By: Tanner Rouse
In the movie Fracture we see a fascinating and often under-publicized moral debate that lawyers must face. Do they take the job that can often times yield a more rewarding legal career or do they pursue the higher-paying, less fulfilling career? Ryan Gosseling’s character is a hot shot district attorney that possesses the option to maintain a presence at the DA’s office where he is a star litigator, or move on to a private firm where he will be handsomely rewarded for his services. Again, this is a fascinating and under examined element of the lawyer’s career. Where do we draw the line between moral fulfillment and legal prestige? This is a very similar issue to the one faced every day by prosecutors that wish are forced to choose between representing their clients best interests and successfully prosecuting a case by accepting a plea bargain. Where does the lawyer draw the line? On the one hand he has a moral duty, on the other he needs to consider his own career and personal satisfaction.
In the movie the lawyer, somewhat predictably, chooses the role of the prosecutor only to win the case and depart the law forever. It seems his dismay at nearly losing the case will never leave him. But before he makes his decision, he is reminded by actor Bob Gunton that the thrill of the law, sometimes, only sometimes, can be driving a stake in the heart of a bad guy. It would be very interesting to read or hear just how many lawyers know this reality and leave this form of the law regardless, for more money. Ultimately is a fascinating battle between moral duty and financial security that has many implications for the legal profession.
