Replies

"I have a problem with people who criticize lawyers for taking on unpopular cases unless they break the law in doing so.

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.

"I think it shows that many lawyers, as individuals, are willing to be accessories to crimes."

Instead, think of a lawyer as a bombadier in a B-17. He is ordered to release bombs over an enemy target. He knows that kids, old folks, and puppy dogs and kittens are likely to get blasted to smithereens. What does he do? parsy the curious.

As much as I love references to Shakespeare, I know you can't actually be comparing Lady Macbeth to an attorney that works to acquit his client.

Lady Macbeth, as you will no doubt recall, was an active participant in the crime by framing the drugged guards. I somehow doubt that Shapiro came over to the Juice's house and smeared blood all over Kato's cabana--just a guess, though.

Look, attorneys for both sides make arguments, the jury decides the facts of the case. Each attorney does his job to the best of his ability. Period. That's how our system works, and I sleep really well at night.