Hi everyone!
I wanted to ask for your opinion on my project, “Jand.” It’s a legal procedural with absurd, borderline impossible cases — the kind that expose the loopholes and weird logic inside the system.
Here are a few episode ideas I’m considering for the season:
Episode 2:
Henri’s close friend is dying of cancer and leaves his business to his competitors in his will — along with massive hidden debts. The competitors are shocked and nearly ruined. After his friend’s death, Henri ends up defending him in court, in a case that turns into a legal and moral paradox.
Episode 3:
A woman sues her ex-husband for child support. Henri represents the husband and argues that the child was conceived due to a defective condom that broke — and that the manufacturer should share responsibility. The case turns into a battle about responsibility, fault, and where the law draws the line.
Episode 4:
A man buys a plane ticket that includes insurance but misses the flight. The plane later crashes. He sues for compensation, arguing that he had already bought the ticket with insurance and should still be covered.
Episode 5:
A young man graduates from an expensive university, goes into debt, and realizes the education he received doesn’t match what was promised. He sues the school, and Henri argues that the institution sold a “defective” education system and must refund the tuition.
Episode 6:
A hotel guest sues a hotel for poor service — and it turns out the legal owner of the hotel is a cat (through inheritance and legal guardianship). The guest has technically sued the cat, and Henri ends up representing the cat’s interests in court.
Episode 7:
A group of circus clowns decide to rob a bank to get money for surgery for the daughter of one of them. They storm into the bank wearing clown costumes and carrying toy guns. The bank employees panic and hand over the money. In court, Henri represents the clowns and argues that it wasn’t really a robbery: clown costumes are not supposed to cause fear, the guns were toys, and the employees gave the money away on their own initiative. He even argues that the bank staff should be held responsible for this. In the end, the “robbers” are acquitted.
And so on — the show is built around absurd-but-grounded legal cases that highlight how strange and imperfect the system can be.
I’d really love to hear your thoughts:
Do these ideas work for a series like this?
Would you watch a legal procedural built around cases like these?
Which concepts feel strongest or weakest to you?
Your feedback means a lot to me. Thanks in advance!
