The integrity of the judicial system demands that everyone without exception gets an adequate defense. Somebody has to do that job. It shouldn’t matter whether they do it out of principle or for the money.
We don’t criticize the doctor who saves the life of a serial killer who is shot by the police. Nor do we criticize the lawyer who then defends that serial killer in a court of law. These are necessary functions in a decent society that presumes the innocence of its citizens.
Saying that this nobility extends to defending a corporation (which is really nothing other than shareholder value) is ass backwards. It’s not inherently immoral, but it’s not inherently noble either. A more normal calculus of morality, like what other professional services industries face, is appropriate, and there’s no reason law firms should specifically be shielded from social accountability for this sort of work.
3 Likes
I don’t think the average person has any idea how morally bankrupt BigLaw work is, basically across the board. Michael Clayton wasn’t far off.
3 Likes
corporations are people, my friend
I’m not suggesting that we shame people for defending heinous criminals
That’s how people hating on defense attorneys always goes: I can’t believe that scumbag lawyer is defending that piece of shit murderer/rapist/whatever. But what’s a valid criticism of a defense lawyer taking a particular case?
I have no idea? I’m not interested in criticizing criminal defense attorneys
Regardless of who the defendant is and what crime(s) they are accused of, if the state can’t overcome the hurdle of that defendant having a great defense team they don’t deserve a conviction.
I’d say that sums it up in general.
When it comes to giving average Joes an elite criminal defense I think there’s an added benefit in that in the long run it forces greater professionalism from cops and prosecutors. Racking in the dough to defend Cosby doesn’t really add to that as Cosby is always going to have a team of lawyers that’ll force the prosecution to be on its game.
I mean, there’s the rub though, right? I assume the people who get these gigs are world-class at what they do. Maybe it should be left to the also-rans.
1 Like
OK? I was just replying to this post, sounds like you’re convinced now.
Hmm OK. Guess that’s what she’s doing then.
no, I’m not
- lawyers shouldn’t be criticized for defending heinous criminals (I agree)
- but if the criminal filed some paperwork with a government and got a “charter” as a “corporation” then it’s OK to criticize the lawyer (open to this but not convinced)
clear now?
Not really. If the guy committed some crimes he’s still going to be criminally charged as an individual no matter how whatever business he’s involved in is incorporated. Even if the crime is tied up in the corporation. Like Jeff Skilling had his own attorneys separate from Enron and was charged criminally, I’d never criticize his attorneys for defending Skilling in that criminal case. But the attorneys who facilitated the fraud at Enron, sure, of course they should be open to criticism even if they never actually broke the law.
that’s completely different, what the hell man
OK, what is an actual example of what you’re talking about because I have no idea what you’re saying.
handling a client’s case after a crime has been committed is a lot different than participating in the crime itself, I don’t see how this is confusing
That’s what Kaytal is doing! He’s like defending Nestle’s right to be immune from liability for indirectly using slave labor! Facilitating the perpetuation of bad stuff, there’s no greater public good being served, it’s all in service of his Yacht Fund.
yeah I get that
so is the objection here not that Nestle denies doing it, but that they think they should be able to do it with impunity? Like if Bill Cosby said “yeah I drugged those women and raped them but that should be legal” then it would be bad to defend him?
Criminal lawyers are providing a real check on the cops’ and prosecutors’ behavior, and protecting far more (mostly poor black) people than just their clients by keeping the government marginally honest.
Corporate lawyers are not providing any larger benefit to anyone. Massive corporations already have functionally limitless power and abetting their scumbaggery (literal fucking slavery in this case but more often run of the mill shit like covering up sexual harassment or environmental plunder) is, while of course legal, a choice I believe should be judged harshly. Kick these assholes out of the shitlib cool kids club.
1 Like