There is a difference between counseling a client on how to violate the law without being detected and advising him that something is legal which is  or is later determined to be illegal.

  Political consequences for such work by a lawyer is an entirely different matter. No lawyer is a slave. We all have the freedom to do what we want to do and not do what we don't want to do (obviously there are financial and career costs involved, but we are all free agents).

  I have no problem with lawyers paying politcal prices for the decisions they make with regard concerning whom they repesent and how they represent them. You don't see many  criminal defense lawyers winning elections and the ones you see even receiving apponitments to high offices are most often big firm white collar defense only types. Represent accused drug dealers, killers, etc., and you are likely closing doors. If you can't abide that then you should choose a different area of the law.

  While the opprobrium from society is not as harsh or widespread, personal injury and  corporate lawyers and others  also alienate certain people simply by practicing their specialties. Many people don't believe that as long as what they do is just "practicing law" it's immune to criticism and that it's unfair to hold it against them.

  Working for DOJ and overseeing the production of legal memoranda obviously recognizable as highly controversial is no different. If you are willing to do it you should be prepared to face political and social consequences from those opposed.

seriously, i think his head would literally explode, were he to do that. it would require the total destruction of a carefully constructed mental wall, separating truth, morality and actual law, from his ideological belief system.

i'm no psychiatrist, i don't play one on tv, and i didn't spend last night in a hotel. that said, i truly think if he (or the others) were to admit he screwed up, he'd suffer a complete mental breakdown.

From Think Progress:

Today, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) sent a letter to Judge Jay Bybee inviting him to testify about his "views" about torture and his "role" in drafting the torture memos. "There is significant concern about the legal advice provided by OLC while you were in charge, how that advice came to be generated, the considerations that went into it, and the role played by the White House," Leahy wrote. "I look forward to your cooperation and your testimony." Read Leahy's letter (pdf) here.

Seems Senatoir Leahy is a little confused about some of the things he's been reading in the papers of late:

I also enclose an article published today in The New York Times in which you state, in contrast to the recent Post report, that you "believed at the time, and continue to believe today, that the conclusions were legally correct." You also stated that the Office of Legal Counsel provided its "best, honest advice, based on our good-faith analysis ofthe law." The contrast between the recent articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post is striking. I am giving you the opportunity to come forward and clarify what you meant in your public discussion of these matters, and so that we can establish the facts and get to the truth.

And this is kind of interesting, too:

According to the press account, you became the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel after interviewing with White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales because you were interested in being nominated to a judgeship on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Apparently he asked if you would be willing to head OLC first. I am sure you would like an opportunity to come forward and set the record straight with respect to whether and, if so, how your judicial ambitions related to your participation at OLC.