Here's my gut reaction to the content of the website. Everyone is entitled to legal representation. A lawyer is entitled to defend his client. A lawyer is not entitled to defame or libel the accuser. Child sex abuse cases often are defended by in effect defaming the accuser. It is the equivalent of saying that a rape victim asked for it.
Joe Amendola (Jerry Sandusky's lawyer) is a classic example of this, and frankly after the Penn State victims are done suing Sandusky, and Penn State, and the Second Mile, they should go after Amendola for defamation.
There are ways to argue a case even when a pedophile is guilty that do not call into question the character of the accuser. Like arguing facts, or timeline, or intent, or culpability. To that end, I would trim down the website to focus those lawyers who in their defense of their clients have gone on the attack against their accusers.
As you sat in on the deposition of the Utah Boys Ranch case, I think you can make your own judgement about the character of those lawyers. Same with Joe Sandusky's lawyers as they have been quite publicly disgusting about the way they have handled the case. I don't know enough about the others to say one way or the other.
Just my .02.