We're having entirely different conversations. Ensuring a fair trial goes well beyond simply not rigging them.

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.

I never said anything about rigging trials, and you know I didn't. Ensuring a fair trial goes way beyond simply not rigging it. Hyperbole and dishonesty don't make for good discussion. If you want to learn more about the ethics of being a lawyer and the fundamental principles underlying the fair administration of justice, I encourage you to listen to the experts in that field rather than propagating snark.

Do you take issue with: "I think lawyers should recognize injustice in the system and work to reform it instead of claiming that they have no responsibility for the way the system functions?"

It's a simple question.

Yes, I do take issue with it.

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.

Well, if it brings you any solace, all I'm doing is echoing the thoughts of some of the lawyers I've had the good fortune to talk to. I'll be sure to let them know of their ignorance and disinterest in ethics, and that they should take some refresher classes.

Otherwise, seems we've reached an impasse, so I'll just take my leave.