Blame the victim and 'legitimate rape'

Aha, I see. Well, I guess we're on the same page then (I really don't know either). To be fair, I don't think making one bad defensive argument (or lack thereof) among a host of possible arguments is in itself grounds for punishment, so I don't know it necessarily equates to malfeasance. I'm hinging on the attorneys simply being scumbags here, but I suppose you're right, a defendant will need to present all arguments (at least by the administrative hearing) if they are to be made later before the court.

I think you could make the argument, but I doubt it would win given present legal norms. My point, however, was partly that I think the norms are ridiculously lax and built around "doing what avoids lawsuits" rather than "doing what's right."

The argument would go something like this: an attorney or law firm has an obligation to provide sound legal services in the interests of the client. By failing to explain that their legal strategy would invoke a possible comparative negligence argument, without also explaining the quite obvious and overwhelmingly negative public relations implications of such an action, the law firm therefore failed in their duty of care to the client in a manner which is actionable. This is, of course, assuming that you could find some form of actionable harm like damage to reputation, economic damages, etc.

That is, I think, an argument you could reasonably make if the school district wished to sue for malpractice. That being said, it would cut across the current division of labor in legal circles (basically, the client decides what she wants done, and the lawyer figures out a legally plausible means, if any, of accomplishing it) because it would mean explaining legal procedure to the client. Most lawyers are really averse to doing that, partly because clients tend to get lost in the minutia, and partly because most lawyers really couldn't explain in clear, simple terms what a pre-trial motion is used for. Mostly, though, it's because lawyers tend to get indoctrinated that dealing with non-lawyers is a bit like dealing with the mentally disabled. You're not supposed to reveal what's behind the curtain, because the normals just aren't sophisticated enough to understand it.

Obviously, I disagree with that assessment. However, I probably should have noted that I am in the extreme minority on that position within the legal community. Most lawyers would find nothing at all wrong with what the lawyers did, because their actions gave the client all possible legal options. I suspect that if you pressed most lawyers about the larger implications of how using proper procedure actually exacerbated an injury, they'd get huffy and say that their first legal duty is to their client, and the girl isn't their client. But most lawyers really aren't trained to recognize, or simply prefer to ignore, the fact that doing all the proper procedures, in this case, results in a substantive injustice.