Elk Mountain.
Every lawyer has been asked that question at some point. Usually it's "how can you represent somebody you know is guilty?"
Usually, amongst lawyers, it's regarded as kind of an eye rolling "oh how naive" type of question. For lawyers who have a philosophical or introspective bent, and I'd submit that's a distance minority, they may have an answer that's based on, basically, defending a system that defends us all. Maybe they have something even more sophisticated, such as something along the lines of St. Thomas More's statement in A Man For All Seasons:
William Roper : So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More : Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper : Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
That's about the best answer that there may be, and frankly the only one that applies to civil litigation. We can console ourselves that in representing the interests of the potentially liable, we protect the interest of everyone.
But what about plaintiff's lawyers?
Frankly, the excuse is wearing thin.
I.e., I don't believe it for a second. It's all about cash.
And this is a real problem.
The question is what to do about it.
Well, frankly, the average person can't do much. But you don't really have to accept it, either.
Shunning has a bad name in our culture. Indeed, one English language European source states:
More specifically, shunning or ostracising is a form of abuse. It is discrimination and silent bullying. Unfortunately, often people who have been shunned also face other forms of abuse, ranging from death threats and physical assaults to murder.
And there's a lot of truth to that.
At the same time, it was and is something that is often practiced to varying degrees in religious communities. Indeed, up until the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983, Catholic excommunications were of two types, vitandus and toleratus, with vitandus requiring the Faithful to cease all normal connections with the excommunicated. It was very rare, but it could happen. Since 1983 that distinction does not exist. Some Amish, however, still have such a practice, and they are not alone.
Realizing this is extreme, I also realize, as I've seen pointed out twice, that land locking rich magnates cannot do it without local help. They always hire somebody, I've heard them referred to as "goons" to be their enforcer, and when they need legal help, they hire a Wyoming licensed attorney. Indeed, in this instance, remarkably, the plaintiff did not use a Denver attorney, which I thought they likely would have.
And this has always been the case. Wyoming Stock Growers Association stock detectives were sometimes enforcers back in the late 19th Century, and they were hired men. In the trial of the Invaders, a local Cheyenne attorney was used, but then again, that was a criminal case, which I do feel differently about.
Elk Mountain is basically mid-way, and out of the way, between Laramie, Rawlins and Saratoga. People working for Iron Bar Holdings have to go to one of those places for goods and services. There's really no reason the excluded locals need to sell them anything. Keep people off. . .drive to Colorado for services.
And on legal services? I don't know the lawyers involved, so I'm unlikely to every run into them. But I'm not buying them lunch as we often do as a courtesy while on the road, and if I were a local rancher, and keep in mind that outfits like Iron Bar Holdings don't help local ranchers keep on keeping on, I'd tell that person, if they stopped in to ask to go fishing or hunting, to pound sand.
If this sounds extreme, and it actually is, this is what happened with some of the law firms representing Donald Trump in his effort to steal the election. They backed out after partners in their firms basically, it seems, told Trump's lawyers to chose Trump or the firm.
And there are many other examples. Lawyers bear no social costs at all for whom they represent in civil suits. People who regard abortion as murder will sit right down with lawyers representing abortionists, people seeking a radical social change will hire lawyers to advance the change, and the lawyers fellows feel no pressure as a result of that at all.
Maybe they should.
Or is that view fundamentally wrong?
