No question: Justice Holmes would think Scott Greenfield is a good man.
Criminal defense lawyer and caustic, if trenchant, blogger Scott Greenfield stakes out a noble and correct stand on legal ethics and ethics generally in a superb post titled, “What Tastes Good To You?” Read the entire post, but his essay springs from a question that has been posed in various forums (including, in slightly different form,the Jack Lemmon comedy “How To Murder Your Wife”), to wit:
If you could commit any crime and get away with it, what would it be?
Greenfield’s answer, the ethically correct one, is “none” : “Just because we can get away with it isn’t a reason to do wrong.” Thus does he definitively separate himself from what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes referred to as “the Bad Man” in his famous 1897 essay, “The Path of the Law.” For Holmes’ “bad man” never breaks a law, but only because he abhors punishment.From this starting point, Greenfield considers a professional debate about whether the legal marketing tactic (as determined by the courts) of buying up another firm’s name as a web “key word” to lead customers to one’s competing firm is “unseemly,” which is to say, unethical, though not technically unethical under the professional rules of conduct. One of the defenders of the practice describes the division on the issue to a difference in “taste,” leading Greenfield to aim carefully and fire:
“…But the law says that the low road is available to lawyers, and those with a sufficient lack of taste will take it. They will buy into the rhetoric of anything goes, and will tailor their tastes to suit their desire for money. Once the limits of our professional conduct become a matter of individual taste, there are no limits. So if you are guaranteed that you can get away with it, what crime would you commit? My answer is none. Your tastes may differ.”
Well done.
Bravo.
________________________________
Pointer: tgt
Source: Simple Justice
Ethics Alarms 
It’s been made clear that it will only be enforced against Intersex and Trans people though.
I consider the practice of “strikethrough” emergency amendments the day before the bill goes before a committee, or worse, the floor, to be unethical. Such amendments retain the bill number and title,but delete the rest of the contents of the bill, replacing them with something entirely different. It’s a way of sneaking through unconscionable legislation before a complacent legislature, and usually works unless someone’s.paying unusually close scrutiny to the perpetrators.
Some recent reports show a small change to the latest version of the bill, classifying the offense as a Class 6 felony instead. In Arizona, a class 6 felony conviction remains on a person’s permanent record, their right to vote is rescinded, potential employers are made aware of the conviction and can require an explanation, various licenses can be refused by the State, federal and state aid and other social assistance can be refused, rent can be denied, and one is banned from ever holding public office.
However, that’s more in the nature of icing on the cake. This jurisdiction is “Sheriff Joe’s”, so biologically female people with mismatched birth certificates will be put in tents with male prisoners. HiV infection from repeated gang rape by guards and prisoners is almost certain..
I have a mismatched birth certificate. It can’t be changed due to a lacuna in the law (I’m Intersex not Transsexual).
Should this bill be enacted, yes, I would break it, but only if I could get away with it.
I thought his post needed more cowbell.