You point out that most of RIAA's positions prevailed as a matter of law as an argument against representing them being a breach of professional ethics.
I think that these are two different contexts. I don't like the term "ethics" so I'll use the word "morality". There is a difference between something being moral and something being legal. For an extreme example, everything done in tyrannical states, such as north korea or iran are "legal" because they are done under the laws of that country. That does not mean they are moral.
A lawyer who defends a reprehensible or immoral character in order to defend a moral legal principle is to be respected.
But I'm not sure this is the case here. (and I'n not saying it is not the case either.)
My point is to note the confluence of legality with ethics/morals and to point out that they are not the same, and thus one cannot support the existence of the other. That a law exists does not make breaking it immoral, nor does the lack of a law prohibiting something make the act therefore moral.
I don't like the term "ethics" so I'll use the word "morality".
You're conflating ethics and morality while making the point that ethics is not the same as legality. In doing so you (probably subconsciously) reframe the question to something entirely different.
Professional ethics and personal morality are completely different things - just because you don't like one word doesn't mean you can substitute a different concept. For example: as a professional ethical standard, you must maintain client confidences, even if they tell you where the bodies are. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Garrow)
Most lawyers probably find that morally quite challenging, but are ethically obliged to do so.
Similar to the cab-rank principle - you might not want to act for a paedophile, wife beater or the RIAA, however in most common law systems a barrister is obliged to do so.
I think that these are two different contexts. I don't like the term "ethics" so I'll use the word "morality". There is a difference between something being moral and something being legal. For an extreme example, everything done in tyrannical states, such as north korea or iran are "legal" because they are done under the laws of that country. That does not mean they are moral.
A lawyer who defends a reprehensible or immoral character in order to defend a moral legal principle is to be respected.
But I'm not sure this is the case here. (and I'n not saying it is not the case either.)
My point is to note the confluence of legality with ethics/morals and to point out that they are not the same, and thus one cannot support the existence of the other. That a law exists does not make breaking it immoral, nor does the lack of a law prohibiting something make the act therefore moral.