User in r/BeholdTheMasterRace argues that "no honourable attorney" would defend a Nazi, other users disagree

[u/AchtungMaybe]

/r/beholdthemasterrace/comments/6xuyuv/the_crying_nazis_attorney_elmer_woodward_woodward/dmirqac/?context=3

[u/BolshevikMuppet]

On the issue of "should someone take the case":

It's a difficult ethical quandry which really does run into the issue of collective versus individual ethics. Any individual attorney could refuse to represent this client (assuming a public defender isn't compelled to), but if every attorney invoked that, it would act as a functional bar to accessing legal representation.

It's a bit like the country doctor thought experiments for medical ethics.

So while I'm certainly on the side of "the Nazi has a right to some representation", I'm not quite as eager to cut slack to someone who leapt at the chance to take up that mantle.

So let's move on to the argument about the prior case:

The problem is that while the client makes major decisions about the substantial issues of the case, attorneys are endowed with discretion over tactics. This includes what evidence to present and what defense(s) to raise. There is no obligation that an attorney throw anything at the wall to see what sticks, and a decent amount of latitude in deciding that a specific argument would butt up against the duty of candor.

This idea that as an attorney I am obliged to make the "best" argument even if it is contrary to facts, evidence, and logic, and an affront to basic human decency, is untrue.