I've never stated he was doing the case for money. I did, however, feel that it was not pro bono. Initially BC paid for his services. I don't know how much BC's family paid before BC was given indigent status. (BTW, I do think the Kurtz, et. al., provided BC with ways to shelter money before his indigent status was declared by the court.)
I believe that HK "believed" his client was being candid with him. I worked for a summer during college for a defense attorney, who would "wink" at me each day when he went to court stating, "He needed to do what was right for his client."
Kurtz mentioned that we have an imperfect system. That is true. This concerns me as cases/trials become more dependent on specialized areas--entomology, DNA, technology...you name it. Now we have experts in each of these areas that offer their services often to either the defense primarily or the prosecution primarily. Is that the "truth" of these specialties? I don't think so...
I've pondered ways to improve the trial system. I thought about specialty judges, juries, lawyers, etc. There are certainly flaws with these concepts, however.
![Stick Out Tongue :p :p]()
eace: As soon as I've arrived at the perfect answer, I let 'ya know....