The families' motivation for pursuing the civil case and the end result.
-- Comparing and contrasting the characters and/or actions of those characters to demonstrate what you consider to be ethical and unethical actions. The action that I felt was ethical was Jan and his team taking on the case but what as unethical is him not discussing his decision-making without them knowing and as for the lawyers on the other side that they want people to lie to safe the companies face.

-- Describe the various stakeholders and their perspectives. The families that loss their children due to them wanting closure by wanting somebody to apologize, the employees and their families because of both factories was their only source of income, the town without the factories would not continue to exist, lawyers on all sides had to put in many hours and spend a lot of money on the case but
-- What evidence do you see of considering various stakeholders and alternatives and getting the facts before making decisions by the various characters? The evidence I see is all about getting the data needed to argue the facts at hand. Jan needed more data; he should have gotten all doctors reports and got the EPA involved sooner before going to court. The Beatrice and Grace Lawyers needed evidences to show never was at fought. Alternatives for them were to get their own team to check the land to prove that never was at fault. But Facher, Beatrice attorney, argues that neither the pollution nor its results can be proven. He also angles to separate Beatrice from Grace, correctly perceiving that the Grace legal strategy is unpromising.

-- What was the "turning point" for Jan? Are you meaning when Jan stood on the bridge thinking it’s one more case he can easily knock out of the park and make a fortune, as well as a name for he and his firm or when he sat in his car imagining the suffering of the parents as they tried to safe their son. Another point in the movie was when Uncle Pete refused to give the attorney any more money or loans; which would have led to a different outcome in the courtroom. I believe there were three turning points.

-- Was it ethical to borrow so much to "help" the families? Why or why not? To prove that you’re right, sometimes you spend more because you believe that it is a sure thing. So, I would say YES in this case. But in the end, they’re gone their own way.

-- What acts of "omission" or "commission" did you observe? I felt the act of omission was when he told them at first he wasn’t going to mess with the case and commission was when it was time to settle with the families, he shorted families.

-- Was it ethical to "settle" versus "win?" I feel that Jan should have settled but pride and greed got in the way to show the bigger lawyers that he’s just as good as or better than they are. But Facher played like a chess player; he knew that to win, it is sometimes wise to offer a draw in a game even when you think you can win it. If you look by at when he said he would never let the families testify, that’s when a light bulb should have went off.

-- Discuss the relationship between the law partners and ethical considerations. Consider but don't limit yourself to loyalty issues. The relationship between the partners was special, they all depended on one another to make them a profitable law firm; they didn’t sat out to be individuals till this case as it seem. Ethical side of their relationship was that they all felt that they had a social responsibility to help these families to get justice

-- Did you want Jan to accept the $20? What "should" he have done? Yes he should have! My reason for saying this is that when it comes to law, a dead plaintiff is not worth as much as a live plaintiff.

-- Is it okay to spend money you don't have for a cause you believe in? Many would say know because they have a life to live beyond what ever situation at hand. When you believe in a cause, I feel you should do whatever it takes; no matter what the cost is.
-- Who started out believing in the families? Who "cared" in the end? Compare and contrast and the "reasons" for each. I believe Jan started out believing in the families but didn’t want them to get their feeling hurt because he knew they would not get what they wanted from the companies. Jan cared even more at the end because he want them people to know he was right and he want justice to prevail for the families and let the people know that he has not forgotten about them.

-- Comment on the "apology" ultimately delivered and the amount of loss experienced by both parties. The reason money would have to serve as an apology is because it would hurt the companies to lose it. It would serve as a punishment. As for Jan, he sends the evidence to the only people who can clear his name. He also includes a letter which is meant as an apology on his part to get the attention of the EPA.