And yet you would agree, I hope, that the issue in the case may transcend your personal evaluation of the client? A lot of constitutional law has involved unsavory defendants and plaintiffs, no? In the cases of Milosevic and of Ntakirutimana, you have issues of due process and of the legitimacy of the court itself. Of course you may feel that the legitimacy of Clinton-era UN tribunals is so firmly entrenched in law and morality that anyone who challenges them in court is morally culpable, but you should spell out your assumptions. Someone else might believe that there are dangers and inequities in them, and that even if he shared your convictions about the character of Milosevic and the factual guilt of Ntakirutimana, it would still be important to take the case. The same goes for the other examples that Pugliese has dug up.
LP