Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should We Judge Lawyers for Their Clients?
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
 Yeah, an inquisitorial system removes the one mechanism we've settled on to restrain the state from illegally gathering evidence, so good luck with that.

Nevvy Z posted:

Even the guilty have the right to a criminal defense. The costs of prosecution and receiving a fair defense should not factor into the punishments for crimes, that's absurd. Not to mention absurdly abusable.

Everyone should get a properly funded public defender. The rich shouldn't get special treatment.
Do you think that the government prosecuting you also being allowed to choose who defends you might present some problems or conflicts of interest?

VitalSigns posted:

Nobody is doing that because defending any client who walks through the door is not a private attorney's job (it is a public defender's job).

Private attorneys can turn down clients for any reason they wish (short of illegal discrimination under federal law), for example they can turn a client down for something like not having enough money.

If it is cool and good to turn someone down for being poor then clearly we can judge someone who does that by the clients they do choose to represent. E: unless we want to make the argument that being poor is worse than being a rapist
I'm not really clear on what your overarching philosophy is here. Are people above a certain income bracket not entitled to a presumption of innocence? Because "lawyers who defend rich people are scum, but PDs are saints" seems to assume that.

* # ¿ Jun 11, 2019 16:51
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 04:34
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Nevvy Z posted:

If that was what anyone was suggesting it might be a problem but it seems to be something you made up based on your not understanding or on a desire to invent problems.

"If i just call it all 'the government' then everyone forgets that it is made up of entities that are often completely separated."

I dunno about you but I'm getting real tired of people who are always "confused but making the worst possible assumptions" as it seems to be the same people over and over and they often seem confused about the same things again and again.
Your suggestion was light on details, so you can't really criticize people for making assumptions about how it would work in practice. If everyone gets a public defender, how are they assigned? Does the defendant have any choice about who represents them? What happens when the number of cases exceeds local or global capacity? Can a person pay for other aspects of their legal defense, like specialists or experts to advise their appointed attorney?

* # ¿ Jun 11, 2019 17:29
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Yes they are entitled to a legal presumption of innocence, but I don't see how not getting an expensive attorney denies them that. Unless your argument is that being unable to afford an attorney equals a presumption of guilt.
"Yes, you have a right to a legal presumption of innocence and for the accusations against you to be proven at trial, but we're going to stigmatize and retaliate against anyone who aids that legal defense for other than $free if the court of public opinion thinks you really did it" is hiding the ball a bit.

VitalSigns posted:

There's a fundamental contradiction in your argument, you can't both argue that private representation and expert advice is a basic legal right without which a fair trial is impossible, and then also be okay with denying that right based on wealth. That makes no sense.
People have a right to choose their legal representation. The purpose of the public defender system is to ensure that everyone has access to legal representation at criminal trials even if they cannot afford it. It's really funny to me you seem utterly confused by the difference between "the government will make sure everyone has access to <thing>" and "the only <thing> people are allowed to have is the one the government provides." Do you think we should abolish and collectivize grocery stores because the wealthy can walk in and use their cash money to buy things not on the WIC approved list?

* # ¿ Jun 11, 2019 19:25
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Lawyers yes are not responsible for what their clients do. But, like all humans with moral agency, lawyers are responsible for their own actions, and an unethical act is still unethical even if someone else is paying you to do it.
If a rapist gets the charges gains him dismissed, because his lawyer gets the overwhelming physical evidence against him thrown out, because the police gathered the evidence in the course of an illegal, warrantless search, is this a Good thing, or a Bad thing? Does it matter whether the lawyer was a PD, Pro Bono, or paid?

* # ¿ Jun 11, 2019 20:22
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

I'm not sure why a system of free civil litigators wouldn't be workable either.

One counterargument could be that we could afford free civil litigation for non-frivolous cases, but if we make it free everyone will file frivolous cases all the time since it's free and bankrupt the system. But I don't agree with that argument because that problem exists now. Even if you have all the money in the world you still have to convince a lawyer to take your case. If zero lawyers will do it, you're out of luck. If in a hypothetical universal litigation system zero lawyers want to help you, you could appeal to the licensing authority, if they agree with you they assign someone if they disagree with you then your frivolous case doesn't clog up the courts. Judges also throw out frivolous suits and even sanction lawyers for bringing them now, so the idea that we can't solve a problem that we've already solved in the real world doesn't make sense to me.
There is a lot of daylight between totally righteous lawsuits, and frivolous lawsuits, which are so ridiculous that even filing them in the first place is actionable. These days, if a lawyer won't take your case, it might be because they think it is unlikely to succeed on the merits for any number of reasons, not just because it was frivolous. If you remove all barriers to people suing each other beyond "don't file frivolous suits" the results won't be good.

twodot posted:

Uh it is bad that the police behaved so illegally that they managed to let a rapist get the charges dismissed. Like I hope we all agree that is bad that the police perform illegal searches, and they should not do that. If the lawyer decided to defended the rapist because they think rapists are rad, that would be bad, but within your hypothetical we're just speculating as to the lawyer's motivations.
I'm still not clear whether you're arguing from an outcomes based ethics, or an intentions based one.

twodot posted:

Everyone has already agreed that public defenders get an exception.
Except that exception makes no sense. If you're arguing from an outcomes based perspective, whether the lawyer is pro bono or paid makes no difference as to whether a dirt bag gets off, and if you're arguing from an intent perspective, getting paid for your work doesn't inherently corrupt your good intent.

* # ¿ Jun 12, 2019 00:14
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

Judge how lawyers choose their clients. Public defenders do not choose their clients and therefore do not have a choice to judge beyond "be a public defender" which is justified by being net-beneficial even if does have bad outcomes sometimes.
But surely if a defendant was so repulsive and obviously guilty that anyone assisting in their defense deserves to be a social pariah, any PD assigned to the case ought to refuse to participate as a matter of principle, since the result would be a dirt bag evading justice.

If the outcome you are trying to avoid by shaming lawyers who defend dirt bags is "dirt bags getting away with crimes", then there is no reason to spare PDs, who chose to become PDs in the full knowledge that they would be called upon from time to time to defend dirt bags.

I feel like the argument you're really making is that it is unfair that the poor have to resort to overworked PDs, while the rich can afford to hire fancy criminal lawyers, but you don't want to contend with all the problems that abolishing the private practice of criminal law would cause.

* # ¿ Jun 12, 2019 00:34
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
 So why is it bad if people get paid to provide that defense? What is the principle at stake here? What bad outcome are you trying to avoid by people choosing to represent Harvey Weinstein instead of being forced to do it or lose their jobs?

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jun 12, 2019

* # ¿ Jun 12, 2019 01:03
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
 OK, but the outcome of "dirt bags getting away with crimes" is the same in both cases, so you're not arguing from an outcomes standpoint.

* # ¿ Jun 12, 2019 01:13
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

My argument is that the larger consequences are different.

If a rapist gets off because the cops did an illegal search versus a rapist gets off because the judge takes bribes, yes the immediate outcome is the same, a rapist gets off, but the larger consequences are very different! I can still reason based on outcome.
"Zealous legal advocacy vs bribing judicial officials or doing other crimes to get a client off" is not at all an apt analogy to "zealous legal advocacy vs zealous legal advocacy for reasons I don't agree with".

* # ¿ Jun 12, 2019 01:54
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

:words:
If your whole shtick is "it should be impossible for a person to spend any money whatsoever to improve their legal defense" then the answer you're looking for is "abolish the free market". But frankly, that isn't going to happen any time soon so we have to work within the system that exists now. One avenue to do that would be to abolish private legal practice for criminal cases, which, even if it were possible, would have a whole bunch of negative consequences which you seem totally incapable of or unwilling to recognize. The other option is to try to shame lawyers who participate in private criminal defense (but only those whose clients you find disagreeable).

When it is pointed out that normalizing the idea that lawyers should be shamed for choosing to represent unpopular clients would be extremely bad for the legal system, you flip back and forth between legal and ethical language to avoid dealing with the consequences of the policies you promote. "Of course a fair trial is important, it is deeply unfair that the state does not spend unlimited resources to ensure that indigent defendants have the best defense money can buy. What, you're saying that shaming dirt bags' lawyers erodes due process? Well, my opinions aren't a court of law, so due process has no relevance to using extralegal means to intimidate the lawyers of people I don't like."

twodot posted:

This is not a monumentally more difficult task because I have already demonstrated that your task is impossible. Behold! Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags. You are plainly not able to convince people of your position or this thread wouldn't even exist. if you were able to convince people of this, I don't see how "also gay people aren't bad" isn't also achievable.
edit:
Also we should be pushing the "gay people aren't bad" agenda anyways. If your response is "What if assholes weaponize parts of your moral systems?" the answer is "We should teach them not to be assholes"
The whole point of societal ethics is to create a system of behavior that, when people follow it, produces acceptable outcomes even if the various parties don't agree on what "good" is. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" and all that. You and VitalSigns seem to think that there is no point in behaving ethically if other people don't, which defeats the whole idea of having ethics in the first place.

* # ¿ Jun 12, 2019 20:15
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
 You've missed the whole point. Before doing or suggesting something, you should stop and think, "if everyone acted in this way, would I find the outcome acceptable?" So the calculus is "if everyone tried to pressure lawyers into avoiding clients they disapproved of, how would that go?" not "If everyone shamed the lawyers I think are Bad, then that would obviously be Good, because my opinions on right and wrong are objectively correct and ought to be universal."

E: It would explain a lot if you see ordered societies as just an inexplicable and incomprehensible series of phenomena that you can only react to emotionally as they affect you.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jun 12, 2019

* # ¿ Jun 12, 2019 20:26
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

But that's purely an artifact of phrasing, though?

Like if everyone pursued all available methods of political activism against inequality, we would end inequality overnight. Wow magic now it's actually great!

The point is people don't magically act universally overnight...

It is in fact possible to advocate for particular political activities in pursuit of particular goals.

You can't just handwave the fact that people are going to disagree about what constitutes "equality" or whether some level of inequality is acceptable/good. The whole point is that you have to recognize that "OK, people are going to have disagreements about what is good, but by what set of rules can we live together as a free society in spite of that?" instead of saying "gently caress rules, I'm going to do what I think is good, because if everyone agreed with me about what is good, then they would do good things too :downs:"

* # ¿ Jun 12, 2019 20:42
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

That's literally an argument for never changing anything because if you try to change anything and everyone else tried to change things then the change might be worse...
It is not. It is an argument that, if you want to make changes to improve an ordered system with multiple stakeholders, you have to use universal rules, rather than saying "everyone should just do what I think is best."

Unoriginal Name posted:

Hmm yes, maybe inequality is good. Persuasive argument, well thought out
How are you defining inequality? If Alice is better at her job than Bob, and as a result gets higher raises and has better employment opportunities, then that creates inequality between Alice and Bob, but I think that's good.

* # ¿ Jun 12, 2019 21:15
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
 In most jurisdictions, getting a PD requires filing a financial affidavit in order to prove indigence and qualify for the service. Recently, the federal PD office wanted to represent Michael Avenatti without him having file one, because he would either almost certainly lie, or reveal information devastating to his defense.

Rich people don't get PDs for the same reason they don't qualify for WIC. Have you really been ranting about reforming the defense bar while being unaware of this?

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jun 13, 2019

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 17:22
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

No protections are being eroded because no one wants to deny anyone representation.
So what exactly is the point of casting social opprobrium at Weinstein's lawyers if not to discourage anyone from representing him and thereby deny him counsel?

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 21:14
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

Because they are being bad, I hope they do less bad things in the future. Do I need a reason to want to say that bad people are bad?
So by representing Weinstein they are being bad, and the bad thing you want them to do less of is "represent Weinstein against criminal allegations", so I'm not really clear what the distinction you're trying to draw here is.

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 21:19
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
 So if they would provide the same equally zealous defense whether they chose to represent Weinstein or were forced to, why does it make a difference?

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 21:27
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Mr. Nice! posted:

The sixth amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to the counsel of your choice.

To catch you up, the response is "Aha, but the poor are given the choice of an assigned defender or nothing, so why should the rich be allowed to pay for their choice of lawyer? If being assigned a PD is not a violation of the right to choose your own counsel, why can we not force the wealthy to make the same choice?"

twodot posted:

If we get to that point it feels like the prevalence of horrible monsters might go down.

A) No it doesn't
B) The sixth amendment binds the government and not me
C) Even if I thought the sixth amendment was some sort of legal authority over me, I could argue it is morally incorrect and should be opposed through whatever mechanism available

You can't switch back and forth between "people have a legal right to counsel" and "I have a moral right to do whatever I want to try to negate that right because I'm not the government."

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 13, 2019

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 21:35
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

I'm not trying to negate that right because once again, public defenders do and should exist.

twodot posted:

I am not arguing we should deny lawyers to people accused of crimes, I'm saying that Weinstein's lawyers are personally and specifically dirtbags.
Your argument makes no goddamn sense though. If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will not affect the quality of his defense, then what harm are his lawyers causing that is worthy of opprobrium? If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will affect the quality of his defense, then you're pretty indisputably trying to deny him his right to effective counsel.

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 21:50
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

People should not volunteer to support horrible monsters. Sometimes you got to support horrible monsters so society will continue to function, like if a court appoints you to defend a horrible monster or you are an ER doctor, but when there is a choice as is the case with private defense lawyers, everyone should loudly and publicly decline to support the horrible monster.
If "horrible monsters" are equally entitled to legal representation or medical care as the rest of us, why does it matter if people work for them voluntarily out of a general sense that everyone deserves it, or are compelled to by professional ethics?

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 22:05
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

Choosing to support a horrible monster signals support in a way that being compelled to defend a horrible monster does not. Signaling support of horrible monsters is bad.
But PDs and ER docs sign up knowing that they are going to be called upon to provide aid to horrible dirtbags. You're saying it's not OK for a doctor to agree to be Weinstein's personal physician because he's a monster, but if he has a heart attack and gets brought into the ED, it's not just acceptable but morally virtuous for a doctor there to take heroic measures to save his life, even if that doctor knows full well who Harvey Weinstein is? Why does stepping the moral choice back a remove and not knowing which particular dirtbag's life you will save somehow change the calculus?

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 22:27
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

ER doctors and public defenders both provide a vital public service that would be severely and fundamentally compromised if they discriminated between clients. Private lawyers are defined by their ability to discriminate between clients and I expect them to use that discretion wisely and well.
You keep switching back and forth between an outcomes based morality and an intent based one.

If the outcome is what is important, your argument makes no sense. If the intent of the lawyers is important, then there is no reason why a lawyer in private practice can't pick and choose what cases are most compatible with their practice and caseload in the service of the larger idea that everyone deserves legal representation. Do you think physicians should refuse to serve clients at their practice that the public finds objectionable?

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 13, 2019

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 22:33
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Are you seriously struggling with the moral calculus that something you do when you have the discretion to not do it, and something you do when you have no choice are different situations?
Why does the moral remove of saying you'll aid any dirtbag that happens to be assigned to you, rather than a particular dirtbag, change the moral calculus?

VitalSigns posted:

I blame the people who wrote the laws to carry out the war on drugs more than I blame the people who carry out the law because they'll be unemployed and starving if they don't. Does this baffle you.

VitalSigns posted:

ok fine you've convinced me, ban private defense counsel then and give everyone a PD because anything else is a scam and should be illegal. You win!
VitalSigns arguing for a degree of moral absolution for police officers and prison guards for the policies they carry out, because a man's gotta eat, and for a legal system that prohibits the activities of the ACLU, FIRE and The Innocence Project. Truly a red-letter day for the forums. Have you though through this at all and tried to reconcile it with your other professed beliefs?

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jun 13, 2019

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 22:44
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

I don't think those activities should be illegal, I think they should be greatly expanded with adequate funding so every defendant gets the benefit of the investigations those organizations do.
In what way do you think you can reconcile the continued activities of those organizations with a prohibition on the private defense bar?

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 22:50
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
 Apparently the lawyers are morally absolved if we go through the kabuki of making every single eligible lawyer denounce Weinstein and then force one to take his case.

twodot posted:

If they know their client is a horrible monster they should refuse non-emergency service. Like are you telling me that if you are a physician and Weinstein walks into your door, you're going to think "Here's a person I want to live a long healthy and strong life"? If nothing else it seems like there is a conflict of interests you couldn't avoid.
Aside from the super hosed up idea that medical professionals should withhold care from people they don't like unless they're literally and imminently dying in front of them, what happens when all non-emergency clinics south of the Mason-Dixon start refusing service to people they find morally objectionable?

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 22:55
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

Medical professionals withhold care from family members because of emotional factors, I don't see why doctors shouldn't have a similarly strong emotional reaction to literally enabling Weinstein. I don't know how your made up hypothetical plays out why don't you tell me?
Gay and trans people become unable to receive medical care outside of going to the emergency room or driving 100+ miles, for a start.

VitalSigns posted:

Police officers already have that authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Police not having a specific duty to every individual citizen is not the same thing as the police refusing to protect you because you are the Wrong Sort of Person, which is a model we are trying to move away from rather than enshrining it as a cool and good practice.

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 23:13
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

Well that sounds bad, I propose they should not do that.
It is the inevitable result of a system where medical doctors refuse care for patients based on their moral judgments about them.

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 23:18
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Nevvy Z posted:

A slippery slope that leads right to where we are today
Assuming that's even true, are you saying that this is a good state of affairs that we should enshrine as public policy?

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jun 13, 2019

* # ¿ Jun 13, 2019 23:36
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Every accused rapist is accused of rape. What special thing did he do that doesn’t apply to anyone that would be in court at all?
Raping while rich and famous E: jesus, that was supposed to be a joke.


twodot posted:

In the context of criminal defense, yes.
What makes criminal defense different from, say, gunning down civilians?

twodot posted:

I think people generally should shun Weinstein because he did something bad enough to warrant it. Whether he's guilty of some criminal code is a lawyer thing I feel no need to engage with.
Is your whole argument seriously going to boil down to, "I am allowed to have my opinions of people because they're just my opinions and I don't need to subject them to formal inquiry because they aren't public policy, but ideally everyone should share my opinions and they would have the same effect as public policy, but I still don't need to submit them to inquiry"?

* # ¿ Jun 14, 2019 00:16
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
 Am I correct in saying that your position is that we need a special set of rules for people who defend Harvey Weinstein, and only Harvey Weinstein, but don't care to explain why the logic that leads you to that conclusion only applies to Harvey Weinstein and no one else?

OwlFancier posted:

This is literally the basis of democracy.
"People make decisions based on uninformed snap judgements, gut feeling, and post hoc rationalization, rather than rigorous and falsifiable analysis subject to inquiry" isn't the basis for democracy, it's an argument against it.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jun 14, 2019

* # ¿ Jun 14, 2019 00:35
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
 A lot of people have convinced themselves that, once an injustice that offends them is perpetrated on everyone, then people will see that they were right all along, and change will surely happen! The fact that this is never how it goes does not deter them.

twodot posted:

I do feel differently because I've never said any of that and in fact said the opposite of all of this. You are just lying about what I want.
So what exactly is the result that you want to achieve by all this?

twodot posted:

So they do have a choice, up until a court orders them to take the client.
In the same way that you have a choice to keep stolen money up until a court orders you to return it.

* # ¿ Jun 14, 2019 01:39
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Nevvy Z posted:

We can claim two things are wrong at once. :shrug:
You can claim that the legal system is wrong and ought to change to match the idealized system you have come up with in your head. But you need to be prepared to be specific about your proposed system and to deal with criticism of its flaws.

You cannot argue that someone in the here-and-now is wrong for failing to take what would be the most moral course of action in the idealized system you have come up with in your head, because that's insane.

BENGHAZI 2 posted:

So what you're saying is having more money to spend on a legal defense gives you a better shot against the government than not having money
There is no individual defendant who can match the resources of the US Attorneys' Offices and Federal Law Enforcement. Spending more money on a defense just encourages them to increase the resources arrayed against you. People frequently spend money chasing illusory or marginal benefits.

* # ¿ Jun 14, 2019 17:29
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 04:34
  • Quote
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Good for him, but also even ignoble lawyers do pro bono work sometimes (I think they have to?). I think when people do good things it's good and when they do bad things it's bad, and when the same person does good things sometimes and bad things sometimes then I can praise the good things and criticize the bad things.

I don't really see what this is supposed to prove. George W Bush arguably saved more lives than any human in history thanks to PEPFAR, does that mean he didn't lie the country into a war that killed half a million people?

You are alleging that Sullivan's actions are bad because of his motives, not because of the results:

VitalSigns posted:

Sullivan is one of those people, he isn't defending Weinstein because he's a martyr to the cause of justice or because his kids will starve if he doesn't. No one is even trying to argue that he's doing it for any reason other than greed, because he loving obviously isn't...
But that is not something you can know. You are starting from the presumption that the only reason a person would agree to represent Weinstein is avarice, declaring it to be an indisputable truth, and ignoring all other possible explanations.

* # ¿ Jun 14, 2019 17:54
  • Quote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should We Judge Lawyers for Their Clients?