Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, November 20, 2008 08:13 AM

  No Baldie, but you should have the responsibility of commenting on what I wrote

  This is what you wrote:

  "You're right, Omooex. Bad people shouldn't be defended!

  If only there were a way to figure out who the bad people are.

  Like, if one person says what he thinks the bad guy did wrong, and then, like, another guy can say, no, that's not true. prove it! And the first guy says, well, here's my evidence.

  Then some other people would sit and think about it.

  Does anybody know of such a system? Maybe we can brainstorm and start a movement."

  The reason you think that others argued my position better than me, is that you didn't read my post carefully enough to know what my position was. There is nothing in my post even close to what you commented on. Take some responsibility for your actions. Or are you a lawyer or something....

  Here is my original post:

  A small but important point.

  "Attempts to criticize a lawyer for representing unsavory or even evil clients are inherently illegitimate and wrong -- period."

  Sorry, but to me that's just a crazy parsing of ethics. A large corporation that has made millions upon millions of dollars, historically, by exploiting corrupt governments and abusing latin american labor is not some penniless nazi in the Ozarks. Its not a question of adequate representation for a client that would not necessarily be able to afford it, or who would be shunned by the majority of other attorneys; anyone of ten thousand lawyers would be happy to file the briefs given the paycheck. If Chiquita went after a former high ranking official in the Clinton DOJ, its not because it was the best they could do, it was because it was their best path to victory. Arguing that a lawyer should not be criticized for the million dollar cases he takes on at the behest of slimy corporations with no regard for international law, because he is doing some kind of service to the concept of jurisprudence is--I don't even know a word for it...

  The legal system in this nation is inherently biased toward the wealthy. Chiqita wasn't accessing its right to counsel under US law, it was accessing its right to the absolute best council that money could buy from a former high ranking member of the DOJ.

  Its this kind of attitude that really turns average people off to attorneys. Legal professionals often make this claim, without ever recognizing that millions of Americans are defacto left without representation against colossal corporations or the justice system that have every advantage under the legal system. You never hear about these people, they are under the radar of pro bono defense attorneys and organizations. They just go to jail or pay lots of money and no one seems to lose any sleep over the ethical failings.

  And by the way, didn't you argue that you were optimistic(if skeptical) about Mukasey?

  Sorry, about the tone here. That statement really sets me off.

  —omooex Read omooex's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel