Les, my language was a little strong, for which I apologize. However, you don't seem to have grasped the point. If Archer, as despicable as he may be, wants to retain counsel, it is that counsel's professional duty to raise every point and press every argument that may assist his client, as long as he does so honourably and professionally.

In your post you referred to "expensive lawyers who are more interested in money than justice". That is to say, any lawyer who represents Archer must not be interested in justice. That kind of reasoning is on a par with the rhetorical question "How can a lawyer represent somebody he knows to be guilty". The answer to that, as Dr. Johnson knew, is that the client wants his lawyer's advocacy, not his judgment. Jeffrey Archer may not be as sympathetic as a poor black Irishman, but his lawyers are doing nothing improper by representing him.

CET