[lijok]

I miss the days when the work of lawyers wasn't being scrutinized on social media..

Lawyers represent a client. What they personally believe has nothing to do with it.

According to you, if it takes a true believer to be a Tesla lawyer, what does it take to be a public defence lawyer that represents murderers and sexual offenders?

[eropple]

Zealous representation is a critical part of the justice system for criminal law as pertains to individuals.

Actual people. People who aren't fictional.

I've yet to see a good, ethically sound argument that corporations inherently deserve the same. They're not people. They aren't subjected to the same kinds of penalties as people even when they kill people. The stakes are different and so are the affordances a reasonable person can demand. So it seems eminently reasonable to consider the ethics of a lawyer representing a client just as one would consider the ethics of any vendor doing business with a shithead.

[lijok]

They should receive the same representation, IMO.

Divorced from emotion, representation even for the most despicable of organizations powers the feedback loop of the judicial system, allowing it to set precedents, identify holes in law, etc.

I think the dynamics of defence and prosecution don't end at "One defends, one prosecutes". Defence forces Prosecution to devise a bulletproof case, they promote rigorous case preparation and ensure legal integrity. It's the same reason why we have opposition parties in politics. Without defence, how comprehensive would the prosecutions case be? Further illegal activity commited by the defendent gets uncovered all the time by prosecution, during the trial, due to the pressures applied on the prosecution by the defence.

Yes, the chemical companies actively poisoning the people should be burned to the ground, but, for the judicial system to function, they should receive zealous representation, and those representing them, should not be viewed as less-than.

That's my current take on it. Happy to be called naive and discuss this further.

[eropple]

This is the most compelling argument I've seen for it, so for real, kudos for that.

That said, I think in practice this opens the door to decontextualizing any work done for a shitty corporation, not just legal representation. Obviously, I do not believe anyone should be legally enjoined from representing any defendant. And I think there is not just necessity but some nobility in a zealous defense of an individual, even a terrible one. On the other hand, we live in a rhetorically stupid time, and "well how can you judge me for working for the Torment Nexus?" is already something people dare believe. This reads to me as an inevitable way to buttress that position in practice.

So while I think you and I are fully agreed on representation in a legal court, I do think the court of public opinion--being functionally the last one really left to us as individuals within the polity--is probably fair game on that front. They are not, after all, actual people, and we are, so...

[ClumsyPilot]

> They aren't subjected to the same kinds of penalties as people even when they kill people.

This is the biggest injustice in the world today. So much corporate harm is caused by their impunity. If I commit some kind of fraud that results in deaths of 10 people, I will probably get life sentence. But corporations do it routinely and nobody goes to jail.

They are only people when it suits them.

[krisoft]

> According to you, if it takes a true believer to be a Tesla lawyer, what does it take to be a public defence lawyer that represents murderers and sexual offenders?

It takes to be a true believer in the rule of law, and the role of a defence lawyer in the system.

> I miss the days when the work of lawyers wasn't being scrutinized on social media.

Nah. People are free to criticise whatever they want to. There is no harm to it, and they absolutely have their right to express their opinion.

It is an important form of public participation.

[lijok]

> Nah. People are free to criticise whatever they want to.

I agree. But I don't agree that there's no harm to it. Tiktokers and Tweeters with zero understanding of the judicial system go online to harass the lawyers of whatever team they disagree with. That's causing harm. A parallel can be drawn between such behavior and that of people harassing actors who portrayed a villain in a movie/show really well - see Jack Gleeson and the death threats he received for playing King Joffrey too well in GOT.

To be clear, I am not saying we should impose limits on what can be said about lawyers. I'm merely stating I miss the days when social media addicts did not feel compelled to comment on legal matters.

[genman]

I think it is a false comparison. Public defender has a role to defend these who could not afford to defend themselves. In addition they protect suspects, not criminals. Not even slightly comparable to the case here.