Intimidation of lawyers to not represent unpopular clients now affects President's attorney?

There have been interesting reports, from the point of view of independence of legal representation, in the context of legal representation of President Trump.

Many things have been inadvertently exposed in the legal profession and the judiciary with the election of Donald Trump.

For example:

• federal courts can now defy the U.S. Constitution each judge is sworn to uphold by disregarding the text of the U.S. Constitution and the statute and by not only filibustering federal immigration laws, but ordering the President to obey such unlawful filibustering - and the apparent corruption in such cases goes as high as to the U.S. Supreme Court;
• committing a federal felony of harboring illegal aliens has become heralded and encouraged by state attorneys general (also sworn to protect and uphold both federal and state statutory law, as well as the U.S. Constitution and powers received under it) as some kind of heroism;
• U.S. Senators incite the public against the President by asking them what is their opinion of the President while discussing unrelated topics - like legislative debates of a statute in federal legislature, which the president cannot control:

(by the way, the link leads to Gillibrand's re-election/ fundraising campaign site).

It is suddenly "in vogue" for judges to block rules of attorney discipline based on frivolous lawsuits of "in vogue" people - even if such rules are identical to the rules the same judges maintain in their own courts.

And, finally, recently the President's attorney was intimidated with disciplinary complaints in DC and NY because he allegedly gave advice to White House employees who he did not represent.

Of course, many prosecutors and judges do just the same, "advising" litigants and defendants left and right, as to which criminal defendants (that the prosecutors and judges in question do not like) not to choose.

But, nobody ever considers that a problem.

Disciplinary complaints against Marc Kasowitz appear to be clearly political - because now it has been reported that representation of the President whom the legal profession is filibustering in droves because, apparently, he upset the apple cart of seats already distributed by Clinton - at a hefty price to the "donors" - puts the entire law firm of the President's attorney "at crossroads".

Now, why is that?

Why should representation of a particular client subject an attorney to ostracism?  Aren't all people in the U.S. equal under the law?

Aren't all people entitled to legal counsel and defense?

Is not the legal profession "honorable"?

Is not attorney regulation and discipline exist only to protect consumers from attorneys who are dishonest or incompetent - which Marc Kasowitz is obviously neither?

At least, nobody tried to do anything to him until he started to do the unthinkable - represent the President of the United States.

So, now hints are heavily dropped that the law firm will be boycotted, and the "lead rainmaker" Marc Kasowitz will be "out of the picture" because of representation of the President?

Again - why is that?