You might think me argumentive, but I think this is really about moral relativism, which I "have a problem with".
The lawyers, for example, who "defended" OJ didn't "break the law", per se. But what they facilitated in nullifying that jury to free that despicable murderer, and trying to destroy decent police officers in the process was unconscionable. And I think the worst were Gerald Muelman and Robert Shapiro, who would yet weasle behind veneers of academia or genteel respectablity to try and somehow separate themselves from the school of pirhannas they knew they swam in that same sewar with.
In #24 above, I wrote that "I think it shows that many lawyers, as individuals, are willing to be accessories to crimes."
I meant it. They no less have Nicole Brown Simpson's and Ron Goldman's blood on their hands. And like Lady Macbeth's, it will never come off.
If lawyers refuse, then it would be assigned to a public defender. O'Reilly supports this action and had no argument against pubic defenders. However, the pubic defender should not be obligated to get the guy off; only ensure that he is treated fairly by the court system.