100%. James B Donovan[1] was (in)famously admonished for defending a Soviet spy (as dramatized in the Spielberg film Bridge of Spies), but that's what set us apart from the rest of the world.

If the relative amorality of upholding The Law is unpalatable for some, then maybe they aren't cut out to practice law. Perhaps being made of sterner stuff is a key prerequisite, not too different from practicing medicine, where the hippocratic oath obliges one to medically serve even the most repugnant criminals.

[1] https://news.fordham.edu/fordham-magazine/metadiplomat-the-r...

Thanks for the link and example. There's a certain generosity of spirit and heart needed to maintain such a belief in spite of external pressures, especially in the 60s.

So lawyers shouldn't vote? Shouldn't lobby for changes in law? Shouldn't encourage each other to take up fields to help those with legal recourse (ex: public defenders)? Shouldn't discourage lawyers from going into money-making schemes that effectively exploit those without money to defend themselves?

There's a lot of room between "lawyers have no responsibility for remedying injustice in the current system" and "lawyers should just decide who's guilty and refuse to deal with them".

You seem to be confusing personal views and what they express as part of their job.

I don't know how this isn't part of being a lawyer:

- Deciding what kind of case law they specialize in

- Deciding where to work

- Deciding how the work should be done

This whole article is about how Harvard is encouraging lawyers to ignore any professional responsibility in favour of monetary compensation.

> So lawyers shouldn't vote? Shouldn't lobby for changes in law?

These are 100%, or close to it, personal decisions.

The other decisions all involve, in some portion, personal views as to what's right and wrong.