Lawyer Lisa Bloom is Gloria Allred’s daughter, proving the old adage: The apple doesn’t fall from the tree. Yesterday it was revealed, and Bloom has confirmed, that she arranged financial payments for women who were willing to come forward with sexual misconduct allegations against then presidential candidate, Donald Trump. One woman, Jill Harth, did come forward, but another unnamed woman did not. Harth received enough money to pay off her mortgage on her Queens apartment, reportedly about $30,000. The unnamed woman was apparently offered up to $750,000, but never entered into the agreement.

Nothing illegal has taken place, but it sure is slimey. And this is why lawyers enjoy the public’s affection as they do. In a series of text messages, the unnamed woman was able to present the story of how she contemplated coming forward, in support of her friend Jill Harth, but eventually decided not to. She was a Trump supporter – in so much as many of us were, we couldn’t bear to see Hillary become president – and did not have much of a beef with Trump. She said he had propositioned her in some way, she asked him to stop, and he did. Why that story would have been worth $750,000 is curious, but in the end the woman seemed to simply be exploring what the top offer might have been.

There is a reason news organizations say they do not pay for stories. If they do, they will create incentives for people to lie. Conflicts of interest lead to credibility problems. This is a no-brainer. To add more problems to credibility, Bloom would be taking a cut of any money provided to the accusers for interviews, photos, or other media. Bloom had an incentive to get the story told, which is slightly problematic.

None of this however means the stories are untrue, but it creates problems for the believability of the accusers, and makes their stories very easy to dismiss in our current climate. On the other hand, it has to be extraordinarily difficult to come out with allegations in our current climate too. Accusers are subject to immense scrutiny and harassment, so a little bit of compensation for what they will endure may not be out of the question. But here’s the difference – is it compensation or is it more of a dirty incentive being channeled for even dirtier political purposes?

Once the accusation has done its job, exactly what is the result? Those encouraging the accuser have as their aim the downfall of the political person, but there is no real care taken for the accuser. The accuser’s motives may align with that objective, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable to think the accuser will end up feeling used and taken advantage of. After the accusation lands, the accusers tend to fade away from public view, as if that’s all they were good for.

For her part, Bloom has attacked these reports as having as the sole purpose to undermine the credibility of the accusers. But it’s really more about transparency. If someone is telling an accusatory story, motives and incentives are relevant to the credibility of that story. What if prosecutors paid witnesses to come to court? That’s something the jury has a right to know – and they do know whenever a witness is being given reduced charges or a plea deal in exchange for testimony. It’s relevant and can be used in the calculation as to whether to believe the accusations. Accusers admittedly have a hard path if they want to go public, but there’s nothing that can be done about it. It’s difficult, but if the truth is important, people must be strong and come forward in the best light possible. That’s important for the fabric of our society which is badly frayed.

Bloom has not acted illegally, and in her written correspondence she has been very careful to ensure her words cannot be used to accuse her of being a bully or intimidating her clients. She is smart. But she’s also a slime ball. She has done women no favors, except to show that a woman can be every bit as conniving and self-interested as any man.