Baitar et al. (2012) argue that the only responsibility of a lawyer in the Western legal tradition is to maximize the interests of his or her own client without regard to the impact on the client’s opponent or on law enforcement. This book addresses an important and understudied topic: the relationship between white-collar offenders and their lawyers. In his classic 1985 book Defending White-Collar Crime: A Portrait of Attorneys at Work, Kenneth Mann wrote about the differences in guilt issues in crime: The white-collar crime defense attorney, like his counterpart handling street crime, typically assumes that his client is guilty. Certainly that assumption held in every case I describe in this book. But unlike the street-crime defense attorney—and this is a critical difference—the white-collar defense attorney does not assume that the government has the evidence to convict his client. Instead, he starts with the assumption that, though his client is guilty, he may be able to keep the government from knowing this or from concluding that it has a strong enough case to prove it. Though in the end he may have to advise his client to plead guilty and bargain, he often starts his case with the expectation of avoiding compromise (5).