LOS ANGELES: If recent media coverage is any measure, the only thing more repulsive to the American public than Osama bin Laden himself is the person who would be called upon to defend Osama were he to be found alive.

Just the appearance on lists of “possible” defence counsel is enough to trigger a dozen variations of the question: “How could you live with yourself if you got Osama off?” People seem to want you to assure them that you would either not try very hard or that you are not very good.

For lawyers, there are no such easy options when asked by a judge to take on a despised client. Despite the universal desire for a speedy conviction, a zealous lawyer cannot adopt the role of the village idiot to better serve the ends of justice. Americans have long been conflicted about the role of the criminal defence lawyer. As a society, we have made legal icons of some of them, ranging from Sir Thomas More and Clarence Darrow to fictitious figures such as Atticus Finch of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

It is notable that all three of these figures are lawyers who fought the state, faced the mob or defended the unpopular client in the face of social ridicule. It is also notable that all these characters are either fictitious or dead. It appears that defence lawyers are most popular when they are safely interred.

When a crime is recent and an injury is fresh, however, it too often is the ends and not the means of justice that take precedence. It is no accident that, in the case of all the mentioned legal legends, the heroic legal figures are resisting the same common foe: us. A lawyer who defends a vicious criminal robs a vengeful public of the certainty of justice - at least the kind of justice the public wants - when its desire for it is overwhelming.

Despite the stereotype of the publicity-seeking lawyer, most lawyers would rather drink molten lead than be the mouthpiece for the likes of Osama. The moment that all lawyers dread is the call from some federal judge who wants to appoint you to “an understandably difficult case.” One does not have to be an attorney-vigilante to betray one’s oath and conscience as a lawyer. All that is needed is to remain silent in the face of calls for “swift justice” or for ad hoc “tribunals” designed to ensure conviction.

The US need only look away as its political leaders arrange for extrajudicial forms of justice, unimpeded by its traditional legal process or by the long-enduring right to adequate representation. Mob justice comes in many forms and, to paraphrase President Bush, if you are not defending the law then you are against it. —Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) Los Angeles Times.