When Hillary Clinton was attacked for having defended a person accused of rape, lawyers of all political persuasions stepped forward to call foul. Indeed, this has been an ongoing theme, particularly for the criminal defense bar. We represent the accused. We don’t do so because crime is fun or we support our client’s alleged rape or murder, but because defending individuals zealously is what our system, our Constitution, demands if it’s to function.

It’s not that this is a controversial issue, but one too easily abused because of the ease with which the public’s heartstrings can be plucked by the sad story of the victim and the harsh characterizations of the lawyer defending the evildoer. Who would defend that bad dude? We would, of course. That’s what we do, and we make no apologies for it.  And certainly no progressive person would damn us for defending the Constitution and the accused, right? Right?!?

Enter Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick.

Every once in a while, amid the legal and ethical sham of the Trump presidency, the grown-ups do show up to assert themselves. And each time they do, the world briefly makes sense again. This week, the grown-up is H. Scott Wallace, co-chair of the Wallace Global Fund, which promotes sustainable investments and until very recently, received legal counsel from the same firm that helped Donald Trump “separate” from his business interests before assuming the presidency. In a letter explaining his decision to fire that law firm, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Wallace leaves no doubt that the “the ethical carnage” sanctioned by the firm’s lawyers is not tolerable, or normal, or even minimally defensible.

It’s entirely up to Wallace whether he wants to continue to avail his fund of the services of Morgan Lewis & Bockius. But that isn’t the reason why Lithwick is gushing about how Wallace is the “grown-up” for rejecting the firm because he finds another of the firm’s clients politically distasteful.

Wallace, who appeals to [firm chair Jami] McKeon as “a fellow Villanova Law grad,” does not mince his words:

We believe that the legal advice given to him by your partner is not just simplistic and ill-founded, but that it empowers and even encourages impeachable offenses and undetectable financial conflicts of interest by America’s highest official, and thus is an unprecedented invitation to corruption and assault on our democracy.

It goes on to ask that the firm “think about larger principles than simple zealous representation of a client.”

There’s a bunch of disturbing things buried in there, most notably that Wallace is a lawyer as well, such that one would suspect he could grasp that a lawyer’s duty is to “simple zealous representation” rather than the “larger principles” he feels in his heart.

It’s hardly surprising that Wallace placed his political feelz first, substituting his social justice principles for those lawyers are sworn to respect.

The Wallace Fund describes itself as a “funder and supporter of social movements.” In his letter, Wallace says that the fund’s “values of open and accountable democratic governance” have been violated by the “sham” “figleaf” arrangement Morgan Lewis has devised and endorsed. As Wallace concludes, “it is painfully obvious that Trump is using his office for financial gain. And Morgan Lewis is enabling and legitimizing this.”

This is a curious conflation of reality, with Wallace arguing that the law firm should substitute its responsibility as lawyers with his personal values. Apparently, Villanova law school’s professional responsibility classes need work. But since the core of Wallace’s fund is to support social movements, his antagonism toward the firm’s other client is understandable. What’s not is his wild accusation that the firm did something wrong by representing a client whom he finds despicable.

Had Wallace taken the stance that he completely understands why the firm zealously represented its client, and that he understood that the firm had a duty to do so, but he simply could not square its representation with his own feelz, that would be fine. Wallace is entitled to feel any way he wants and to act upon it. But that’s not at all what he did.

What Lithwick does, however, is inexcusable.

Sometimes just calling corruption “corruption” is enough to refocus the mind. This simple letter reminds us how dramatically our conception of what is normal has been redefined in recent months.

So Lithwick is in the “Trump is literally Hitler” camp. Got it. But if Hillary doesn’t support rape, then Morgan Lewis doesn’t support “corruption” and the duty of lawyers isn’t changed from zealous representation to “larger principles” to align with your social justice feelz.

Does Dahlia Lithwick not grasp this? She’s not stupid, so one must assume she realizes that she’s promoting a flagrant lie. Yet, the derangement that’s pervaded the media, and, sadly and pathetically, some members of the legal profession as well, are intended to convince the public that our duty shouldn’t be to represent our clients, but to sell them out for the sake of social justice.

There will come a time when Trump will no longer be president, when the deeply passionate will no longer feel compelled to shriek that the sky is falling and we should cast aside facts and reason to eradicate this false god from our midst. But when that happens, there will be no principles left, no duty untainted, by the lies being told now. And it’s the self-proclaimed self-righteous doing the harm that we’ll live with afterward.