But, you have to separate the lawyer from the client.

Does that apply to Nathaniel Abraham and his mouthpiece?  It would appear to some that they are indeed bookends.

As the SG, Verrilli doesn't get to choose his position or, oftentimes, his cases.  He's stuck, trying to make the best of what is, for him, a bad situation.

Am I to understand that means "I was only following orders" as it were during the Nuremberg Trials?  Sounds like a rather weak excuse to me as I was raised under the understanding that everyone was independent to make decisions in life with what they will and will not partake.  

And I never said he was pious.

I never wrote that you did.  The observation made was that it was a professional assertion that life without a gaggle of lawyers looming over everyone's shoulders would somehow be unconscionable.

But remember, for every Verrilli we pity or castigate, there is a Clement, whom we admire and who is truly brilliant.

And you also remember, for every Clement worshiped by his peer group, there is oodles upon oodles, upon oodles of POS with litigation jihad degrees.

Both Obama's.. Bart Stupak.. Jack O'Reilly.. Carl Levin.. Sander Levin.. Jennifer Granholm.. Elizabeth Weaver.. Gary Peters.. John Conyers.. Jim Blanchard.. Rashida Tlaib..

Yes, let's plague America with more.  Why hell, let the profession go so far as to even enshrine them.

Closing law schools for a few years?  Fine by me: less supply = less competition = higher hourly rates = The Wiz's comfort in old age.

More than fine by me too; less ambulance chasers = less frivolous costly intrusions (pick one) for everyone =  higher hourly rates for everyone = The Wiz, who I think highly of, also profits in his seasoned status as now the profession may become respectable.

My fingers and toes are crossed on the respectable part ever becoming a reality.