Do you take issue with the latter?
You propose that lawyers "work" toward a certain goal. In any individual instance, that goal either is or is not in the client's best interest.
If it is in their client's best interest, then your proposal is a nullity; it changes nothing about the attorney's ethical obligations.
If it is not in their client's best interest, then to do that "work" would deny the client effective assistance of counsel. That would constitute structural injustice.
It's a simple question.
It's a nonsensical platitude, spoken by someone who neither knows, nor is interested in knowing, the subject matter.
If you want to be taken seriously, learn something about the systems you're trying to reform before telling other people how to do their jobs.
Otherwise, seems we've reached an impasse, so I'll just take my leave.
> The future will never have to ask with misgiving, what could the Nazis have said in their favor. History will show that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been given the kind of trial which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never gave to any man. But fairness is not weakness. The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute to our strength. . . . The United States has no interest which would be advanced by the conviction of any defendant if we have not proved him guilty on at least one of the counts charged against him in the Indictment. Any result that the calm and critical judgment of posterity would pronounce unjust, would not be a victory for any of the countries associated in this prosecution.
You want to compare ensuring a fair trial to the Nazis "just following orders"? Okay. What is your alternative, then, other than unfair trials? How is that justice?