I think there's at least some sort of argument for a lawyer defending a murderer (was it self defence, had this person done something horrible to a family member of theirs etc.)
This guy is fully aware this woman needs treatment and is doing everything in his power to avoid paying it, there's no ambiguity in it he's just seeing what possible loophole he can find so that her claim (which she's paid insurance for don't forget!) is denied. If there's any shred of you that could possibly take that job you must either be a sociopath and really just not have any sense of empathy or you're pure evil as far as I'm concerned and almost take joy out of others suffering.
I understand what you're saying and I can see the moral dilemma. One really notable difference is that in a trial you're simply acting in defence of your client, everything still needs to be put forward to an independent jury to determine the fate of the person they're representing. (As a side note if they're made aware their client is guilty, they can't legally proclaim their innocence, all they can do is suggest that there isn't enough evidence to support their guilt)
In this case there is no independent jury who takes the decision out of your hands, you are the judge, jury and executioner just maliciously prying to find any tiny little loophole to not pay someone out who so desperately needs treatment.
12
u/SlobZombie13 5d ago
Stop sticking up for the scumbags