well, it boils down to: “Do I hire a lawyer to find a legal way to do what I WANT done”?
OR
-do i hire a lawyer to “advise me” of what’s leagl or not?
I think most people want the lawyer to figure out a way to do something that they want done, ethical or not.
Many hire a lawyer because they’ve been sued, rightly or wrongly.
Here is a public smackdown of our city government by its resigning city attorney:
Not sure how much of a verbal smackdown was given to the mayor in person before they felt a need to resign - but when the paper prints that, its a pretty public smackdown - and I’m sure the private conversations were less subdued (though I doubt they used the words fucking retarded).
Here is the article:
http://www.woodburyreviewnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=57&SubSectionID=123&ArticleID=599&TM=40789.27
So do I.
At least in corporate law, I do see lawyers calling clients R-tards. Maybe in criminal law.
As a lawyer, I sometimes have to give my client a verbal beat-down. Significantly, it all depends on my personal relationship with the client and the specifics of the situation.
Most often, the it occurs when a normally reasonable client is be a blithering idiot about some specific point. If the client is just a wackdoodle about everything, it is a lost cause, and tearing into him or her isn’t going to be productive. On the other hand, sometimes it is useful to lose your temper with a client to push him or her off of a position that you think is unreasonable and detrimental to his or her ultimate interests. E.g.: “Look, it’s time to settle the fucking thing. Their offer isn’t much below the best you could get at trial, and if you go to trial you’re going to have to pay a shitload more in legal fees, so you’ll wind up worse off than if you had settled. I’m all for legal fees, but paying me isn’t going to do anything for your company. I know that you think the principle of the thing is important, but the court isn’t going to paste a gold star on your forehead and say ‘you were right on principle.’ Now is the time to stop being an idiot–take the fucking money and run.”
In the case where you are hired to defend somebody who did something insanely stupid, it is of little use to go off on the idiot about how much of an idiot they were. That what war stories to your colleagues are for.
I’ve been known to rip clients a new one–but I’m a very non-traditional lawyer. I calls em as I see em…and if I see a fuckwit, I call fuckwit. Also not at all adverse to firing a client when necessary. This is likely one of the reasons I’ll never be in one of those high-dollar defense firms. Just as well. I prefer to retain some portion of my soul.
As one of those soulless lawyers to whom you refer (really, I’d deny the charge, but candor to the tribunal and all 
), we fire clients too. But for the most part, we try to screen very well before they come in the door (using what Random refers to as his crank client-dar), so the firings do tend to be few and far between.
But the bigger issue for me still is the practical: while I do think that a smackdown can be appropriate, you need to be pragmatic. I can’t improve on what Billdo said, so I’ll leave it there.
That may be true, but what most lawyers will tell you (and what most smart clients know) is that in the long run, your interests are better served by behaving ethically. Because unethical behavior can have extraordinarily bad consequences. As a lawyer, one of my jobs is to figure out how to get done what’s best for the client, or best achieves the client’s goals, and to do that ethically.
So, how’s unemployment going? 
I’m sorry, but so many opportunities to take a poke at lawyers, I couldn’t resist just one. I’ll try not to do it again…in this thread