> I have plenty of experience with lawyers who graduated from high-ranked law schools. I won't claim to speak for everyone, but at least in my experience, discussing moral considerations or moral consequences of the law with them is like talking to a wall.
You should find some different people to talk to. This attitude is not only not the norm among my friends, colleagues, and classmates (virtually all of whom went to good law schools), this attitude is almost totally unknown to me.
It's true, of course, that lawyers have to understand and accept that legal outcomes are not always moral outcomes. So it's true that "right and wrong don't have anything to do with the law or a courtroom" in the narrow sense that when law and morality conflict, law typically carries the day in court. But don't mistake this practical understanding for a lack of moral awareness more broadly.
Believe me, nobody knows better the injustices perpetrated by our legal system than lawyers. This, after all, is why many people become lawyers.
But also consider that some of the injustices widely believed to be generated by our legal system (though certainly not all, such as racially-biased mass incarceration) are, in fact, not injustices but are simply widely misunderstood. I would say that legal reporting is about on par with science reporting in terms of the misinformation and half truths that get spread around.
Also remember that a lot of the injustices widely attributed to the U.S. judicial system (and here I am talking about mass incarceration) are not primarily products of the judicial system. They are products of the legislative system (i.e., Congress), which the judiciary is constitutionally bound to obey. Lawyers and judges have very few tools to minimize this damage while also performing the job that our system of government assigns them.