I haven't posted anything in a little while, simply because nothing very "blogworthy" has been happening here. However, I have
been visiting (and commenting on) a few other blogs, a couple of which touched on an issue that arose at work recently. Instead of clogging other people's blogs (blog-clogging?), I figured I should probably throw a few pixels in here on that issue . . .
One of my colleagues, Mr. L., a very experienced and skillful criminal defense attorney, applied for a job at the District Attorney's office---the Other Side
In court the other day, Mr. L.'s cover was blown by his adversary of the day objecting on the record to Mr. L.'s involvement in an ongoing case, apparently fearing some sort of ineffective assistance appellate fallout. To make things even worse, a veteran "true believer"
from the Public Defender's office could be heard by all and sundry at a local bar that night, loudly voicing her disapproval of Mr. L.'s continued representation of criminal defendants.
My opinion is that a good attorney---and Mr. L. is more than just a "good" attorney---can represent any
client and advocate any
position, unaffected by his own personal beliefs and opinions. Mr. L. has no duty to withdraw from representing clients, nor does he have a duty to disclose his plans to them, any more so than if he had plans to quit the law and become a farmer.
The only objection I have to working for the D.A.'s office is the apparent requirement that as well as being a good attorney, you have to display a certain "attitude."
That said, if Mr. L. goes over to the "dark side," he will be in the company of not just good attorneys, but some good people.
Anyway, I wish Mr. L. all the best. I've learned a lot from him, and I hope to learn more, whichever end of the table he sits at.