Arguments against the laws themselves should only be made if the lawyers honestly feel the laws are unjust.

No argument should depend on a lawyer’s feelings. Grief, no clue where you’re even going with that.

You really don’t seem to get it. I don’t give a single fuck about the specific case. what I care about is some buffoon arguing that a lawyer should be disbarred for what seems to amount to a vigorous defence of an unsympathetic client with a dog of a case.

Again, if you want to argue the defence was ineffective? be my guest! You were putting “this was the most effective defence” in my mouth where I said “hey, if he felt that was most effective” he should get to bring it: he’s not misrepresenting fact, he’s not misrepresenting statute, he’s not misrepresenting controlling authority; instead, he’s arguing a gap in broader development of the law. I don’t even think it’s a particularly strong point.

” Anyway, it doesn’t matter here. His responsibility is towards his client. If you want to argue he should be dragged in front of the ethics board for failing to properly defend his client, feel free.

Nice idiotic strawman that isn’t close to anything I’ve said at all there, bro.”
Not arguing that you did, mate. What I am saying is that if you want to take issue with him choosing this avenue of defence, that would be the only proper grounds for doing so.

“point 2: that’s bullshit. Sorry, that argument cannot be made in good faith. I have explicitly, repeatedly, stated that.

Totally lost as to even what you’re talking about here.”

Good. I hadn’t a clue where you were pulling the argument from in the first place, so that apparently solves it nicely.

“3: yes. different reading of the same norm, at a later point in time. You really do get to argue that.

On what grounds would the appeal to the Supreme Court be made? Please be clear.”
Where a discrepancy between one specific statute and broader legal/societal development seems to occur? No rational basis would be my first guess.
Hopeless argument to actually get the law changed in this case - but in a hopeless case, you’re sometimes stuck with at least trying a more or less hopeless argument.
And let’s not forget one thing: they’re going with this argument for a sentencing determination; those can consider a sometimes broader range of facts than the question of criminal liability on itself can (example: having a tough childhood is not going to affect whether you get convicted, but it could get you leniency in sentencing. both entirely reasonable).

Hyperbole pole? Keep in mind that you’re defending some asshole who wants to disbar attorneys for trying hard to defend a hugely unsympathetic client. Fuck that, unreservedly.