There certainly are ethical, able and professional female attorneys that would take the case. From what I've seen in court, you're better off with a female defending you. They are aggressive and tenacious and like myself, they don't give a tinker's dam about your flimsy assessment of their courtroom ability or your version of "ethics".
What is ethical for an attorney to do or not do is established by the ABA's code of ethics. In that code you will find that an attorney who accepts or is assigned the job of defending a defendant is ethically bound to do so with the utmost energy and to the best of his or her ability. That being said, I do not do criminal work and I do not do contested divorces.
Ethics and morals are not the same thing and often one's morals may be in conflict with the required ethics of the situation. It's important in life to know the difference.
Oh well excuse the hell out of me. I know the difference between ethics and morals and I don't need the condescension. Maybe you ought to do some criminal work. It might open your eyes to a lot of what goes on in your profession. Again, it's not about what you think or how you feel. If you want to decline a job for whatever reason, that's fine. There are those who take cases and turn in excellent work despite the odds. Everybody deserves representation. What I refer to is a little more than having someone stand next to you in a courtroom, going through the motions and nothing more. I think that you're doing everyone a large favor by staying out of the more difficult battlefields of your profession.
I don't understand what sex organs have to do with ethics.
If something is ethical, it should be open to either gender. If it is not, it should be closed to either gender.
There are tons of moron women out there that put men to shame. Look at Palin. Look at Coulter.
Look at Leslie Abrahamson, who defended the Menendez brothers by saying that their parents sexually abused them. All lies.
But you said credible. No. I don't think most people would touch this case if they thought they were protecting Weinstein, but if someone were truly credible, they would defend him to the best of their ability without compromising the truth. That is the job of any attorney.
There are 95 WOMEN who have accused Harvey Weinstein of perverted sexually deviate activities. NOT ONE MAN. Therefore to whit and because of that I ask if a FEMALE attorney could defend a pig who attacks other women. That's what organs have to do with it Sharon. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
She does understand. To her credit, she just doesn't agree with you.
Not everyone makes gender the basis of their identity. Women with a mind that is not polluted with feminist man hating sh*t, view it as 95 PEOPLE allegedly abused by Weinstein.
This sense of separation between men and women that the far left is creating, threatens to cause a total collapse of our civilisation. Your beliefs are a disease.
Lots of straight shooting female attorneys would take the case.
Just because he is by all accounts a piece of sh*t, doesn't mean he is guilty of anything criminal. Being a pig is not crime. I very much get the impression that you wish it were, but it isn't.
Many people obviously want him to go down for political reasons regardless of whether he is actually guilty of anything criminal or not. That is unethical.
Benedict Arnold 