should a lawyer representing Harvey Weinstein be removed as Dean at Harvard

[dead0man]

link-Harvard's paper

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This is wrong. Everybody's entitled to a lawyer and lawyers shouldn't be punished for representing people.

[7,052,770]

Reminiscent of the Bernie Bro backlash against Hillary being a public defender for a rapist back in the 1970s. Some people just don't understand what lawyers' role is.

[Leinad]

Another example of people deciding being pissed off at something is a better idea than, like, researching basic concepts and stuff.

Also do they not realize this does no one any good? Like, the lawyer isn't trying to enable Weinstein...I doubt his lessons include "Sexual Abuse 101"...this doesn't keep anyone from getting sexually abused at all, or help victims of abuse cope with it, or get rapists locked up, or...anything. It's the dictionary definition of a "virtue signal."

[dead0man]

Keep in mind, these aren't just rando, easily triggered, stupid kids majoring in 70s French Art Films at tiny insignificant liberal arts school in Washington trying to make sure no white people show up on White Out day or even doctoral students at a prestigious medical school that are afraid of chalk.  These are kids at Harvard, taking law classes.  Sure, maybe it's not as special as it was when the two Presidents named Adams went there or even when the two Presidents named Roosevelt went there, but funk, that's where the Obamas went too and that was less than 30 years ago.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Seeing as how he chose to take that case and is just doing so for money, yes.

If I were a lawyer I wouldn't take Weinstein's case for all the money in the world.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

This is wrong. Everybody's entitled to a lawyer and lawyers shouldn't be punished for representing people.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

White lawyers who went down south to defend black people falsely accused of rape used to have to fear for their lives.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Everyone accused of crimes is entitled to a lawyer, even those who are obviously guilty. Nobody should have to face a societal backlash based on being a lawyer who is doing their job.

[RFayette]

Everyone accused of crimes is entitled to a lawyer, even those who are obviously guilty. Nobody should have to face a societal backlash based on being a lawyer who is doing their job.

[The Mikado]

Point of order: people aren't calling for him to cease teaching, but to cease being a dean.

Anyway, obviously not.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The problem is this guy is only doing it for the f[inks]ton Weinstein is paying him.

If I were a lawyer I wouldn't accept Weinstein as a client in a million years.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The problem is this guy is only doing it for the f[inks]ton Weinstein is paying him.

If I were a lawyer I wouldn't accept Weinstein as a client in a million years.

     Refusing a certain case is the prerogative of the attorney, but even the most despicable offender is entitled to legal representation. Attempting to punish or somehow stigmatize lawyers representing bad people would be a very negative development for the profession.

     I voted option four in the poll.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The problem is this guy is only doing it for the f[inks]ton Weinstein is paying him.

If I were a lawyer I wouldn't accept Weinstein as a client in a million years.

     Refusing a certain case is the prerogative of the attorney, but even the most despicable offender is entitled to legal representation. Attempting to punish or somehow stigmatize lawyers representing bad people would be a very negative development for the profession.

It would come right back at us when there's a widely vilified person who's actually innocent, but lawyers wouldn't take on said person's case because of fear of professional reprisal.

[ingemann]

Everyone deserve a lawyer, but this is not some principle case, he has taken because it's important judicial issue. This is a Dean at a university, at a time where there's a lot of focus on sexual assaults on universities and the universities not treating these with the seriousness it deserve, taking a client for a large sum of money, who are accused of not just sexual assault, but also using his power to put women in a position, where they could choose between their continued career or his advances.

As such I have a lot of sympathy for the people who object to their Dean taking such a case. This is not just your typical SJW crap. This is a Dean of Harvard showing he lack good judgement in what signals he sends to his students. And no the signal he send is not that everyone deserve a lawyer.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Arguing that lawyers who represent people we presume to be guilty are deserving of condemnation seems worryingly close to arguing that people we presume to be guilty are undeserving of legal representation.

[ingemann]

Arguing that lawyers who represent people we presume to be guilty are deserving of condemnation seems worryingly close to arguing that people we presume to be guilty are undeserving of legal representation.

Yes we risk rich people ending up as badly represented as poor people are.

[Sestak]

Of course not, that’s idiotic and dangerous.

Arguing that lawyers who represent people we presume to be guilty are deserving of condemnation seems worryingly close to arguing that people we presume to be guilty are undeserving of legal representation.

Yes we risk rich people ending up as badly represented as poor people are.

This, though, is 100% true.

[HisGrace]

The thing with this is that if he were defending a terrorist who killed people or something this wouldn't even be a controversy. It's just because this is so high profile.

[Leinad]

Arguing that lawyers who represent people we presume to be guilty are deserving of condemnation seems worryingly close to arguing that people we presume to be guilty are undeserving of legal representation.

Honestly it sounds like a step further. Like, this implies that people we presume to be guilty are already undeserving of legal representation, therefore their lawyers are deserving of condemnation. Maybe that's just me overanalyzing "implications," though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Arguing that lawyers who represent people we presume to be guilty are deserving of condemnation seems worryingly close to arguing that people we presume to be guilty are undeserving of legal representation.

Honestly it sounds like a step further. Like, this implies that people we presume to be guilty are already undeserving of legal representation, therefore their lawyers are deserving of condemnation. Maybe that's just me overanalyzing "implications," though.

I wouldn't say it is overanalyzed.

[AtorBoltox]

Can we not pretend that this lawyer is some noble Atticus Finch-type figure? He didn't have to take on  Weinstein as a client and did so solely because he will be paid tons of money. He shouldn't face professional consequences but it's entirely fair to criticise whose motives and how it conflicts with his role as an educator

[BenBurch]

Seeing as how he chose to take that case and is just doing so for money, yes.

If I were a lawyer I wouldn't take Weinstein's case for all the money in the world.

Everyone has a right to a lawyer.

[BenBurch]

Can we not pretend that this lawyer is some noble Atticus Finch-type figure? He didn't have to take on  Weinstein as a client and did so solely because he will be paid tons of money. He shouldn't face professional consequences but it's entirely fair to criticise whose motives and how it conflicts with his role as an educator

Some one would have had to defend Weinstein.  Even he, as much of a piece of sh**t as Weinstein is, has the right to have a lawyer.  If not the guy that did take on his case, who would you have accepted/allowed to take the case?  Sorry for the weird wording

[S019]

Yes,

Because he should have known not to represent Harvey Weinstein