<HTML>In a message dated 2/20/2003 9:01:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, nathanne@nathannewman.org writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Yes, everyone has the right to a lawyer.  But they don't have the right to any particular lawyer, and when a particular lawyer spends all of his time representing those who commit genocide, that does effect one's evaluation of them as a person, just as a person who chooses to defend drug lords doesn't particularly get my respect. There are lots of people out there who need lawyers, yet Clark seems to spend all his time defending scum like Milosevic, when there are a heck of a lot of people more deserving and in greater need. The dirty secret of most progressive lawyers, except for government-appointed defense lawyers, is that they mostly do choose their clients, and you can judge a lawyer by the whole array of clients they choose to represent. </BLOCKQUOTE> Does a lawyer have control over who calls in? How many lesser known clients would think to call Ramsey Clark in the first place? Isn't there a little bit of a multiplier effect from media attention? Say I get charged with war crimes. Hypothetically I could take pot luck with the yellow pages or with the referrals my friends scare up. Or I can read the paper, see "former attorney general" and "defended someone else with analogous problems...." Besides, isn't one point of having lawyers in the picture to make sure the process works no matter how odious the client? Okay, so I don't hear RC talking clearly about the process, but maybe he just takes that for granted from his law training. And if I as a lawyer have a choice of two equally odious clients (Okay Milosevic is hard to top, but I used to work with someone from Serbia ...) and I can only take one case why wouldn't I choose the one more likely to get me media attention and hence more clients? DoreneC</HTML>