That's not a good thing. They would not be on my list if I needed a lawyer. Their history in the Dover Intelligent Design case showed me that they are afflicted with ideological blindness.
It seems like a natural fit to me. No. 1 it's pro bono, No. 2 one of the lawyers served with Lt. Col. Chessani in the battle for Fallujah.
If you read the related article in post 2, they lay out their reasoning for taking this case.
....""The outcome of this case is vital to the security of our nation and to the military personnel we place in harm's way," Thompson said. "As tragic as these civilian deaths are, it's essential that we not shackle our combat commanders' ability to make decisions by placing them in fear of criminal prosecution every time there are civilian casualties as a result of combat action."....
They blast not only Times and the terrorists, but really take on Murtha.
And further comment on their reasoning.....
...""Terrorists routinely use mosques, schools, hospitals, and civilian homes from which to launch attacks and hide," said Rooney. "We have always taught Marines to be aggressive and encouraged this aggression in order to help them survive and accomplish their mission."
"Through our defense of Lt. Col. Chessani, Marines on the ground will be assured that their valiant combat actions will not be turned into political fodder and talking points for politicians seeking headlines," said Muise."....
That sounds like some good broadbased reasoning/idealogy to defend the Lt. Col. (at least to me).