Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-16-2018, 08:50 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,407
Why did the Federal judge make Cohen name his clients in open court?

One of the accounts I read indicated that Cohen volunteered to write the names down and hand them to the judge.

That seems more consistent with protecting client confidential information.

Did the judge explain why she insisted he disclose them openly?
  #2  
Old 04-16-2018, 10:17 PM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 25,078
She didn't say, but my guess is that it was more or less a raw exercise of power on the judge's part. Cohen didn't show up to the hearing about the restraining order on Friday, which supposedly she was upset about. Then, this morning, when the deadline that the judge set for Cohen to turn over the list of clients came, his attorney refused. So, it's a matter of bad things happening when you upset the judge.
  #3  
Old 04-16-2018, 10:25 PM
friedo friedo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 23,801
There's no confidentiality issue because the fact that you have an attorney-client relationship is itself not privileged information. So the judge was ordering Cohen's lawyers to disclose perfectly ordinary information which did not have any need for secrecy. US courts are very reluctant to do things in camera unless absolutely necessary to protect an ongoing investigation, protect confidentiality, protect national security, or some other compelling reason. There was no such reason here, and the judge was correct to assume that the only reason they were trying the envelope gambit was to avoid the media shitstorm they knew it would be. Which they wouldn't have avoided anyway, because if the judge had accepted the envelope, she probably would have just read the contents right into the record. The whole thing was pointless.
  #4  
Old 04-16-2018, 10:30 PM
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 34,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Amazing View Post
She didn't say, but my guess is that it was more or less a raw exercise of power on the judge's part. Cohen didn't show up to the hearing about the restraining order on Friday, which supposedly she was upset about. Then, this morning, when the deadline that the judge set for Cohen to turn over the list of clients came, his attorney refused. So, it's a matter of bad things happening when you upset the judge.
[Vincent Gambini] "You were serious about that?" [/VG]
  #5  
Old 04-16-2018, 10:38 PM
friedo friedo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 23,801
I'm done wit dis guy.
  #6  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:02 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,407
Why did the Federal judge make Cohen name his clients in open court?

Quote:
Originally Posted by friedo View Post
There's no confidentiality issue because the fact that you have an attorney-client relationship is itself not privileged information. So the judge was ordering Cohen's lawyers to disclose perfectly ordinary information which did not have any need for secrecy.

Interesting. It would be considered confidential in Canada. Difference in the systems, I guess.

The professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client duty, and I would think a Canadian court would protect it as well.

Last edited by Northern Piper; 04-16-2018 at 11:05 PM.
  #7  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:12 PM
friedo friedo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 23,801
How does that even work in practice? How can someone represent you if you can't even be made to confirm that "this guy works for me?"
  #8  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:40 PM
Dr. Strangelove Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,657
From this comment by Bayard in the other thread:
Quote:
Judge Wood was prepared to let Ryan give her the name of Cohen’s third client under seal. At that point, an attorney for the NYT and CNN approached the podium and convinced her that the press (&public) should know. She agreed. He played pivotal role here.
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...836413445?s=19

The NYT/CNN attorney must have been very convincing somehow.
  #9  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:40 PM
jasg jasg is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 4,984
Natasha Bertrand tweeted:

Quote:
A note about this: Judge Wood was prepared to let Ryan give her the name of Cohen’s third client under seal. At that point, an attorney for the NYT and CNN approached the podium and convinced her that the press (&public) should know. She agreed. He played pivotal role here.

Robert Balin is the attorney’s name. Thanks everyone who commented with it!
ninja'd

Last edited by jasg; 04-16-2018 at 11:41 PM.
  #10  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:41 PM
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Amazing View Post
She didn't say, but my guess is that it was more or less a raw exercise of power on the judge's part. Cohen didn't show up to the hearing about the restraining order on Friday, which supposedly she was upset about. Then, this morning, when the deadline that the judge set for Cohen to turn over the list of clients came, his attorney refused. So, it's a matter of bad things happening when you upset the judge.
This is entirely untrue. According to the actual transcript of proceedings -- which does not yet appear available online but was read from directly on Maddow this evening -- the judge invited Cohen's lawyer (not Cohen himself) to either offer the name in an envelope or state it, his choice. It was Cohen's lawyer who spoke the name aloud on the record, and it was his choice to do so.

ETA: But I am sure she would have made the name a matter of public record at some point, if not immediately.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 04-16-2018 at 11:42 PM.
  #11  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:46 PM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 18,886
I find it interesting that Hannity denies being a client. I've been in situations where a non-client claimed I represented them, but never the reverse....
__________________
"Yes, but that's because you're a wild human, not a tame human. The likes of you would have to be kept in a zoo, and the keepers would be very careful to never put their tentacles inside the bars"--Lemur866 describing Oak, 11/13/09
Molon labe--Leonidas I
  #12  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:22 AM
UDS UDS is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I find it interesting that Hannity denies being a client. I've been in situations where a non-client claimed I represented them, but never the reverse....
Is Hannity denying that he is a client? From what I've read he is saying that he has had “occasional discussions with [Cohen] for his input and perspective”, that assumes tjeu are confidential and covered by client confidentiality, and that he has paid modest sums for Cohen's advice. None of the discussions “ever, ever involved a matter between [Hannity] and a third party”, but that wouldn't preclude Hannity being a client, the discussions constituting legal advice, and the discussions being privileged.

Tldr; Hannity was enough of a client to to be able to assert privilege, but not enough of of a client that you should imagine that he might be in any way tainted by the sulphurous miasma that emanates from Cohen.
  #13  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:29 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Interesting. It would be considered confidential in Canada. Difference in the systems, I guess.

The professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client duty, and I would think a Canadian court would protect it as well.
Not clear...

Are you saying the name of the client is privileged, or simply that a lawyer acting in a professional manner would not normally divulge his client? Surely that detail is allowed to come out in court at some point (i.e. if lawyer is on the stand for some other matter and the need to name his client was required? )

or are you saying that the name of additional clients is sufficiently peripheral/irrelevant to the case at hand that the judge, if in Canada, would not consider it material/necessary to reveal that detail?

I assume the reason for disclosure in this case was that the judge/prosecutor felt that if the Cohn was going to claim that some papers had privilege because it was a completely different client with no relation to the issues under investigation, then the demand wa "prove it - tell us who".
  #14  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:35 AM
galen ubal galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,176
Nevermind. Speculation that has no place in this forum.

Last edited by galen ubal; 04-17-2018 at 12:36 AM.
  #15  
Old 04-17-2018, 06:14 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 76,487
The taint team processing the seized information, at least, needs to know who Cohen's clients are. That way, they can look at a communication and say "This wasn't with a client; it's clean".
  #16  
Old 04-17-2018, 06:21 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 55,539
If Hannity claims that he is not a client, then there is no attorney-client privilege and the lawyer can be made to tell everything he did for Hannity.
  #17  
Old 04-17-2018, 08:04 AM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,183
I wonder if Hannity's conversations with Cohen were on Trump's Cohen tab, or were pro bono, such that Cohen considered Hannity a client but Hannity did not think of himself as a client?
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #18  
Old 04-17-2018, 08:11 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
I wonder if Hannity's conversations with Cohen were on Trump's Cohen tab, or were pro bono, such that Cohen considered Hannity a client but Hannity did not think of himself as a client?
A pro bono client is still a client. And I don't even want to try to imagine how and what Hannity thinks.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #19  
Old 04-17-2018, 08:21 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedo View Post
How does that even work in practice? How can someone represent you if you can't even be made to confirm that "this guy works for me?"


Because the professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client privilege. Privilege is an evidential rule in court: privileged material can't be disclosed.

The duty of confidentiality is broader and potentially includes even the fact of acting for someone. A person may consult a lawyer for legal advice without wanting to go to court.

For instance, they may be in a contractual relationship and are wondering if the conduct of the other party means the contract is broken and they're no longer bound by it.

Just the fact of them consulting a lawyer could harm their relationship with the other party to the contract, if it becomes public knowledge. So they might say to the lawyer, "thanks for the advice about my legal obligations, but please keep it confidential that I consulted you."

Then if the media phones me and says "We've heard you act for So-and-so," my response is "I cannot comment on whether So-and-so is a client."

It changes if So-and-so has given me instructions that require me to disclose I'm acting for them, like starting a law suit.

Suppose I advise that I think the other party to the contract has breached it and my client has an action for damages, and the client instructs me to start a court action. Then, I'm solicitor of record for So-and-so, and the fact that the person is my client is no longer confidential.

The duty of confidentiality depends on the instructions from the client.
  #20  
Old 04-17-2018, 08:23 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
From this comment by Bayard in the other thread:





https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...836413445?s=19



The NYT/CNN attorney must have been very convincing somehow.


Thank you. I hadn't seen that mentioned in any of the reports I read.
  #21  
Old 04-17-2018, 08:47 AM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,183
How very appropriate if a judge who decided to not become a playboy bunny is the one who opened the evidentiary trapdoor to Trump's fall.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #22  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:03 AM
Tired and Cranky Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedo View Post
There's no confidentiality issue because the fact that you have an attorney-client relationship is itself not privileged information. So the judge was ordering Cohen's lawyers to disclose perfectly ordinary information which did not have any need for secrecy. US courts are very reluctant to do things in camera unless absolutely necessary to protect an ongoing investigation, protect confidentiality, protect national security, or some other compelling reason. There was no such reason here, and the judge was correct to assume that the only reason they were trying the envelope gambit was to avoid the media shitstorm they knew it would be. Which they wouldn't have avoided anyway, because if the judge had accepted the envelope, she probably would have just read the contents right into the record. The whole thing was pointless.
It's not so unequivocal. There are times when U.S. courts will treat the identity of a lawyer's client as privileged information. I don't feel like doing original research on the issue and I won't comment on the status of the law in New York with particularity but here is a mediocre discussion with some cites for when courts will protect a client's identity as privileged information.

https://presnellonprivileges.com/201...nt-identities/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Interesting. It would be considered confidential in Canada. Difference in the systems, I guess.

The professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client duty, and I would think a Canadian court would protect it as well.
I don't think the systems are that different after all but I won't pretend to be an authority.

I suspect the court required disclosure because the general rule is that the client's identity is not privileged, timely objection to publicly disclosing the information should have been before the information was due to the court, and (perhaps) Cohen's failure to raise any valid grounds upon which to find that his clients' identities should be privileged. The burden for showing that the information should be privileged falls on the attorney.

Based on Dr. Strangelove's account, it seems the court was initially willing to conceal the clients' identities but the NYTimes/CNN attorney intervened and convinced her otherwise.
  #23  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:07 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 76,487
I suspect that most judges decide not to become Playboy bunnies. I've never heard of any who have.
  #24  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:12 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I suspect that most judges decide not to become Playboy bunnies. I've never heard of any who have.
Well there were those rumors about Thurgood Marshall...
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #25  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:54 AM
Kelevra Kelevra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The taint team...
You really need a better team name...
  #26  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:56 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Well there were those rumors about Thurgood Marshall...
Not to mention the late Earl Warren.
  #27  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:56 AM
Napier Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 9,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedo View Post
How does that even work in practice? How can someone represent you if you can't even be made to confirm that "this guy works for me?"
A lawyer can work for a client without representing them in a visible proceeding, and there can be good innocent reasons to keep the mere fact of a client relationship secret. For example, you may not want to effectively announce to your spouse that you are talking to a divorce lawyer, or a financial advisor may not want their clients to hear that they are consulting a bankruptcy lawyer (this example quoted from Morning Joe this morning). And these examples might not be about a divorce or bankruptcy for the client themselves, just one in which they may have some involvement.
  #28  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:01 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If Hannity claims that he is not a client, then there is no attorney-client privilege and the lawyer can be made to tell everything he did for Hannity.
No. If Hannity asked for legal advice for actual or contemplated litigation or transaction then privilege attaches, even if he never returned or paid, or expected to pay.
  #29  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:43 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,407
"Client" is an ambiguous term. Many people think it means someone who pays for services. That's certainly one meaning.

However, in the context of the phrase "attorney-client privilege", "client" means a person who has sought and been given legal advice by a lawyer. There doesn't have to be a formal retainer or any payment of money. It's the fact that the person sought legal advice and the lawyer gave it that established the lawyer-client relationship, triggering all of the professional obligations for the lawyer that attach to that relationship, and also giving the client the benefit of lawyer-client privilege.

The act of giving legal advice is the heart of the professional duties of a lawyer.
  #30  
Old 04-17-2018, 01:12 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 10,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I find it interesting that Hannity denies being a client. I've been in situations where a non-client claimed I represented them, but never the reverse....
Might change if you ever get raided by the FBI...
  #31  
Old 04-17-2018, 01:16 PM
SmartAlecCat SmartAlecCat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Did the judge explain why she insisted he disclose them openly?
She repeatedly asked if there was a legal reason the name shouldn't be disclosed. Cohen's legal team couldn't think of any good reason.

Last edited by SmartAlecCat; 04-17-2018 at 01:17 PM.
  #32  
Old 04-17-2018, 01:53 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 36,368
I assume the compelling legal reason for disclosing it was not "because the New York Times wants to know".

Is that the legal default - if an attorney is under indictment, and a newspaper asks, the judge will disclose the complete list of everyone the attorney has ever worked for? Unless he can come up with a compelling reason not to?

I can see the rationale of giving the list to those investigating, so they know whose records are whose and therefore aren't relevant to the case, but why disclose it in open court? What makes this the public's business?

Regards,
Shodan
  #33  
Old 04-17-2018, 02:10 PM
Max Torque Max Torque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 10,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAlecCat View Post
She repeatedly asked if there was a legal reason the name shouldn't be disclosed. Cohen's legal team couldn't think of any good reason.
Nailed it. Judges are very well aware of the public's interest in courtroom proceedings, and they won't make anything secret absent a compelling reason to do so, such as, "My client might be murdered if his name is mentioned." "My client doesn't want his name to come out," by comparison, is not a compelling reason.

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I assume the compelling legal reason for disclosing it was not "because the New York Times wants to know".

Is that the legal default - if an attorney is under indictment, and a newspaper asks, the judge will disclose the complete list of everyone the attorney has ever worked for? Unless he can come up with a compelling reason not to?

I can see the rationale of giving the list to those investigating, so they know whose records are whose and therefore aren't relevant to the case, but why disclose it in open court? What makes this the public's business?

Regards,
Shodan
Courtroom proceedings are always the public's business. Judges have gotten in trouble in the past for as little as shutting the courtroom doors when there was no more room inside. In other words, openness is the default, and there has to be a really good reason to keep something concealed.

Last edited by Max Torque; 04-17-2018 at 02:13 PM.
  #34  
Old 04-17-2018, 02:12 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Because the professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client privilege. Privilege is an evidential rule in court: privileged material can't be disclosed.

The duty of confidentiality is broader and potentially includes even the fact of acting for someone. A person may consult a lawyer for legal advice without wanting to go to court.

For instance, they may be in a contractual relationship and are wondering if the conduct of the other party means the contract is broken and they're no longer bound by it.

Just the fact of them consulting a lawyer could harm their relationship with the other party to the contract, if it becomes public knowledge. So they might say to the lawyer, "thanks for the advice about my legal obligations, but please keep it confidential that I consulted you."

Then if the media phones me and says "We've heard you act for So-and-so," my response is "I cannot comment on whether So-and-so is a client."

It changes if So-and-so has given me instructions that require me to disclose I'm acting for them, like starting a law suit.

Suppose I advise that I think the other party to the contract has breached it and my client has an action for damages, and the client instructs me to start a court action. Then, I'm solicitor of record for So-and-so, and the fact that the person is my client is no longer confidential.

The duty of confidentiality depends on the instructions from the client.
Yes our systems must be very different then, because we are taught from Day 1 of privileges in law school that the fact of whether there exists an attorney-client relationship is not covered by the privilege and a lawyer’s client list is not privileged.

But of course the privilege applies to the question of what a court can compel you to reveal. That doesn’t mean that you have to tell any old joker who calls you up on the phone who Your clients are.
  #35  
Old 04-17-2018, 02:16 PM
Tired and Cranky Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I assume the compelling legal reason for disclosing it was not "because the New York Times wants to know".

Is that the legal default - if an attorney is under indictment, and a newspaper asks, the judge will disclose the complete list of everyone the attorney has ever worked for? Unless he can come up with a compelling reason not to?

I can see the rationale of giving the list to those investigating, so they know whose records are whose and therefore aren't relevant to the case, but why disclose it in open court? What makes this the public's business?
There are two legal "defaults" at issue. First, the default is that the identity of a lawyer's clients is generally not privileged. If Cohen couldn't present a good reason for his client's name to be privileged in this case, he can't use privilege as an excuse to not tell the court who his client is.

Second, public criminal court proceedings help to protect the public and press's ability to oversee the administration of justice. Accordingly, the "default" is that evidence presented in criminal proceedings should be public. In most cases, the names of a lawyer's other clients is irrelevant and thus aren't evidence in the proceeding. In this case, the identity of all of Cohen's clients is relevant because, as you note, the parties reviewing the documents need to know whether communications with Cohen might be privileged. So, the default is to make that information available to the public. Although I haven't read the transcript, I suspect that the NY Times and CNN asking that the information remain public helped to persuade the judge that making the information public was the right thing to do -- especially if Cohen failed to persuasively argue why the name should remain private.

In this case, the wisdom of Judge Wood's opinion was revealed when we learned that the client was Hannity. We now have reason to question whether Hannity's coverage of the Cohen is unduly flattering due to their special relationship.
  #36  
Old 04-17-2018, 02:58 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 10,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I assume the compelling legal reason for disclosing it was not "because the New York Times wants to know".

Is that the legal default - if an attorney is under indictment, and a newspaper asks, the judge will disclose the complete list of everyone the attorney has ever worked for? Unless he can come up with a compelling reason not to?

I can see the rationale of giving the list to those investigating, so they know whose records are whose and therefore aren't relevant to the case, but why disclose it in open court? What makes this the public's business?

Regards,
Shodan
It's as American as Apple Pie. There is a presumption that all judicial proceedings are public. Estes v. State of Tex., 381 U.S. 532, 542 (1965).




Kenneth Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006)

Quote:
Historically, courts have recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978). This right is justified by the interest of citizens in "keep [ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies." Id. at 598, 98 S. Ct. 1306. Such vigilance is aided by the efforts of newspapers to "publish information concerning the operation of government." Id.

Jessup v. Luther, 277 F. 3d 926 (2nd Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted)

Quote:
The general rule is that the record of a judicial proceeding is public. Not only do such records often concern issues in which the public has an interest, in which event concealing the records disserves the values protected by the free-speech and free-press clauses of the First Amendment, but also the public cannot monitor judicial performance adequately if the records of judicial proceedings are secret.

Last edited by Procrustus; 04-17-2018 at 02:59 PM.
  #37  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:27 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 36,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
Second, public criminal court proceedings help to protect the public and press's ability to oversee the administration of justice. Accordingly, the "default" is that evidence presented in criminal proceedings should be public. In most cases, the names of a lawyer's other clients is irrelevant and thus aren't evidence in the proceeding. In this case, the identity of all of Cohen's clients is relevant because, as you note, the parties reviewing the documents need to know whether communications with Cohen might be privileged. So, the default is to make that information available to the public.
  1. I don't see how this is evidence - AFAIK Hannity has not been charged with any crime.
  2. I understand why the parties reviewing the documents would need to know the names of Cohen's other clients. Why does the public need to know? It's not evidence.
Quote:
In this case, the wisdom of Judge Wood's opinion was revealed when we learned that the client was Hannity. We now have reason to question whether Hannity's coverage of the Cohen is unduly flattering due to their special relationship.
What business of the judge's is it how Hannity covered anything? What does that have to do with the charges against Cohen?

Regards,
Shodan
  #38  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:37 PM
Tired and Cranky Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Yes our systems must be very different then, because we are taught from Day 1 of privileges in law school that the fact of whether there exists an attorney-client relationship is not covered by the privilege and a lawyer’s client list is not privileged.

But of course the privilege applies to the question of what a court can compel you to reveal. That doesn’t mean that you have to tell any old joker who calls you up on the phone who Your clients are.
Okay, I did some original research because I know that the identity of a client may be privileged in some cases. New York in particular has a number of cases where the privilege has been recognized. There are a few federal cases on point as well.

In Re Kaplan, 8 NY2d 214, 203 NYS2d 836, 168 NE2d 660 (1960) held that a lawyer retained to confidentially pass information about public corruption to investigators was not in contempt of court for refusing to identify his client.

Most notably relevant to the Cohen case, Allen v West Point-Pepperell, 848 F Supp 423 (1994, SDNY) held that:

Quote:
While defendants correctly point out that the identity and address of a client are not generally held to be confidential communications and, thus, not privileged, see Matter of Jacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d 215, 391 N.E.2d 967, 970, 417 N.Y.S.2d 884, 887; In re Shargel, 742 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1984), “the rule in New York is not so broad as to state categorically that the privilege never attaches to a client's identity”; Matter of Jacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d 215, 391 N.E.2d 967, 417 N.Y.S.2d 884, 887 (1979) (citing Matter of Kaplan, 8 N.Y.2d 214, 168 N.E.2d 660, 203 N.Y.S.2d 836, 838-39 (1960)) (refusing to hold lawyer in contempt for failure to disclose name of client because of client's justified fear of reprisals). The Court in Matter of Jacqueline F., moreover, indicated that absent other compelling circumstances, a client's identity need not be disclosed where the client is not a party to the pending litigation. 417 N.Y.S.2d at 887. Defendants here have not made a showing of the need for disclosure of the names of Mr. Krumme's *432 other clients sufficient to overcome the legitimate fear of retaliation harbored by those clients. (emphasis added)
In Cohen's case, Hannity is not a party to the proceedings and Hannity specifically requested that his identity be kept confidential. Cohen also was not representing Hannity in any proceedings or acting as Hannity's attorney in Hannity's dealings with others. Did the government in this case make a clear showing of the need for public disclosure of the names of Cohen's other client?
  #39  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:53 PM
Tired and Cranky Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
  1. I don't see how this is evidence - AFAIK Hannity has not been charged with any crime.
  2. I understand why the parties reviewing the documents would need to know the names of Cohen's other clients. Why does the public need to know? It's not evidence.
What business of the judge's is it how Hannity covered anything? What does that have to do with the charges against Cohen?
There's a weird quoting issue in your post that I don't want to correct but:

Hannity's name is evidence of whether Cohen's communications with Hannity are privileged. The general rule is that evidence in criminal trials are public. Procrustus has cited cases discussing why. Furthermore, the public's interest in monitoring the operation of the courts should be self-evident. Can you explain why the evidence shouldn't be public? Cohen's attorneys apparently couldn't, so now the information is public.

Courts shouldn't be a venue that specially protects the wealthy and powerful like Hannity.

I never suggested it was "the business of the judge's how Hannity covered anything." As a person who lives in a world where voters' viewpoints are shaped by nakedly partisan, self-interested news coverage tainted by undisclosed bias and conflicts of interest, I consider it my business. I'm glad the information was revealed.
  #40  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:48 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,407
Why did the Federal judge make Cohen name his clients in open court?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Yes our systems must be very different then, because we are taught from Day 1 of privileges in law school that the fact of whether there exists an attorney-client relationship is not covered by the privilege and a lawyer’s client list is not privileged.

...

But of course the privilege applies to the question of what a court can compel you to reveal. That doesn’t mean that you have to tell any old joker who calls you up on the phone who Your clients are.


I'm not saying it's privileged in our system. I'm saying it's subject to the professional duty of confidentiality. Privilege is an evidential rule; confidentiality is a rule of professional conduct.

That doesn't mean the names are inadmissible, but I would think a judge in our system would be sympathetic to arguments that they should respect confidentiality for clients who have nothing to do with the case.

Last edited by Northern Piper; 04-17-2018 at 04:53 PM.
  #41  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:52 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,407
Why did the Federal judge make Cohen name his clients in open court?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
Most notably relevant to the Cohen case, Allen v West Point-Pepperell, 848 F Supp 423 (1994, SDNY) held that:

...

In Cohen's case, Hannity is not a party to the proceedings and Hannity specifically requested that his identity be kept confidential. Cohen also was not representing Hannity in any proceedings or acting as Hannity's attorney in Hannity's dealings with others. Did the government in this case make a clear showing of the need for public disclosure of the names of Cohen's other client?


This is more what I'm thinking of: not privileged, but still subject to a duty of confidentiality which the Court can choose to respect, if the clients are not closely tied to the matter before the court.

Last edited by Northern Piper; 04-17-2018 at 04:54 PM.
  #42  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:54 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,144
Remember that the judge offered to take the information in writing. It was counsel who chose to speak it out loud in open court.
  #43  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:55 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,407
I thought it was posted up-thread that once counsel for the media said it should be made public that the judge directed it be spoken, not written?
  #44  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:06 PM
rbroome rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
  1. I don't see how this is evidence - AFAIK Hannity has not been charged with any crime.
  2. I understand why the parties reviewing the documents would need to know the names of Cohen's other clients. Why does the public need to know? It's not evidence.
What business of the judge's is it how Hannity covered anything? What does that have to do with the charges against Cohen?

Regards,
Shodan
I think you answered your own question: it is the judges business because someone has to run the hearing. Having the judge make decisions about Person X without knowing who Person X is and how he/she relates to the case makes the job very difficult to impossible. In rereading your post, you commented about the importance of "how Hannity covered anything". I agree that isn't the judge's business. But the matter before the judge is the status of Hannity vis-a-vis Cohen. If I didn't get your point I apologize, but I am still unsure what you are trying to say.
Now, on to what I think you meant-what business is it of the public to know that Hannity is involved. Well, he is a public figure. And as many others have said, the default is that all the information possible be made public. The judge gave the possibility of keeping his name private serious consideration.

Last edited by rbroome; 04-17-2018 at 09:08 PM. Reason: clarify
  #45  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:19 PM
Tempe Jeff Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 25
Well, what a coincidence. A Clinton Connection is the Judge assigned to help bring down Trump. Same old, same old... No doubt, she should have recused due to her connections but, c'est la vie. Amazing how the Clintons friends keep trying, and failing; to drag dead Hillary into the White House.
  #46  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:25 PM
running coach running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 34,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Well, what a coincidence. A Clinton Connection is the Judge assigned to help bring down Trump. Same old, same old... No doubt, she should have recused due to her connections but, c'est la vie. Amazing how the Clintons friends keep trying, and failing; to drag dead Hillary into the White House.
Gorsuch just ruled against the man who appointed him. Judges are known to rule without regard to political connections or relationships.
What do you want, judges recusing themselves on every situation that stretches the definition of "conflict"? to an absurd degree?
  #47  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:53 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,407
But wait! She was appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan! That means she had to recuse herself from all cases involving Democrats or Republicans!

I think that means she can only sit on cases involving Greens suing Libertarians.
  #48  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:36 PM
Colibri Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 38,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Well, what a coincidence. A Clinton Connection is the Judge assigned to help bring down Trump. Same old, same old... No doubt, she should have recused due to her connections but, c'est la vie. Amazing how the Clintons friends keep trying, and failing; to drag dead Hillary into the White House.
Moderator Note

Tempe Jeff, political jabs are against the rules in General Questions. No warning issued, but don't do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #49  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:39 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 36,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
Can you explain why the evidence shouldn't be public?
Because
Quote:
Hannity is not a party to the proceedings and Hannity specifically requested that his identity be kept confidential. Cohen also was not representing Hannity in any proceedings or acting as Hannity's attorney in Hannity's dealings with others.
I understand the idea that the team examining the evidence should know who Cohen's clients are, so they know what is relevant to their examination and what is not.

Why does this need to be revealed to the public? I don't see how the public need to have public trials is furthered by revealing the names of people who are not charged, not involved, and who have nothing to do with the case.

Regards,
Shodan
  #50  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:30 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 76,487
But what about people who are not charged, are involved, and have something to do with the case?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017