So, Harley won't defend animal abusers, but he will defend a child molester.
That is a moral decision. As such, his morals are directly intertwined into his profession.
I am still wondering why Harley will defend a child molester, but not an animal abuser.

I am sorry, but that is a screwed up moral compass. I guess he can make more money off of child molesters.
To be honest, if I was a criminal defense lawyer, the absolute last people I would defend are people who harm children. Id rather defend someone who murders 50 adults, then defend someone who harms one child.