I found harley amusing to be honest. Also he is a defence lawyer, they rep all kind of people, from petty crime to monsters, some guilty as day, some not. Not all animal abusers are innocent/guilty, and neither are the alleged predatorsBut the bottom line is defence lawyers and Prosecutors are the exact same job, and their job entails playing a role, the defense lawyers job is to prove innocence, if any and/or make the best deal/outcome for their side, and the prosecutors job is to prove guilt, if and an/do also make the best deal/outcome. for their side
the winner is just the side that proves the most guilt or innocence, nothing more, nothing less.
if you don't believe the role situation I brought up then you should look at how many defence lawyers eventually become prosecutors and the amount of prosecutors who become defence lawyers.
Anyone who has ever been through any kind of legal battle of any kind knows how much of a circus theatre it is. the whole legal syatem is based on the 2 different sides of the argument blowing everything out of proportion and ezagerrating and or taking the facts out of context
so in reality who gives a shit if he was hhonest to say the types of people he would represent versus those who he would not. I don't agree with him in the sense that if he is a defence lawyer his job is not to be the morality police but to defend clients accused of crimes, even if those crimes are repugnant to him.
if you really think about it as well, with both sides being lawyers playing a specific role, as much as it is sickening when a 100% guilty person gets off, then the opposite must be true ie how many in actuality 100% of innocents are railroaded into plea deals or just fucked over as well
I think if anyone here got in trouble, they would want the best defence whether they were innocent or guilty