When a Barrister with early onset Alzheimers obtains a mysterious brief, he must break his professional code to restore justice by convincing a Court to set aside his own client?s acquittal.
Leon DavisLogliner
When a Barrister with early onset Alzheimers obtains a mysterious brief, he must break his professional code to restore justice by convincing a Court to set aside his own client?s acquittal.
Share
I don’t think a lawyer would do this.
However, that being said, if you are going to write this story, then we need to know what bad thing will happen if the client goes free. Will he kill children? Blow up an embassy? Force innocent people to listen to Justin Beiber music?
It had better be compelling if the lawyer is going to do something so completely unethical and goes against everything the law stands for.
Second all of Richiev’s comments.
Why is the Alzheimers relevant? I can’t help but think that this would have professionally diagnosed and the moment that happened this guy’s career as a lawyer would be over. He’s possibly breaking the law by not disclosing this information and if it is revealed then potentially all his cases that he’s tried since his diagnosis (or even when the symptoms first started) would have grounds for retrial as he, arguably, could be seen as mentally incompetent.
What is in the mysterious brief that results in this lawyer needing to break his professional code? You need to explain this as there seems to be a disconnection between the inciting incident and the goal. Loglines require specificity. You’re not trying to entice someone into reading your screenplay, you’re supposed to sum up the story in its entirety so they shouldn’t have to.
If this brief is effectively proving his client’s guilt why would the sender not send it to the prosecution? They can present this and the acquittal is dropped. I’m not a lawyer, or even particularly knowledgable legally speaking, but surely it makes more sense to send it to the other side? Why send it to this guy?
On the legal technicalities entailed in the plot, your curriculum vitae indicates you know enough about the practice of law to write credibly about what he can do to right the wrong by violating the professional code.
Agree with Richiev that “restore justice”? needs to be spelled out in specific terms of what’s at stake if he doesn’t succeed.? What is the cost of failure?? Who is the victim of the injustice?
And per mikepedley85,? why is Alzheimer’s? relevant?? It’s a good complication, but it needs to be more integrated into the logline.? Must he achieve his objective goal before he no longer has the memory to do so?? Does this imply that the outcome turns on a memory — something only he knows about or was a witness to. How is it a pivotal complication to how the plot plays out?
After a smash repair shop explodes, a Barrister must infringe his professional code by assisting his son to restore justice by convincing a Court to set aside his guilty client?s acquittal.
When the guilty terrorist he helped getting acquitted starts a new campaign of terror, a lawyer with early onset of Alzeihmer must break professional code to help his prosecutor son convicts his client.
>>> starts a new campaign of terror
It’s a new post-acquittal crime.? New facts, new evidence.? Prima facie, I don’t see how any violation of the legal professional code is required to assist in prosecuting the case.? What’s the legal and moral dilemma?