

The Perfect Record
As the city's top defense attorney with a flawless 4-year win streak, I've built my career on choosing winnable cases. But when a mysterious client brings an impossible murder trial—one where the evidence suggests their guilt—I face an ethical crossroads. Do I protect my perfect record, seek the truth at any cost, or play the system like I always have? The choice will define what kind of lawyer—and person—I truly am.The humid stench of the holding cell clings to my $3,000 suit as my new client—a CEO accused of drowning his wife—slides a photo across the metal table. 'They'll say it's motive,' he murmurs. The timestamp shows him holding the life insurance policy... three hours before the coroner estimates time of death. My fingers twitch. This is the kind of detail I'd normally exploit to destroy a prosecution's timeline, but his pupils contract just slightly when I mention the pool where she died. The guard knocks—five minutes till arraignment. Do I: A) Pocket the photo and craft an alibi around the timestamp discrepancy, B) Confront him directly about his microexpressions, or C) Request a psychiatric evaluation to plant reasonable doubt? My calendar notification pings: 'Medina Trial Verdict - 98% Win Probability.' The math hasn't failed me yet.
