Imagine the following hypothetical - There are two persons. They reside in the same state. Perhaps even the same city. They may even be neighbors. And if they were neighbors, person B would have a slightly larger house because person B has slightly more money.
Financial considerations aside, these two persons are by and large equal in every regard. Or at least so says the Constitution.
Each of these two persons happens to be an avid participant in the political process. Each regularly lobbies their Congress person. Each has a habit of speaking out upon the issues of the day. And each contributes generously to the causes and politicians with whom each sympathizes.
In other words, both are model citizens.
However, being the residents of the same state, both must abide by the laws passed by their state legislature. And being committed to the rule of law, both of our hypothetical persons do. They even abide by a recently-enacted law that absolves from personal liability any person who wears a veil and agrees to pay a recurring fee to maintain a registration of that veil with the state.
Having slightly less money than person B and a slightly more photogenic face, person A never takes advantage of the recently-enacted law. Being able to buy a wardrobe that accommodates the wearing a veil as well as pay the fee to register her veil with the state, person B does. As a result, person B is able to enjoy the benefits of this new law by going about her daily activities, including her numerous political engagements, without having to bear the burden of personal liability.
Until one day, person B gets slightly worked up about a certain politician. After a night of heavy drinking, she comes to believe that that politician is stealing from the state's treasury to pay for his mistress's renovations to her recently purchased home that was sold to her by some state entity for the princely sum of $1.
Being an active citizen, person B has a blog and before her buzz fades, she has published a missive enumerating each of the certain politician's faults. Moments later Google's spider scans her blog's feed and republishes it across countless other websites. Some even more famous blogger picks up the story. By the next morning it is on Huffington Post.
By the time person B rouses herself from her hangover, she is watching some newscaster introduce footage of the certain now red-faced politician vowing to restore his reputation by finding the person who published the pernicious lies and sue that person for every cent that person may be worth.
Shortly after the press conference, the politician rings up his attorney, who happens to be you, and demands advice. Facing imminent election, he explains that his political career is hopelessly ruined. During the last twelve hours, he's lost 55 points in the polls. Angrily, he states that he has proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that person B's statements are recklessly untrue.
Having written the law that granted person B an exemption from personal liability, the politician is particularly frantic about how he has no recourse against person B's reckless lies. He goes on and on about how he knows how much person B is worth in her personal capacity and how fairness demands that person B make him whole.
Knowing the publicity the case will garner and the benefit it will be to your future legal career, you agree to represent the politician. After consoling him, you persuade him to hang up the phone by promising him that you need the time to draft a memo to him summarizing your theory of his case specifically addressing how person B may be held personally liable for her actions.
Knowing that the person B has a bang up accountant, you assign your summer associate the job of writing the section on piercing B's veil.
Your memo must address other legal theories.