I am also a lawyer. Defending her client WAS her job, whether she wanted it or not. Laughing about lying to the court, when a little girl was destroyed - THAT is the evil.
There are certainly boundaries as to what kind of conduct towards a child victim is acceptable. Some, or much of what Hillary Clinton did to Kathy Shelton would not be successful, or even allowed in many courts today.
While criminal defense lawyers are by definition opposed to the interests of the victim, most defense lawyers don't try to build a political narrative about themselves which is inconsistent with their work. Hillary portrays herself in the early years of her career as an advocate for children, working at the Children's Defense Fund. But is it really plausible to claim you are an advocate for children while you are defending a child rapist?
And finally, like it or not, in the political arena actions and motivations matter. There are many things people may do as a part of their work, or because of the situation life puts them in. Some of those things aren't very popular with the public, even if they may have been part of the job description. Aggressively and successfully getting a brutal child rapist off the hook isn't something most people think is a good thing. Particularly, as in this case, when you look at the damage done to the victim by Hillary Clinton.
I understand the right to counsel. However, it does not include making false allegations against the key witness. Nor does it include tampering with or losing the evidence against your client.
I never defended the laughing.