Why <i>not</i> me? The Morality of Non-Accountability and Other Thoughts on <i>Cancelling Lawyers</i> by W. Bradley Wendel

Wendel's Cancelling Lawyers is a rigorous and thought-provoking book that explores a deceptively simple but most interesting question in legal ethics: Can we hold lawyers morally accountable for their choice of clients?That is, do they owe-and if so, to whom-an explanation when they represent "repugnant" clients?Can lawyers be blamed or criticized-and, if so, by whom-for representing unpopular, harmful, or morally troubling figures, such as sexual predators, terrorists, white supremacists, war criminals, etc?These questions have significant implications for legal practice.The book offers a thoughtful and nuanced inquiry, illustrated by real and genuinely engaging case studies that illuminate multiple aspects of the issue.Cancelling Lawyers is intellectually rich, and I am grateful to Wendel for an exceptionally insightful and rewarding read.This review offers a set of initial thoughts on the moral accountability of lawyers vis- a-vis Wendel's central thesis.Before proceeding, three preliminary notes are in order.First, although questions of lawyer accountability may arise in both litigation and non-litigation settings, this review focuses on litigation to maintain scope, clarity, and analytical focus.Second, while the book addresses the moral accountability of lawyers in relation to both their choice of clients and the manner in which they conduct litigation, my focus is confined to the former.To keep the analysis "clean," I shall be assuming that once representation has been undertaken, the lawyer's conduct is lawful and ethical-marked by sincere efforts to advance the client's legal rights fairly and decently, without resorting to extreme forms of zealous advocacy or inappropriate practices of partisan representation (such as concealing evidence or engaging in degrading cross-examinations).I acknowledge that these assumptions may not always reflect reality, but I adopt them here to avoid ancillary complications and focus squarely on the central question that animates Wendel's