Technically when they signed the deal. However, the e-blogs were all about this:

Weinstein is the producer for the six-episode adaptation of Bloom’s 2014 book about the Trayvon Martin case. Bloom and her bank account are no doubt ecstatic at the prospect. (Bloom did not immediately return a request for comment from Jezebel.)

Money talks and bullshit walks.

in the story.

Money talks louder that ethics.

She is a capable attorney with a lot of experience in the relevant law.

Oh, I see... Because she is a woman, then she should not be able to take engagements of which you disapprove?

Since Bloom is famous for defending victims of sexual harassment and assault, I would have thought she would had a similar reaction.

Unethical for a lawyer to do her job?

Or are you referring to an ethics rules she's broken... if so, which one?

Or you dislike her client, therefore her representation of him is unethical and your allegation is merely bias presenting its little face?

Which specific attorney should Mr Weinstein hire, and on what objective measure is that based on?

See the statement from Allred posted above.

Since Bloom is famous for defending victims of sexual harassment and assault, one would think that she might have similar reservations as her mother.

One does not "defend" victims of sexual harassment. Ordinarily, one proceeds to represent them as plaintiffs. It's the one being sued who is doing the defending.

But, more often, what Lisa Bloom does is to obtain clients who have a sexual harassment claim, seek to obtain money from the prospective defendant, and then ratchet up the media exposure of the claim to pressure the prospective defendant to settle. The pinnacle of the way this works is the "Lisa Bloom press conference" in which the allegations are aired as a dare to the prospective defendant to call the client a liar, and then to include a defamation claim on top of the harassment claim (which may be time barred or have other procedural problems).

It is precisely that misguided understanding of her craft which makes her useful at this point in time, at which Weinstein is being accused of things, but not actually being sued for anything. I mean golly, "if Lisa Bloom is standing up for him, then I guess he didn't do it". That has a value. And it has a lot more value if Bloom was unable to round up any of the accusers for her usual thing.

Lawyers, actual lawyers, are very different from the "As Seen On TV" version of lawyers.

Would've been a better way of putting it.

I understand your points, but it just seems strange for someone who has devoted much of her professional life to advocating for the victims of sexual harassment to take on a client like this.

Gloria Allred, a similar champion for the victims of sexual harassment, has said that she would not have taken Weinstein on as a client, and I would have thought Lisa Bloom would have had a similar take given what seemed to be her similar passion for that cause.

Did you read her statement?

When you say "her client", in what capacity do you mean? She's helping him manage PR. That's all she's doing.

She's helping to make him a better person, you see. Her statement explains that nobody's "defending" behavior that, through his upbringing, he did not recognize or control. She's working with him diligently as sort of a life coach, to rehabilitate him.

Isn't that really better than the whole "legal" thing anyway? Would you rather punish people, or help them to see the error of their ways so that they go and sin no more?

What if everyone had a Lisa Bloom to help them see the light, the way that Weinstein does. Wouldn't changing those hearts and minds ultimately do more for victims?

She's walking him along the road to Damascus on the way to his conversion, you see.

Or, she's a TV personality and needed to jump on board this circus wagon so we'll all talk about her.

Excerpt:

She really needed to recuse herself from this one. Very nasty. Very disappointing. Pretty pissed actually.

Is it because she's a woman, she should limit her practice to plaintiffs instead of defendants? Or what?

Everyone has the right to hire a lawyer in a civil case.

I've represented people accused of trademark infringement. I've represented trademark owners against infringers. So what?

Why shouldn't someone hire an attorney with a lot of experience in the relevant law?

That is the part that makes it surprising for some folks (myself included).

Bloom doesn't seem to do a whole lot of representation of victims in actual litigation.

She does a lot of TV appearances with women making claims, generally for the purpose of influencing pre-litigation settlement proposals, or for the purpose of playing the "I dare you to engage in defamation by denying it" game when the allegations are denied.

I'm not sure you understand what she does. Her work is primarily either (a) for wealthy people who have been accused of things in the media, or (b) for persons who have a claim against wealthy people that they would prefer not to be accused in the media of having done. The rest is primarily theatrics, which is the "famous" part.

The "TV lawyer" schtick is not about issue advocacy or actually litigating anything.

So they're...what, suing the New York Times?

LOL good luck with that

She is not actually representing him in the sense of an attorney representing a client in a matter.

She's doing PR, as usual.

ah well - what age and time did Cosby come from?

Fuck these greedy racist hypocrites.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lisa-bloom-finally-explains-why-140924366.html

Money talks unfortunately.