If one is agnered at the ambulance-chasers as abusers of the legal system, then they consitute a proper target.
The are multiple uses for the word "proper," you know. I mean, now you do.
Your anger is misdirected. The lawyer is ethically obligated to explore all defenses available --- for the person that is already prosecuted. This is different from enticing someone to start litigation.
Your anger should be directed at the proper target and not against what makes our legal system fair and stable.
An inquiry is then made as to what the proper target is, and your reply to that inquiry is:
It's given in the previous post; I am sorry you missed that.
, subsequent to which you indicate that ambulance-chasers would constitute a proper target. Fair enough, except that a subsequent comment can hardly be said to have been ''given'' at any previous point. I ''missed'' nothing here; I'm simply not psychic. A ''proper'' target, in the context of this thread, might -- depending on one's political, moral, legal, or even psychological viewpoint(s) -- be any of a LARGE number of people, policies, laws, and/or institutions.
And, as long as we're discussing word usage, the phrase ''the previous post'' is abominable, from the standpoints of both usage and clarity. First, there are several posts previous to the post cited, so the usage of the definite article is inaccurate de facto. Second, presumably, your reference was to your (single) previous post, and therefore the optimum phrase to deliver the semantic intent of your post in a way leaving no doubt whatever for the reader would have been ''my previous''.
Because you appear to be an attorney (extrapolating from context, absent the lack of your 'about' page), please accept my best wishes for the use of more precise language in the assorted briefs you file from time to time.