> without an independent and impartial bar willing to defend the despised Well - capitalism nullified that. You need money - and connections - to win for many

> without an independent and impartial bar willing to defend the despised Well - capitalism nullified that. You need money - and connections - to win for many cases in court. So it is more of a milking game than "the old ideals". > today’s legal ethics codes still speak of lawyers’ threefold duty: to the client, to the court, and to the country This creates a conflict of interest. If the lawyer thinks he is not responsible for winning the case, then a defendent should be able to defend himself or herself in court. Though this leads to an automatic loss, let's be honest. The current system is designed to make the courts and lawyers rich(er). > Imagine if Adams had decided that defending his clients meant winning at all costs. So why should this matter for the client? Why would Adams be allowed to be lazy and lose? How is that a winning strategy for the client? > Meta lawyers ordering evidence of child exploitation destroyed Well - people made Facebook rich. That was a big mistake on their behalf. Now children suffer - perhaps you should not have made Facebook rich in the first place. > These lawyers collapsed Adams’ threefold duty into one — serve the client alone, whatever the cost to the courts and the country. I think Facebook should be disbanded, but I fail to see why the lawyers should consider "courts and the country". That makes no sense. Then again I also don't think corporations should have persona-rights either - the whole system is not fair. > Meta’s attorneys have forgotten that the law’s legitimacy derives from the integrity of those who practice it. Except that the rich have always gamified the system. Look at Trump. The whole focus on Facebook here makes no sense. This is a systematic problem. Question the whole system. It is basically legal corruption. > Holding Meta accountable includes holding its lawyers accountable They know they work for evil but they get money that way. So the question is: why does evil pay so much money? The whole system is geared towards that. > The truth will out for Meta’s lawyers — eventually — as happened with Big Tobacco’s I am not sure this can be compared 1:1. Tobacco lied about cancer and smoking. I don't think Meta faces the same problem, even if they ruin people's life. The data just isn't as clear as for smoking. The whole article is really weak. I'd be the first to chop down Facebook, Google etc... and split these up for evil, but you need to write good articles as to why. That article seems superweak. The comparison to Big Tobacco simply don't apply 1:1. And being an evil lawyer in itself does not invalidate a case, even if their rationale for throwing out cases is also garbage.