Hardman called into his office on January second, no preliminaries.
"Silverpoint Capital. Hedge fund, eight billion under managent, currently under SEC investigation for insider trading. They need defense counsel. I'm assigning you."
He slid a folder across his desk. I opened it, scanned the summary. SEC had flagged suspicious trading patterns—Silverpoint took large positions in three companies days before major announcents, profited substantially, timing seed too convenient for legitimate research.
"What's the exposure?"
"Worst case? Criminal charges, fund dissolution, personal liability for principals. Best case? Civil penalties, reputation damage, investor flight." Hardman leaned back. "This is partnership-track work. Win this, we begin formal discussions next month."
There it was. The carrot and the stick. Prove myself on the highest-stakes case yet, or watch partnership slip away.
"When do I et the client?"
"Tomorrow. Video conference, ten AM. Read everything tonight. I want your preliminary assessnt by morning."
I took the folder back to my office, closed the door, started reading. The SEC's case was circumstantial but strong. Silverpoint made three major trades in December:
First, bought substantial stake in pharmaceutical company three days before FDA approval announcent. Stock rose forty-seven percent.
Second, shorted manufacturing company two days before earnings miss announcent. Stock fell thirty-three percent.
Third, bought tech company positions one day before acquisition announcent. Stock rose sixty-two percent.
Individually, any could be explained by research and analysis. Together, the pattern suggested non-public information.
[ **Win Rate Calculator: Initial Assessnt** ]
SEC Case Strength: Substantial (78% probability they have legitimate case) Defense Success Probability: 41% (±16%) Key Variables: Existence of smoking gun evidence, client truthfulness, ability to prove legitimate research Recomndation: Demand complete candor from client before proceeding
Forty-one percent. Not great odds. But SEC investigations often relied on circumstantial evidence—if I could prove Silverpoint's trades were based on sophisticated analysis of public information, the case collapsed.
I kept reading. Hours passed. Pizza delivery around seven PM, eaten at my desk while reviewing trading docuntation. The timing was suspicious, but the analysis was thorough. Silverpoint employed twelve PhDs, published detailed research reports, had docunted thodologies.
Maybe they were just very good at their job.
Then I found the email.
Buried in discovery docunts, dated two days before the pharmaceutical trade. From Silverpoint's managing partner to the head trader:
"Our friend at the company confird the tiline. Proceed as discussed. Discretion essential."
I read it three tis. "Our friend at the company." "Confird the tiline." "Discretion essential."
That wasn't smoking gun. But it was smoke. And smoke suggested fire.
[ **System Alert: Potential Ethical Violation** ]
Evidence suggests possible insider trading Client may have obtained non-public material information Attorney obligation: Cannot assist criminal activity Recomndation: Confront client, demand truthful explanation If client admits cri: Withdrawal may be required
I sat back, rubbing my eyes. This case just beca exponentially more complicated. I couldn't defend a client I knew was guilty. But I also couldn't abandon them without understanding the full context.
The email was ambiguous. "Our friend" could be public investor relations contact. "Confird the tiline" could refer to publicly available information about approval processes. "Discretion essential" could just be standard confidentiality practice.
Or it could be exactly what it looked like—insider trading.
I needed to know which. Before I proceeded, before I built strategy, before I committed to defense. Because if Silverpoint actually committed insider trading, my job wasn't defending them—it was managing withdrawal without violating attorney-client privilege.
Professional ethics still mattered. Even in January. Even when partnership dangled as motivation.
I pulled up my phone, sent email to client contact: Need in-person eting before our scheduled conference. Important questions about trading docuntation. Can you co to office tomorrow morning, 8 AM?
Response ca within minutes: Is there a problem?
Just questions that need answering before we proceed. Standard due diligence.
I'll be there.
I shut down my computer, grabbed my coat, headed ho. Outside, January cold bit through everything. The holidays were over. The new year had arrived with complications already stacking.
My phone buzzed. Text from Donna: How's the new case?
Complicated. Potential ethical issues. Might be defending actual criminals.
What are you going to do?
Demand the truth. Then decide if I can represent them.
That's the right answer. Proud of you.
I smiled despite the stress. Having soone who understood the principle versus pragmatism battle—who supported choosing principle even when costly—made the hard decisions easier.
The subway was mostly empty, post-holiday lull. I found a seat, closed my eyes, thought about tomorrow's eting. I'd ask direct questions. Demand honest answers. If the client admitted insider trading, I'd have to withdraw. If they denied it convincingly, I'd defend them aggressively.
But I wouldn't build a defense on lies. Wouldn't compromise my ethics to win Hardman's approval. Wouldn't sacrifice principles for partnership.
That line—between zealous advocacy and criminal complicity—was bright and clear. I wouldn't cross it.
Even if it cost everything I'd built.
The train reached my stop. I climbed stairs to street level, walked the final blocks ho. My apartnt was cold, empty, quiet. I turned on lights, made tea, sat on my couch staring at nothing.
Tomorrow I'd confront a client who might be guilty. Might lose the case that determined partnership. Might have to choose between career advancent and professional integrity.
But at least I'd make that choice consciously. Deliberately. With full understanding of what I was sacrificing and why.
The System calculated probabilities—career damage if I withdrew, partnership risk, reputation impact. All valid concerns. All secondary to the primary question:
What kind of lawyer did I want to be?
The answer was clear. I wanted to be the kind who slept at night. Who looked at himself in the mirror without flinching. Who chose principle over advancent when those goals conflicted.
Everything else was just noise.
Tomorrow would bring answers. For tonight, I'd just rest and prepare for whatever truth the client revealed.
The year was already getting complicated.
But at least I knew who I was in the chaos.
That had to count for sothing.
MORE POWER STONES And REVIEWS== MORE CHAPTERS
To supporting in Pateron .
with exclusive access to more chapters (based on tiers more chapters for each tiers) on my Patreon, you get more chapters if you ask for more (in few days), plus new fanfic every week! Your support starting at just $6/month helps keep crafting the stories you love across epic universes like [ In The Witcher With Avatar Powers,In The Vikings With Deja Vu System,Stranger Things Demogorgon Tar ...].
By joining, you're not just getting more chapters—you're helping bring new worlds, twists, and adventures to life. Every pledge makes a huge difference!
👉 Join now at patreon/TheFinex5 and start reading today!
User Comments
0 comments from readers