For Mickey, it's rape of a young child. He writes:

Believe it or not, most criminal defense lawyers are people too. We generally are capable of being subjected to the same emotional reactions to various events and circumstances that real people experience. If a client is charged with brutally raping a young child, the mere thought of the act is so upsetting to me that I just don't want to deal with it. I don't want to cross-examine the child and beat up on him/her if she stumbles on the stand. Clearly, the accused deserves a good defense but he would not be getting it from me if I were being too emotionally moved by the allegations of the crime itself. It is my fallibility and (gulp) sensitivity and not my client's possible culpability, which prompts me to pass on the case.

Others that don't bother him:

Oddly enough, I don't have any such problems dealing with murders or other violent crimes. I can't rationally explain this obvious inconsistency but over the years I have come to know what I feel comfortable doing and what not. I have come to learn that many of us have set up our own little personal boundaries.

I, on the other hand, have no problem with sex crimes or murders. Or defending terrorists or mass murderers. For me, Mickey writes:

Jeralyn Merritt of Denver was one of the trial attorneys representing Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. She fought hard to save his life during and after the trial. McVeigh, having never showed an iota of remorse, was found responsible for the deaths of all those unfortunate souls in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City including 28 small children in the daycare facility, which he knew was in operation when he blew the building up. Jeralyn worked closely with McVeigh and worked tireless for him. But she won't represent someone who is accused of abusing the elderly.

Abuse of the elderly? After five years of visiting my mother a few times a week in a nursing home, and my dad having died in one, I see how weak and helpless the elderly become. Spending a few hours with a nursing home resident who can't feed, dress or toilet herself, and who can no longer express herself in words others would understand, is the saddest part of my week. There are also small joys, like when they laugh, and light up in a big smile as they see you coming down the hall to visit.I don't think I could ever give my best to someone who was charged with abusing an elderly patient. I'll take a terrorist or child molester any day over that.

Ron Kuby: Ron excels at the toughest of the terrorism and civil liberty cases. He's as left as they come. He too has a line he won't cross: he will not represent anyone who has committed a crime based on racial or ethnic motivations.

Gerry Shargel, another fabulous lawyer from NY who has defended a slew of murderers and mobsters. As Mickey says,

Gerald Shargel is high up on the short list of New York City criminal Lawyers who are the absolute "go-to" guys if you are in deep doodoo. He won an acquittal for John Gotti who had been accused of ordering the murder of a union labor official. He has represented mob guys, white collar people as well as the street guys. His response to my question:

I don't exclude any category of offense. Depends on the client and the factual basis for the chare. For example, I just represented a female school principal who was charged with rape of 13 year old boys. Would I have represented a 40 year old many who raped an eight year old girl? Probably, not unless I was convinced of innocence (that holds true throughout). So, its not he crime, it's the facts."

Another outstanding defense lawyer, and friend of both mine and Mickey's is David Chesnoff of Las Vegas (former partner to Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman until Oscar became Mayor.) Mickey writes:

David Chesnoff of Las Vegas represented a defendant in the largest controlled substance seizure in American History. He is nationally regarded as a brilliant trial lawyer who has taken on impossible cases and clients. As of this writing, he is representing Las Vegas headliner David Copperfield. His response:

No rats, no snitches. David says:

Since I began practicing I have not been retained to represent anyone that wants to cooperate with the government. In the vernacular, NO RATS. I have always believed that if you commit a crime you should face the music, not snitch on other people to mitigate your punishment. Hopefully, I will do my job well enough that an individual's refusal to rat will still translate to a complete trial or motion victory in the case; pr at least a successful plea negotiation. So far, after 28 years, so good."

Up Next: Famed Miami Lawyer Roy Black, also a good friend. Mickey writes,

We were knocked over by the incredible job Roy Black did when we watched him win an acquittal for William Kennedy smith in 1991 as Court TV captured it all gavel to gavel. Based in Miami, Roy also took care of Rush Limbaugh when they found those four trillion pills in his house. Who will Roy not represent?

Answer: ""Bombers. Because they kill indiscriminately".

Another of my long-time personal friends -- one whom I consider a personal hero -- is the incomparable and highly esteemed Dick DeGuerin of Houston. Mickey writes:

Dick DeGuerin is legendary, even by Texas standards. Recently representing former House Majority Leader Tom Delay in his money laundering conspiracy case, Dick represented Texas cult leader David Koresh during his standoff with the FBI and the ATF. Most recently he won an amazing "Not Guilty" verdict in the case of millionaire-nutcase Robert Durst, who was accused of dismembering the body of his 71-year-old neighbor and throwing the body parts inn Galveston Bay.

So what makes Dick stop and refuse a case?

I don't respect snitches or hot check writers I'll be glad to expand on it, but that s the bottom line. I try to help everyone who has the good sense to ask for my help,"

O.J. Lawyer Yale Galanter says he won't represent pedophiles. "Double murder no problem. Crimes against kids- no can do."

Mickey saves Ben Brafman for last, writing about him:

Ben Brafman of New York City successfully represented Sean "P. Diddy" Combs in his bribery and weapons case. I watched him do his best to defend Michael Jackson, until Jackson's entourage and antics made it impossible to deal with the case effectively. He truly is at the top of the food chain in the criminal law business. I have been on several speaking panels with him, and I always feel like a total dunce after Ben explains or discussed the most technical legal issue in a manner that is bother understandable and compelling to everyone in the room. I have often said that when he clears his throat he is more articulate that I could ever hope to be.

Through an e-mail exchange, Ben answered Mickey's question as follows:

"I have often thought about the question you pose. To me it would be a terrorist. As the son of Holocaust survivors, and with children and grandchildren living in Israel, I would be the wrong guy to represent a terrorist intent on mass murder, suicide bombing, etc. It is important that the reader understand that I believe a terrorist is entitled to a defense; it is just that I am the wrong guy for that kind of case because of who I am as a person, where I come from, and what is today, very important in my life.

I have no difficulty representing a real criminal, even a very bad person. There are degrees of evil, however, and I am not the right guy to represent someone who looks to kill because of twisted hate, as so many in my family have been murdered because of twisted hate.

I think I am a very good criminal lawyer with real talent. My fear is that I would hold back and not permit myself to do what I do best in a case where the defendant is so despised by me. Hard to explain, perhaps, but it is part of who I am. I would fight for the right of that person to get excellent representation, but would never allow that lawyer to be me.

So there you have us. Two won't do sex assault on children, two won't do terrorists, one won't do hate crimes, I wont take a case of abuse of the elderly, and one says it's the facts that matter -- along with a belief the client is innocent.

What does this all mean? We're making two points: Some lawyers decline cases based on moral principles while others only decline cases that strike too close to our own baggage, which makes us doubt we can provide the client with the best representation we all know he or she is entitled to.

Mickey's book is out April 1. Here's how you can get a copy from Amazon: