lose if he wins the rich man’s case?
IOW: What are the stakes? What personal skin does the lawyer have in the outcome? (other than a bruised conscience). What does he — or someone close to and beloved by him (aka: a stakes character) stand to lose if he wins? What does he stand to lose, to suffer if he fails (his job?)
And what does “ruthless exploitation” mean? There are innumerable ways a rich man can exploit a community. That by itself is not dramatically novel or interesting. Movies are made all the time about rich and power people exploiting the less fortunate. And movies are made all the time about lawyers facing moral and ethical dilemmas in the cases they handle.
So what is the unique, specific dilemma the lawyer faces in this story? What exactly is the way rich man is ruthlessly exploiting the town that makes this story line different from all of the other story lines about rich people exploiting others? What is the concrete, specific threat that the rich man poses to the town — and to the lawyer?
The logline sets up a situation, a dilemma, and an interesting one, but it seems to me it would benefit from clarification and a tighter focus on the nature of dilemma and the nature of the exploitation.
Does between a “rock and a hard place” mean that the lawyer is merely trapped in an ethical dilemma? Or more: that he has family and friends who stand to lose if he wins the rich man’s case?
IOW: What are the stakes? What personal skin does the lawyer have in the outcome? (other than a bruised conscience). What does he — or someone close to and beloved by him (aka: a stakes character) stand to lose if he wins? What does he stand to lose, to suffer if he fails (his job?)
And what does “ruthless exploitation” mean? There are innumerable ways a rich man can exploit a community. That by itself is not dramatically novel or interesting. Movies are made all the time about rich and power people exploiting the less fortunate. And movies are made all the time about lawyers facing moral and ethical dilemmas in the cases they handle.
So what is the unique, specific dilemma the lawyer faces in this story? What exactly is the way rich man is ruthlessly exploiting the town that makes this story line different from all of the other story lines about rich people exploiting others? What is the concrete, specific threat that the rich man poses to the town — and to the lawyer?
Hello everyone!
New here, but been lurking around for a while. Don’t feel confident enough to comment on other loglines, but would love to in the future.
I feel this one might be a bit vague, myself. It’s a logline for a graphical novel / short story, basically.
Here’s a few variations:
A ruthless, self-centered, corporate lawyer is stuck between a rock and a hard place when assigned to represent the firm?s top client against his hometown.?
The loyalty of a ruthless, self-centered, big-city corporate lawyer is tested to the limit when assigned to represent the firm?s top client against his rural hometown.?
Would love some feedback. I’m a big enough boy to be able to handle it. Fire away.
Hello everyone!
New here, but been lurking around for a while. Don’t feel confident enough to comment on other loglines, but would love to in the future.
I feel this one might be a bit vague, myself. It’s a logline for a graphical novel / short story, basically.
Here’s a few variations:
A ruthless, self-centered, corporate lawyer is stuck between a rock and a hard place when assigned to represent the firm?s top client against his hometown.?
The loyalty of a ruthless, self-centered, big-city corporate lawyer is tested to the limit when assigned to represent the firm?s top client against his rural hometown.?
Would love some feedback. I’m a big enough boy to be able to handle it. Fire away.