You'd like to think a lawyer would recognize when filing a lawsuit is not just ill-advised, but might actually make things worse.

Or not.

Case in point: Attorney Andrew Greene's libel suit against Paramount Pictures.

The former general counsel of defunct brokerage Stratton Oakmont, Greene alleged that a fictional character in the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” was based on him, and that the unflattering depiction damaged his reputation. “The character … is portrayed participating in activities that are improper, unprofessional and unethical,” his lawyers wrote in the 2014 suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

But for some real reputational damage, look no further than court documents in the lawsuit.

As reported by The Hollywood Reporter's Eriq Gardner, Paramount and its lawyers from Davis Wright Tremaine and Leopold, Petrich & Smith let loose with some downright unsavory allegations in a court papers filed Friday.

Among the dirt: They claim that Greene faced questions in high school about cheating on the SATs (yes, they went back more than 30 years for that nugget), did drugs at work and hired hookers—as well as alleging he was a key player in committing securities fraud.

So much for cleaning up his reputation via litigation.

Greene, currently an inactive member of the New York bar, is referred to by name in Jordan Belfort's memoir, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” upon which the 2013 movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio was based.

He's not in the movie, but he sees his likeness in the fictional character Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff. As such, he's claiming “libel in fiction”—that is, everyone who sees the movie would know Rugrat is really him (if, you know, anyone had ever heard of him).

In the movie, Rugrat is shown having sex with hookers, doing cocaine and setting up a meeting with a Swiss banker to launder money

“The motion picture's scenes concerning Mr. Greene were false, defamatory, and fundamentally injurious to Mr. Greene's professional reputation both as an attorney and as an investment banker/ venture capitalist as well as his personal reputation,” solo practitioners Aaron Goldsmith and Stephanie Ovadia wrote in the complaint seeking $25 million in damages.

So why is Greene so sure he's Rugrat?

In the movie, Rugrat is depicted as “the smartest of the bunch” and “actually went to law school.” Greene earned his J.D. in 1990 from California Western School of Law.

Also, there's this: “At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff frequently wore a hairpiece,” Greene's lawyers wrote. “In multiple scenes in the movie, Rugrat's use of a toupee is accentuated and mocked in an egregiously offensive manner.”

Which led to this borderline ridiculous rebuttal from Paramount: Belfort's memoir “did not have only one dishonest executive with a notable toupee.”

A Swiss banking expert who set up the money laundering meeting is described in the book as having “a ridiculous salt-and-pepper toupee that was an entirely different color than his sideburns, which were ink black—apparently dyed that way by a colorist with a good sense of humor.”

Paramount says the Rugrat character is a composite. Indeed, the movie credits include this disclaimer: “While this story is based on actual events, certain characters, characterizations, incidents, locations and dialogue were fictionalized or invented for purposes of dramatization.”

For Greene to make his libel claim stick, the defendants note, he's got to show a reasonable person would understand Rugrat is “actually about” him, that the statements concerning him are provably false, and they were made with actual malice.

Which opens the door for Paramount as well as co-defendants Red Granite Pictures, Inc. and Appian Way to attack Greene in a 47-page statement of facts.

“As one of the three members of the Stratton Oakmont Board of Directors from 1993 to 1996, and as head of Corporate Finance at Stratton, Greene was a control person who had legal responsibility for the underwriting practices of Stratton Oakmont on its numerous illegal underwritings,” they wrote. “Plaintiff cannot dispute that he was the escrow agent who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in connection with the money laundering transaction.”

They continued, “Plaintiff has no specific evidence to rebut witness statements that he engaged in illegal drug use and prostitution activities during the relevant time. Plaintiff cannot dispute that the widespread unprofessional conduct at Stratton Oakmont that was depicted in the film is substantially true.”

Moreover, Greene didn't object to the publisher of Belfort's book, where he was identified by name and described just as negatively.

“No defendant had any reason to believe that plaintiff was being depicted, let alone defamed,” Paramount's lawyers wrote in an Oct. 13 letter to U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert. “This is a case that should be adjudicated through summary judgment.”

We're glad you enjoyed this excerpt from Litigation Daily, ALM's premium source for thoughtful analysis and commentary about the world's largest business disputes and the lawyers behind the battles. Click here to subscribe.

Paramount Pictures

You'd like to think a lawyer would recognize when filing a lawsuit is not just ill-advised, but might actually make things worse.

Or not.

Case in point: Attorney Andrew Greene's libel suit against Paramount Pictures.

The former general counsel of defunct brokerage Stratton Oakmont, Greene alleged that a fictional character in the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” was based on him, and that the unflattering depiction damaged his reputation. “The character … is portrayed participating in activities that are improper, unprofessional and unethical,” his lawyers wrote in the 2014 suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

But for some real reputational damage, look no further than court documents in the lawsuit.

As reported by The Hollywood Reporter's Eriq Gardner, Paramount and its lawyers from Davis Wright Tremaine and Leopold, Petrich & Smith let loose with some downright unsavory allegations in a court papers filed Friday.

Among the dirt: They claim that Greene faced questions in high school about cheating on the SATs (yes, they went back more than 30 years for that nugget), did drugs at work and hired hookers—as well as alleging he was a key player in committing securities fraud.

So much for cleaning up his reputation via litigation.

Greene, currently an inactive member of the New York bar, is referred to by name in Jordan Belfort's memoir, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” upon which the 2013 movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio was based.

He's not in the movie, but he sees his likeness in the fictional character Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff. As such, he's claiming “libel in fiction”—that is, everyone who sees the movie would know Rugrat is really him (if, you know, anyone had ever heard of him).

In the movie, Rugrat is shown having sex with hookers, doing cocaine and setting up a meeting with a Swiss banker to launder money

“The motion picture's scenes concerning Mr. Greene were false, defamatory, and fundamentally injurious to Mr. Greene's professional reputation both as an attorney and as an investment banker/ venture capitalist as well as his personal reputation,” solo practitioners Aaron Goldsmith and Stephanie Ovadia wrote in the complaint seeking $25 million in damages.

So why is Greene so sure he's Rugrat?

In the movie, Rugrat is depicted as “the smartest of the bunch” and “actually went to law school.” Greene earned his J.D. in 1990 from California Western School of Law.

Also, there's this: “At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff frequently wore a hairpiece,” Greene's lawyers wrote. “In multiple scenes in the movie, Rugrat's use of a toupee is accentuated and mocked in an egregiously offensive manner.”

Which led to this borderline ridiculous rebuttal from Paramount: Belfort's memoir “did not have only one dishonest executive with a notable toupee.”

A Swiss banking expert who set up the money laundering meeting is described in the book as having “a ridiculous salt-and-pepper toupee that was an entirely different color than his sideburns, which were ink black—apparently dyed that way by a colorist with a good sense of humor.”

Paramount says the Rugrat character is a composite. Indeed, the movie credits include this disclaimer: “While this story is based on actual events, certain characters, characterizations, incidents, locations and dialogue were fictionalized or invented for purposes of dramatization.”

For Greene to make his libel claim stick, the defendants note, he's got to show a reasonable person would understand Rugrat is “actually about” him, that the statements concerning him are provably false, and they were made with actual malice.

Which opens the door for Paramount as well as co-defendants Red Granite Pictures, Inc. and Appian Way to attack Greene in a 47-page statement of facts.

“As one of the three members of the Stratton Oakmont Board of Directors from 1993 to 1996, and as head of Corporate Finance at Stratton, Greene was a control person who had legal responsibility for the underwriting practices of Stratton Oakmont on its numerous illegal underwritings,” they wrote. “Plaintiff cannot dispute that he was the escrow agent who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in connection with the money laundering transaction.”

They continued, “Plaintiff has no specific evidence to rebut witness statements that he engaged in illegal drug use and prostitution activities during the relevant time. Plaintiff cannot dispute that the widespread unprofessional conduct at Stratton Oakmont that was depicted in the film is substantially true.”

Moreover, Greene didn't object to the publisher of Belfort's book, where he was identified by name and described just as negatively.

“No defendant had any reason to believe that plaintiff was being depicted, let alone defamed,” Paramount's lawyers wrote in an Oct. 13 letter to U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert. “This is a case that should be adjudicated through summary judgment.”

We're glad you enjoyed this excerpt from Litigation Daily, ALM's premium source for thoughtful analysis and commentary about the world's largest business disputes and the lawyers behind the battles. Click here to subscribe.