When a broke but aspiring law student working as a seat filler falls in love with a popular singer, he pretends to be a famous entertainment lawyer.
I believe that the famous singer mistakes him for a well-known industry executive (I haven’t seen the film, I’m just reading the synopsis on IMDb) . To me, that’s a much better inciting incident because this broke kid has a choice to go with the lie or tell the truth (if he comes up with the lie himself he’s a bit of a dick) That’s Act I. The inciting incident is most definitely not him falling in love with her – that would happen later – probably the midpoint.
Act II – which you need to cover in the logline – is what he must do in order to keep this romance going. He must learn how to be an industry exec so he can keep up the charade as he believes that’s what she wants him to be. Chances are act II to III is the revelation that he’s not the exec and the finale is that they’re in love so it doesn’t matter to her. I’m guessing.
In short, I think your logline suggests a story that is actually quite different to the actual plot and paints the protagonist in a unfavourable light. Adjust the I.I. to be “mistaken for a famous industry exec” and tell us what he must do once that’s happened in order to keep up the charade and keep this woman he’s falling in love with in his life.
Hope this helps.
I haven’t see the movie either, only know about it based upon what is available on IMDB. But I am inclined to agree with mikepedley85 that the inciting incident probably ought to be framed in terms of the pop star mistaking his identity.
Her mistaking him seems to be the event that creates the opportunity for him to crash the party, to become an industry insider. Once he’s crashed the party, the plot is about what he must he do to maintain the charade, to not be exposed and ejected. The love relationship that develops between the two is, of course, the subplot that provides both opportunities and complications.
However, I have a different take on whether the current logline casts the character in an unfavorable light. A lot (most?) Hollyweird players got to be players using some amount of pretense, dissimulation. So they sympathize with, even admire, characters who can pull it off by B.S. and bluffing. For them those attributes are not character flaws, but character strengths necessary to make it in a Darwinian competitive business. And I venture that audiences are willing to give a pass to characters faking it because they perceive the system is unfair, that the rules are rigged to keep outsiders (like them!) on the outside.