What is lawyer who turns "states evidence" allowed to say about his client?

[griffin1977]

So it seems possible that Trumps lawyer may face some serious charges, and presumably will be offered a deal.

In cases like this (I can’t imagine there are that many of them, even if they don’t involve presidents) what is a lawyer allowed to reveal to prosecutors?

A lawyer is not REQUIRED to reveal anything that would break attorney-client privilege, but is he allowed to reveal such things voluntarily? Presumably the threat of many years in prison would incline a lawyer to take a pretty lax line on what they can discuss(even if it might get him disbarred that is better than federal prison )

I realize in this particular case there is a lot of debate over how much of the information he has is covered by attorney client privilege, but that is irrelevant to the question.

I am wondering what is stopping a lawyer, threatened by prosecution, from revealing everything privileged or otherwise?

[Hari_Seldon]

What does the lawyer-client privilege mean if the lawyer can voluntarily waive it. There was an article in the NYTimes that suggested Cohen might waive the privilege. I would have thought that, while the client could waive it, there would be no other way for the lawyer to and that, even under oath, he could not be forced to divulge the information. Just like priests cannot be forced to tell what they heard in the confessional.

[USCDiver]

What’s the consequence of a lawyer breaking the attorney-client privilege? Disbarment? Criminal prosecution?

The first is probably moot since his only client seems to be Trump
The second would be a negotiating point with the Feds.

[Tom_Tildrum]

I haven’t heard about possible serious charges, but rather possible campaign-finance violations usually addressed by an administrative fine.

[Whack-a-Mole]

IANAL

The privilege is held by the client:

WHEN THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE MAY BE WAIVED

Since the client, and not the attorney, holds the privilege, the client holds the ultimate authority to assert it or waive it.24 When the client is a corporation, the privilege is commonly viewed as a matter of corporate control. In other words, corporate management or the “control group,” including the officers and directors, decide whether to assert or waive the privilege.25 If and when there is a change in the control of the corporation, ownership of the privilege is a spoil that passes to the successors; it does not remain with the former corporate management.26

The issue of waiver arises most commonly when a communication is witnessed by a third party or where the client does not intend the communication to be confidential. The mere presence of a third party will likely prevent the creation of the attorney-client privilege.

SOURCE: What the Attorney-Client Privilege Really Means - SGR Law

I believe if a lawyer breaks attorney-client privilege anything he/she tells the investigators is inadmissible in court.
That said there is no privilege if a crime was committed:

Because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, the client’s intent determines whether the exception applies. Most courts will apply the exception even if the attorney had no knowledge of, and didn’t participate in, the actual crime or fraud.

The crime-fraud exception applies if:

• the client was in the process of committing or intended to commit a crime or fraudulent act, and

• the client communicated with the lawyer with intent to further the crime or fraud, or to cover it up.

In some states, the crime-fraud exception isn’t limited to crimes and fraud; it also applies where the client’s object is a civil tort. For example, the exception could apply if a landlord sought advice about unlawfully evicting a tenant.

Note that many torts are also crimes—assault and trespassing are but two examples. So, even in a state where the client’s objective must be criminal in order for the crime-fraud exception to apply, something that also happens to be a tort may trigger it.

SOURCE: When Does the Attorney-Client Privilege Not Apply? | Nolo

So, if Trump was furthering a crime with his attorney then no privilege exists.

[Northern_Piper]

As others have commented, it’s not the lawyer’s privilege, but the client’s privilege. Only the client can waive it.

If a lawyer were to break privilege in giving information to the police, I think you might easily have a concern that it taints the prosecution. Privileged material is inadmissible in court, so giving it to the police could raise a “fruit of the poisonous tree” issue and cause serious problems for the prosecution.

[SamuelA]

If Cohen admits to actively committing crimes himself, as ordered by his client, that can’t be privileged at all, right? So he could fess up on all the crimes he personally committed or had an active role in managing, and in return, gets to skate free with an immunity deal. Since the FBI could care less about jailing some sleazy lawyer.

[Northern_Piper]

It’s not privileged if he and his client were working together to commit crimes.

[griffin1977]

@SamuelA

If Cohen admits to actively committing crimes himself, as ordered by his client, that can’t be privileged at all, right? So he could fess up on all the crimes he personally committed or had an active role in managing, and in return, gets to skate free with an immunity deal. Since the FBI could care less about jailing some sleazy lawyer.

Exactly but there is presumably a big grey area there between stuff that is not privileged (plans to commit crime in the future) vs stuff that is (legal advice concerning crimes committed in the past), and once he’s flipped there is no longer any reason for him to be particular about privilege.