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?
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.
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.
[Vincent Gambini] “You were serious about that?” [/VG]
I’m done wit dis guy.
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.
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?”
From this comment by Bayard in the other thread:
The NYT/CNN attorney must have been very convincing somehow.
Natasha Bertrand tweeted:
ninja’d
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.
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.
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”.
Nevermind. Speculation that has no place in this forum.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you. I hadn’t seen that mentioned in any of the reports I read.