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.

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.

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.

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?