Hillary Clinton defended older man who raped a 12 year old girl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

There is one article linked above on recusal for personal moral reasons. There are several others online. Please link an instance of an attorney being jailed or disbarred for seeking recusal based on strong personal moral objection

[Anonymous]

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

another poster: It sounds like she went beyond her responsibility to defend the guy. And, she especially didn't need to find so much humor in it -as she demonstrated in the interview.. Bizarre.--especially coming from someone who says all victims should be believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

another poster: It sounds like she went beyond her responsibility to defend the guy. And, she especially didn't need to find so much humor in it -as she demonstrated in the interview.. Bizarre.--especially coming from someone who says all victims should be believe.

I see nobody read the Snopes article. That's not what she was laughing about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

First it was about a young lawyer not wanting to burn any bridges. Now it's about constitution. Which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

The best case scenario is to refuse to represent the client on moral grounds. But sometimes the court is stuck, and the prosecutor needs someone to serve as defense counsel to get the conviction.

In that situation, you take the case and provide barely adequate defense. Try hard to get the client to plead to a heavy sentence; the judge and prosecutor will love you for saving time and money--and they'll pay you back.

The client, like just about all arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. Go through the motions. Make the arguments so the habeas people can't claim IAC, but do everything with tone and body language to show your client is a snake.

Make one quick trip to the prison to visit the client. Otherwise, take another couple of trips at times you know the jail won't make the client available. Don't seek any experts. No mitigation, or at most get a bozo who's easy to refute and humiliate.

Finally, hammer people like this child rapist at the SYSTEMIC level. Oppose public defender funding at every opportunity. DQ anyone with defense background for a judgeship. Portray court-appointed attorneys as wasteful; cut their compensation at every turn. On the Federal level, ask Congress to mandate abandonment of Brady rules on evidence.

Hillary took the case to do a favor, but she didn't atone for her work. That's going to be her downfall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

The best case scenario is to refuse to represent the client on moral grounds. But sometimes the court is stuck, and the prosecutor needs someone to serve as defense counsel to get the conviction.

In that situation, you take the case and provide barely adequate defense. Try hard to get the client to plead to a heavy sentence; the judge and prosecutor will love you for saving time and money--and they'll pay you back.

The client, like just about all arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. Go through the motions. Make the arguments so the habeas people can't claim IAC, but do everything with tone and body language to show your client is a snake.

Make one quick trip to the prison to visit the client. Otherwise, take another couple of trips at times you know the jail won't make the client available. Don't seek any experts. No mitigation, or at most get a bozo who's easy to refute and humiliate.

Finally, hammer people like this child rapist at the SYSTEMIC level. Oppose public defender funding at every opportunity. DQ anyone with defense background for a judgeship. Portray court-appointed attorneys as wasteful; cut their compensation at every turn. On the Federal level, ask Congress to mandate abandonment of Brady rules on evidence.

Hillary took the case to do a favor, but she didn't atone for her work. That's going to be her downfall.

Your definition of morals and ethics is curious and not widely-held.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

The best case scenario is to refuse to represent the client on moral grounds. But sometimes the court is stuck, and the prosecutor needs someone to serve as defense counsel to get the conviction.

In that situation, you take the case and provide barely adequate defense. Try hard to get the client to plead to a heavy sentence; the judge and prosecutor will love you for saving time and money--and they'll pay you back.

The client, like just about all arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. Go through the motions. Make the arguments so the habeas people can't claim IAC, but do everything with tone and body language to show your client is a snake.

Make one quick trip to the prison to visit the client. Otherwise, take another couple of trips at times you know the jail won't make the client available. Don't seek any experts. No mitigation, or at most get a bozo who's easy to refute and humiliate.

Finally, hammer people like this child rapist at the SYSTEMIC level. Oppose public defender funding at every opportunity. DQ anyone with defense background for a judgeship. Portray court-appointed attorneys as wasteful; cut their compensation at every turn. On the Federal level, ask Congress to mandate abandonment of Brady rules on evidence.

Hillary took the case to do a favor, but she didn't atone for her work. That's going to be her downfall.

Wait a second. The client, like most arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. She should have aimed for barely adequate? The American Bar Association strongly disagrees with you. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope.html

[Anonymous]

Its amazing how delusional and forgiving Hillary supporters are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

I second the person who said this is a dumb thread to have on a board with so many lawyers. You are exactly backwards about what is moral in this case. When a judge asks a lawyer to give back to the legal system by representing a reprehensible person that no-one else wants to represent, the correct moral choice is to say yes. What Clinton did isn't merely acceptable, I would think less of her and be less likely to support her for president if she said no. That would be the wrong and immoral choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

I second the person who said this is a dumb thread to have on a board with so many lawyers. You are exactly backwards about what is moral in this case. When a judge asks a lawyer to give back to the legal system by representing a reprehensible person that no-one else wants to represent, the correct moral choice is to say yes. What Clinton did isn't merely acceptable, I would think less of her and be less likely to support her for president if she said no. That would be the wrong and immoral choice.

Seriously. By the logic of some on this board all criminal defense attorneys and public defenders should be barred from ever seeking office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

First it was about a young lawyer not wanting to burn any bridges. Now it's about constitution. Which is it?

I didn't make both arguments, but why are they mutually exclusive?