For this week’s Flora Rose Film, we only watched a short segment of a movie about a murder trial. Rather than watch this entirely of the film, Judge Miller gave a brief explanation of a portion of the legal code lawyers are required to follow, then asked us if we felt the film’s lawyer character did or did not uphold such standards. Namely, we were asked whether it was incorrect for the film’s lawyer character to clearly lay out the three potential defenses a lawyer can argue in the case of murder. From this discussion question, we were able to engage in further discussion about the role of lawyers. Knowing very little about the legal profession, I found this discussion to be incredibly interesting. I was particularly struck by Judge MIller’s statement that it is no way the lawyer’s job to determine if their client is guilty or innocent. While in many ways this is obvious, it introduces a very interesting psychological aspect to these cases, as lawyers need to be able to separate their personal opinions/morals from their legal duty. For this reason, I can understand why Judge Miller felt so drawn to practicing law in a smaller town, dealing with individuals rather than large, corporate clients. He presented two particularly interesting stories from his own career that each dealt with the issue of clients controlling how much information they share with their counsel as a form of self-protection. This talk definitely shifted my understanding of the legal profession, which I previously viewed as much more transactional and black-and-white. Instead, the field is mired in truly fascinating psychological and moral strategy that sounds both rewarding and frustrating.