I grant that this is what the current standard is, but there are loopholes contained in it. First of all, it "under the law" has come to mean using any tactic legally available to get the client off, regardless of whether the client may actually be guilty or not. The point I was making is that the intent of "every man is entitled to a defense" has been subverted. I don't care what oath an attorney takes. In my view, his "duty" is to justice, not the particulars of a few recited paragraphs penned by whatever committee may have authority over the practice at any given point in time.
So in that respect, I reject the notion that an attorney has a duty to do everything legally permissible to get his client off. He may have the ability, or even the right. But his duty is only to see that his client, be it O.J. or Condit or one of these child murderers, is not convicted unjustly (fabricated evidence, lying witnesses, etc.). You cannot tell me that an attorney's duty is to try and set a guilty man free, though your statement allows for that.