It's quite a leap from someone not personally wanting to represent an alleged rapist to not wanting someone to have representation at all, but the author made that leap easily within only a few paragraphs. The rest of the article goes in to the real point they're making (anti-CRT yadda yadda) but the original premise is so shaky that I just can't take it seriously.
> someone not personally wanting to represent an alleged rapist
(1) That isn't what happened. The junior associate wanted severance because the named partner represented him.
(2) I would fire any junior attorney who said such a thing. You may think it's acceptable; I do not. Everyone deserves an attorney, not just even when accused of heinous crimes, but especially when accused of heinous crimes. Prejudging a client or potential client based solely on the allegation and news media is antithetical to everything the profession stands for.
To add: the defence provided to a client is limited ordinarily to what is legally feasible, and what is ethically honourable (i.e. 'winning' does not mean going to the extent of pulling out dishonourable defences to ensure the accused client win).
The above are fair, and reasonable considerations for any lawyer to mete out to an accused client, in the interests of a fair trial, and for the ends of justice.
Yet what the "woke" community asserts is that any form of representation for accused people - accused, not convicted - is heinous in itself. It is surprising, since the legal fraternity should be first to understand that allegations are not truth -- that even law students have fallen short of this is worrisome, as they are the future lawyers and judges of the country.
1) It looks like I misread subtext. I took it to mean the lawyer did not want to assist Boies in defending Weinstein. I suppose it's a little different if they're just some random unrelated lawyer at the firm. Still, the author made a huge leap from point A to point B.
2) Sure, firing them is your right. I just think it is perfectly acceptable to hold people accountable for their actions even if they felt morally obligated to perform those actions. And I fully support those that choose not to associate themselves with anyone, for any reason.
Can we not pretend that taking the Weinstein case wasn't about some high-minded, principled act? This is the same law firm that hired private investigators to spy on victims in an effort to build smear campaigns. They did it for money, not morality.
Yes, everyone deserves an attorney. That's why public defenders are a thing. If Harvey Weinstein weren't rich and famous, that's likely what he would have had for his defense.
There's a huge leap from "everyone deserves an attorney" to "everyone deserves a big, high-powered, (and I would argue unscrupulous) law firm"
>This is the same law firm that hired private investigators to spy on victims in an effort to build smear campaigns. They did it for money, not morality.
Then we ought also infer that the junior associates trying to quit-with-severance in objection were doing it for money, not morality.
> Everyone deserves an attorney, not just even when accused of heinous crimes, but especially when accused of heinous crimes.
Yes, but no lawyer should be forced to defend a specific person either. Effective representation requires at least a basic level of trust and communication between client and lawyer - the consistent negative outcomes associated with poor persons unable to afford their own lawyer and being forced to rely on public defenders who are often overworked and underpaid are long known [1] [2], not to mention that unlike e.g. Germany, DAs in the US are not required to also search for evidence that is helpful to the defense.
In the end, issues of payment aside there will always be a lawyer interested in taking on any case - no matter how heinous - simply because of the publicity that showing good work in defending a client will bring.
The amount of help you can expect from a public defender is nearly zero. Specifically, they'll do two things for you - they will tell you how fucked you are, and that you should take a plea bargain.
Their budget, and therefore, the amount of hours/resources they can devote to your case is a tiny fraction of that of the prosecutor's office.
If everyone on trial had to use a public defender, you'd see this system get fixed by next year. But they don't - which is why people like the author of TFA can wring their hands over how unfair it is that Weinstein is poo-pooed for getting the legal representation in the world. What a travesty! What an injustice! What a generation-defining moment! But please, pay no attention to how the animals and proles get to navigate the legal system.
I would rather have a system like here in Germany for criminal trials where the defendant chooses the lawyer they work with and the lawyer gets paid a set hourly rate by the government.
As a quasi-PD, I may be biased, but I have seen hourly-rate lawyers pass up excellent resolutions to a case for no good reason.
My last jury trial is a good example. There was a lot of mitigating evidence and the prosecutor didn't have a grudge against our client. A non-criminal disposition was discussed and tentatively agreed between myself and the prosecutor. Retained counsel advised against it and client proceeded to trial. Lost on the merits and now has a conviction for a dozen counts of fraud. Then mitigation evidence came in during sentencing and he got no jail time, just had to pay restitution.
But he still has a criminal record. And he didn't need to have one. But the retained counsel got paid, so...
The leap from 'junior associate at a fancy law firm made a bold request based on principles' to 'the American legal system is under attack by whiny, ultra-liberal wreckers' blew me away. But as you pointed out, that's not the point of the article. The author's purpose is to whine about right-wing windmills for 5,000 word.
