A rule of law issue. One of our values is that the law applies equally to everyone & therefore everyone is entitled to a lawyer to help them understand & enforce their rights, even the most vilified people.
/1
/1
A corollary to this value is that lawyers are NOT synonymous w/their clients. Representing someone or a company or a govt doesn’t mean you agree with that client’s views or actions. If this isn’t the rule, then the whole system of laws & the rule of law begin to disintegrate.
/2
/2
This principle is in the lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. This is DC’s: 1.2(b) “A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social, or moral views or activities.”/3
This principle means that it is inconsistent with the rule of law to criticize or disadvantage a lawyer later for having previously represented certain clients. /4
Lawyers can certainly align themselves with a political party or specific viewpoints or specific interests through their own actions or memberships or statements on their own behalf. But not just through whom they’ve represented. /5
If we want to hold onto the values that we’re a country of laws, not men, & that we believe in the rule of law, then we need to also uphold this principle: lawyers are not their clients. /6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
