A great many solicitors, barristers, and, in the US, attorneys, have very strong moral attitudes, and care very much about right and wrong. This is reflected, frequently, in the cases they accept. Indeed, it would be unethical for an attorney to accept a case in which his or her moral attitudes limited the ability to fully represent the interests of the client.
However, once having accepted a case, the attorney is duty bound not just to represent the client's interests, but to do so vigorously, within the bounds of the law.
Comments
The above answer is almost, but not quite, right.
A great many solicitors, barristers, and, in the US, attorneys, have very strong moral attitudes, and care very much about right and wrong. This is reflected, frequently, in the cases they accept. Indeed, it would be unethical for an attorney to accept a case in which his or her moral attitudes limited the ability to fully represent the interests of the client.
However, once having accepted a case, the attorney is duty bound not just to represent the client's interests, but to do so vigorously, within the bounds of the law.
They are ethically required to IGNORE the moral concepts of right and wrong, and to only follow the law.
Breaking the law, just because their personal morality tells them to do something different, would be grounds for disbarment and sanction.
So, having taken an oath to put the law first, they must disregard any personal or moral feelings they may have, and do what the law requires of them.