re: Trashiest Lawyers

quote:

---

He said he looked at it as him playing a role in the system guaranteed by the Constitution. He didn't do it because he liked his clients; he did it because he liked that our system guaranteed everyone a fair shake and he was a cog in that.

Now granted, he only did it for a few years before he burned out and moved in to other areas of law, but he said that was his rationale while he was doing it.

---

I'm sure that's how they all look at it. And it's a fair way to look at it.

The question is when you're 99% sure your client did it, and you're imputing motive or some other stigmatizing action on someone you're 99% sure didn't do it, is that justifiable under your role in the system? Or do you just suspend belief/disbelief while you do that? It's a matter of degree. Casting doubt is one thing, tossing out allegations with reckless abandon is arguably different.

I will say that prosecutors do the same sometimes, and I think that is most definitely NOT their role.