"Blackbird combines both a law firm and intellectual property rights holder into a single entity. In doing so, they remove legal fees from their cost structure and can bring lawsuits of potentially dubious merit without having to bear any meaningful cost." (https://blog.cloudflare.com/standing-up-to-a-dangerous-new-b...)
That seems more common, as does law firms who operate as bill collectors.
Attorneys are to help their represented either to make whole, or defend against the state. If they are truly acting in an unethical stance, then they need tried by the state board. If they were acting unethically, then perhaps their license should be revoked. But these ethics should apply to all lawyers, and not because they chose an 'unsavory' client.
Everybody has a right to a defense. But helping somebody attack another party is unethical.
What you call "attack" is also called "being made whole".
I don't know the details of the case. But unless there is egregious reason to forbid a potential plaintiff from filing, then let them commence. I have no clue who's right here; I wasn't in the courtroom.
Edit: Perhaps could be clearer. I feel like attorneys for civil suit plaintiffs have latitude to use their moral compass in deciding whether to take a case. Much more so than a criminal defense attorney.
The most aggregious frivolous lawsuits make big news, or at least the ones that look frivolous when portrayed from the right perspective. You hear less about the day-in, day-out work the civil justice system does in keeping people honest and holding society and the economy together. There is a reason companies from around the world sign contracts with one another stating that their disputes will be settled in US courts - because it’s the legal system they trust to make the most consistent and fair choices.
In this case, the lawyers were representing themselves. They not only represented the troll business, but actually are the troll business.
> It depends on the particular case.
I think that's what this thread has been saying.