This campaign season has seen numerous attacks on political candidates who are lawyers simply for doing what they are required to do as licensed attorneys in the state of Iowa.

I would like to explain why attorneys sometimes must handle cases that are not popular with some groups — cases that leave them vulnerable to attacks by people who might not fully understand how the legal system works.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees any individual accused of a criminal act the right to legal representation. If the individual is unable to pay for that representation, the court will appoint an attorney to represent him or her.

Regardless of whether an attorney is handling a case assigned by the court or a case in which the client is paying for the service, all attorneys licensed in the state of Iowa must adhere to strict rules of professional conduct established by and administered by the Iowa Supreme Court. Failure to abide by the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct subjects the attorney to being disciplined by the court. Such discipline could result in a reprimand or suspension of his/her license to practice law.

Iowa Court Rule 32:1.3, for example, requires that an attorney must represent a client “with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf.” The rule also states: “A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor.”

The requirement to advocate for the client with all of a lawyer’s ability, using whatever “lawful and ethical measures are required,” doesn’t mean that the attorney agrees with the client’s activities. As spelled out in Iowa Court Rule 32:1.2(b), “A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social, or moral views or activities.”

Some groups may not like the outcome of a particular case handled by an attorney. But they shouldn’t fault the attorney if he or she is victorious. They also should not paint that attorney with a broad brush, assigning a philosophy or attributing a position on an issue to the attorney based on the outcome of a particular case or cases. The attorney is merely doing his or her job as prescribed by the rules.

Disagreeing with and challenging a lawyer-candidate’s stated position on an issue is fair. Using that lawyer-candidate’s work record to assume he or she holds a certain position on an issue is not.

Worthy of mention, too, is a line in the Standards for Professional Conduct at Iowa Court Rule 33.2 for lawyers licensed in this state:

“We will not, even when called upon by a client to do so, abuse or indulge in offensive conduct directed to other counsel, parties or witnesses. We will abstain from disparaging remarks or acrimony toward other counsel, parties or witnesses. We will treat adverse witnesses and parties with fair consideration.”

Finally, “We will not, absent good cause, attribute bad motives or improper conduct to other counsel or bring the profession into disrepute.”

It is time for all of us to decide if we want what is our opportunity to have: good government.

Marion Beatty is president of the Iowa State Bar Association.