Years ago, when I nearly died of boredom working for a law firm, I heard whispered rumors about a partner, Michael Tierney, whom none of the female associates wanted to work with because his pro bono work included defending -- gasp! -- pro-life groups. (There was at least one female associate who wanted to work with him!)

I didn't hear a peep about the august "American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients" back then.

Like Hollywood actresses, lawyers need to believe they're noble and courageous to help them forget that they are corporate drones doing soul-destroying work, which mostly consists of making photocopies.

Defending terrorists gives status-conscious attorneys a chance to get standing ovations at the annual ABA convention -- much like promoting "global warming" makes climatologists feel like they're saving the world, rather than studying water vapor.

It took me exactly one Nexis search for "ABA," "award" and "Guantanamo" to find that the 2006 "Outstanding Scholar Award" at the ABA annual banquet was given to New York University law professor Anthony G. Amsterdam for his "extensive pro bono practice, litigating cases that range from civil rights claims, to death penalty defense, to claims of access to the courts for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay."

A rule I have is: You're not defending an unpopular client if you're getting awards from the ABA, particularly if the award mentions "courage."

You'll never see a pompous letter like the one attacking Liz Cheney on behalf of any lawyer defending clients who are unpopular with lawyers, which terrorists are not.

Ken Starr, a signatory to the "Please God, Let This Get Me a Good Obituary in The New York Times" letter, once, totally by mistake, had a case unpopular with the establishment: Bill Clinton's impeachment.

He's shown his mettle by saying that if he met Clinton today, he'd say "I'm sorry." Because isn't that what Jesus said? Be very concerned with the opinion of the world!

Speaking of which, I also never heard any testimonials to the sacred duty of lawyers to defend unpopular causes when every lawyer working on the Clinton impeachment was being smeared as a "tobacco lawyer."

Tobacco companies, being wildly unpopular, are in need of a lot of legal services. Scratch any litigator from a big law firm and you'll find someone who, if necessary, could be slimed as a "tobacco lawyer."

You will notice a pattern developing: We only hear paeans to the "American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients" when it's being used to defend causes popular with liberals -- serial killers, terrorists and a horny hick who promised to save partial-birth abortion.

Lawyers want to be congratulated for their courage in defending "unpopular" clients, while taking cases that are utterly noncontroversial in their social circles.

They'd be scared to death to take the case of an anti-abortion activist. Defending the guy who killed George Tiller the Baby Killer won't make them a superstar at the next ABA convention.

Not only do Americans have a right to know the legal backgrounds of lawyers setting detainee policy at the Department of Justice, but I personally demand the right not to have to listen to Eddie Haskell lawyers constantly claiming to be Atticus Finch.

What would the weekend be without a little Ann??

Smurphy's into cross-dressing morons? Who would have guessed?

I guess it isn't technically homosexual since mAnn's a dude.

It's good to know you have something insightful to add to the conversation, Axe.

The wanabe bitch makes such insane statements that insightful comment is impossible beyond a general "WTF?".

What would the weekend be without a little Ann??

#3 | Posted by MURPHY at 2010-03-13 01:47 PM

Watch it Muffy. You're gonna make Sarah! jealous!

I read this article. Ann Coulter hates lawyers. Then she argues, in essence, that because she hates them she can abuse them.

What a gal. Those times someone other than she has determined to be critical she's had no problem lawyering up.

Hypocritical dope.

She must have a new book coming out soon.

Gad, does that mean it's "Holiday Season" already?!

"What a gal."

Wrong again.

mAnn coultergeist opened it's mouth-and something hypocritical fell out????
How can that be?

I guess I should apologize for the "coultergeist" thing.

Poltergeists are much too nice to be associated with that loudmouthed piece of trash.

It always seems to depend on what issue the lawyer is working on.

If it is an issue the left likes--then lawyers are magnaminous--ie--Clinton, Gitmo, serial killers...

But when lawyers are working on some issue promoted by the Bush administration--they are the devil incarnate..

But setting aside the issue of lawyers--lol

It is worth pointing out that the DOJ attorneys who worked for terrorists are now working for the DOJ.

And Holder was so ashamed when called out on it--can't have any political transparency--Holder would not provide the names of the DOJ terrorist lawyers.

And I think we can put away the talking point of John Adams representing the Brit soldiers.

He did and did it well.

And then did not have a gov't job for almost 20 years.

So even the appearance of a conflict was just not there.

Smurph,

Is there no Rethug bullshit too vile for you to swallow? Do you always believe everything these dribbling sphincters squeeze out?

For God's sake, girl....use your own brain for once in your life. You might find you like thinking for yourself.

You might find you like thinking for yourself.

#16 | Posted by axe

I doubt if Murphy will ever be able to do that. Thinking for one's self is something that one usually needs to start as a child.

"At least 34 of the 50 largest firms in the United States have performed pro bono work on behalf of Guantanamo detainees."

hmmmm, I would have expected more....

Lawyers are more often than not Democrats

LOL - is that right?

Michael Chertoff (former Sec Homeland Security) and Rudi Guiliani are Democrats? Who knew?

Remember, we're talking about people who defended Gitmo detainees.

Don't you fellas ever have a thought in your head to discuss?

Or is it always the same with What'Axe??

Go after the poster instead of making some kind of remark about the damn link.

And at least AU named TWO lawyers who are repubs. lol

Yeah. I keep forgetting about all the money conservatives get from the Trial Lawyers Association. And how the TLA is so supportive of tort reform--not a Dem priority, so I understand.

Yes, most lawyers are Dumbos. You can find an example or two or two hundred that are the exception, just like you can find the occasional small businessman who still hasn't scraped his Obama sticker off his pickup.

cross-dressing morons...mAnn's a dude.
#4 | Posted by axe at 2010-03-13 02:17 PM

"What a gal." Wrong again.
#10 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2010-03-13 06:26 PM

mAnn coultergeist
#11 | Posted by frankf55 at 2010-03-13 09:42 PM

In every Ann Coulter thread, there's a common theme: Most lefties have no response and simply say "she's ugly." Yawn.

I used to think that too Joe. But now that the Left has sequestered the term "Tea Bagger" as an insult--which most of us had to look up to understand what the hell they were even talking about--it's now open season on one of their favorite demographics.

What's really funny, is that down deep, these "progressives" are every bit as hateful as the knuckle-dragging conservatives they pretend to be superior to. Face it. If half the people who were open-minded enough to pull the lever for Obama in 2008 felt similarly about gays and lesbians, they could be married in 25 states by now.

But no.

Criminal defense attorneys should not receive awards nor be lionized as "courageous" simply for doing their job. The whole point of being a true defense attorney is to always be willing to represent anyone charged with any crime regardless of guilt or innocence, notoriety or obscurity, and professional recognition or condemnation. I have no use for publicity seeking, agenda promoting, glamour defense attorneys.

Mod,

Serious question - how do you feel about Jeffrey Fieger?

He hails from Michigan and I am very aware of his strengths, weaknesses, antics, douchebaggery, noteworthy advocacies and the fact that he needs to dedicate some serious dollars to a hair stylist - the guy looks like he just walked out of a trailer-park.

I initially admired his aggressive defense of Kervorkian. I felt it was in the highest tradition of defense attorneys. He then started attempting to jockey his name recognition into politics, and my respect for him diminished. As for his physical appearance, with low publicity every day type clients looking like you just walked out of a trailer parked combined with excellent preparation and oratory skills can be tactically advantageous. Jurors often resent and distrust expensive looking attorneys. Looking like a work-a-day "everyman" and being able to articulate a reasonable defense is often very effective.

Mod - I agree with you regarding his appearance to a point - it's all about his hair IMO. The dude wears makeup and wears $1000+ suits routinely. If he is trying to appear 'working-man', outside of emulating Donald Trump on a purely-tacky level he is doing a terrible job.

I initially admired his aggressive defense of Kervorkian.

So did I. As far as I can tell his position fell-flat from a legal and constitutional-standpoint. However, his job was to defend Kevorkian, and in the big-picture, I think he did very well. Ultimately, I think he moved away from the cause, as you've insinuated, and trended toward personal-gain (he succeeded).

HOw can you guys think Fieger did good on Kevorikian??

The man was found guilty and put in prison!!