Time for a sad recollection.

  Way back when I was a new lawyer, one of my first cases came about when I just happened to be in the courtroom when a woman was brought in for an initial on animal abuse charges. Being new, I was  appointed  on the spot to represent her.

  My client, "Emma,"  was actually an animal lover-- of irrational proportions.  She was what is known as a "collector," which I would decribe as an obsessive-compulsive whose disorder manifests itself with the accumulation of animals far beyond the person's capacity to provide proper care.

  Emma was dirt poor and living on disability but had about 10 horses, 35 dogs, God knows how many cats,  and a few other more unusual animals. The conditions were  appalling. The animals were extremely malnourished, in need of veterinary care and kept on a property nowhere near large enough that was beyond filthy. Several dead animals that were in various stages of decomposition and had been "cannibalized"  were found as well. That said, Emma took better care of the animals than she did herself. She was in her late 50s but looked every bit of 75 and couldn't have weighed more than 85 pounds.

  Anyway, it turns out the animals had been  seized in a televised raid on her property and the poor animals shown on the news provoking outrage and anger. It became my first "high profile" case with extensive media coverage. The news kept at it bringing  on vets, stable owners, upset neighbors, other lawyers from big firms eager to curry favor by proclaiming their willingness to work pro bono to ensure justice and highlight the need for tougher animal cruelty laws and enforcement, blah,blah,blah.(To his credit, the local prosecutor kept a noticeably low profile and resisted the opportunity to exploit the situation.)

   Emma, despite her poor care, loved those animals more than life itself and was nearly sent over the edge when almost all of the dogs were euthanized (the horses were "adopted"  except, as I recall, one that died during transport to a local stable). "Disturbed" dogs simply have no place willing to take them. The shelters can't afford the space and money to keep them indefinitely and no one is going to "adopt" them. Is it crueler to keep them alive and suffering due to "too much love" or to kill them out of appreciation of cold, hard reality?  

 Emma wanted to defend the case and pleaded rather eloquently to me, in her own way, that it was wrong for the people who killed the dogs to call her cruel because she took in sick animals no one else wanted and gave them love. I actually thought we might have a chance with that theory but the costs to Emma if we lost were potentially quite high.  The one moral certainty is that Emma would NEVER say she had done wrong. She'd had gone to the chair if necessary, let alone jail, before doing anything other than telling anyone who would listen that she loved those animals and they loved her.

 Eventually, I was able to convince her that the best course was to seek a diversionary disposition.  get the State to hold the charges in abeyance and ultimately dismiss them because I didn't want to see her go to jail and likely lose her "homeplace" and I just couldn't guarantee that would not happen if we fought it out.  Then, the prosecutor  (who was feeling public pressure) tried to insist upon a condition that she agree not to have any animals for 5 years.

  There was no way Emma would accept that. Only because (a) it would have been an expensive trial with the state footing not only my bill but the bill for experts on both animal care and my client's psychological state in addition to all the normal costs; (b) it was possible (albeit a dicey proposition from my perspective) she might be acquitted; (c) a very sweet and diplomatic volunteer with the local humane society who agreed to act as a "helper" (read monitor-- and financial benefactor), did we ultimately reach an agreement where she could have one horse and three dogs; and (d) a brave and honorable prosecutor (yes, they do exist), did we reach an agreement where she was allowed to enter a diversionary program without entry of any plea or judgment in exhange for a consent decree outlining the conditions under which she would be allowed to have a few animals.

  Afterwards, for several years Emma would write me long, rambling letters (she didn't have a phone)  describing her pets and how she longed for the day she could have more again-- along with her views on anything that occurred to her. Occasionally, I visited her and always brought some feed that I claimed the court was ordering me to deliver. I always felt kind of bad because I didn't really like visiting her because she would talk my ear off, the place always smelled really bad, and there was just no way to prevent a visit from turning into hours without hurting her feelings.  Then, it occurred to me that there had been a longer than usual time since the last letter and I called the sweet old lady who was helping and sure enough Emma had gotten sick and died.

Maybe admit/claim an alc/drug problem and a quick trip to rehab? Usually seems to work...

If he got away from the Falcons, he might even have a better career.

Will Vick play football again? Somebody will take a chance, but it might be in the Arena Football League. The CFL might be a problem. Because CFL general managers protested about the Ricky Williams signing two years ago in Toronto, that league is reluctant to take on players who have been convicted. If convicted, it might be hard for Vick to secure a visa to play in Canada. Vick would be unstoppable in the Arena League. If he played in it for a season or two and on his best behavior, he could give fans a chance to forget even though they might not forgive.

What is Vick's best public relations strategy? Vick would need to fall on the mercy of the courts and seek forgiveness from fans. He must be apologetic and remorseful. He must do public service announcements to stop people from fighting dogs. If he embraced dogfighting in the past, he must be the leader against dogfighting in the future. Time does create opportunities for forgiveness. To set a different tone for his reputation, Vick must demonstrate that he is remorseful in interviews and commercials. Along with a good attorney, he needs a good public relations expert.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

Before he would let our conversation end, the veteran personnel evaluator made one more point, and said it was something he thought a lot of people within NFL circles have felt as Vick's long, sordid dogfighting saga has played out the past four months.

"I don't know what's going to happen to Michael Vick, and I don't care,'' he said, slowly and with emphasis. "The guy has embarrassed the NFL and embarrassed the game that a lot of us care about greatly. He's not worth any more time and energy and attention. It's his problem now.''

  I see speculation about the legal and professional consequences of his conviction,  some efforts to speculate why someone would do such reprehensible things, whether he can rehabilitate himself,  and  whether or not doing such  reprehensible things  should or will keep from playing in the NFL.