Lawyers

Question:  If a lawyer knows their client is guilty, and lawyers are supposed to uphold the law, then why do they always seem to do everything they can to prove their client is not guilty?

Am I missing something here?  Is this just a TV/movie attribute of lawyers?  I would say yes, but we all saw the OJ Simpson trial (and I'm not racist, it was just pretty clear he did it).  His lawyers had to know he did it, but they still proved he was "innocent".  I understand that he paid them a lot of money to defend him, but that still doesn't seem right to me if they know he is guilty.

Then again, maybe when a lawyer takes on a client, they tell the guy not to tell them whether or not they are guilty.  Instead, they just listen to their side of the story and work things out from there.  On the other hand, if their client tells their story which invokes their guilt and the lawyer still tries to get them proven innocent, that seems wrong to me.

And what about lawyers who get their clients off on a technicality, like improper handling of evidence.  But at the same time, the rest of the evidence clearly proves the guy was guilty, how does that make any sense?  The guy was guilty and yet he gets off because of some stupid loophole?  What?!?

Basically, I'm just trying to point out that our legal system might be broken.  It could be worse, at least we don't work like the legal system in Game of Thrones where they allow you or someone on your behalf to battle to death against someone of the court's choosing and if you win, you're off the hook.

"However, I'm perfectly okay with the rule against incompetent lawyers."