Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| As Extraordinary as Everyone Else  |
I can't believe this hasn't been discussed (I did search) but here goes.. I understand that the laws on recording people vary from state to state with some requiring both participants to consent and some just requiring one party to consent but the question i have is aren't attorney / client communications privileged? I just don't understand how Cohen's attorney has leaked this and not gotten into trouble over it, regardless of the content of the discussion... ------------------ Eddie Our Founding Fathers were men who understood that the right thing is not necessarily the written thing. -kkina | ||
|
Member |
Looking for jallen guidance as well. Is something like this grounds for disbarment? War Eagle! | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
Contrary to conventional understanding, few concepts are as riddled with exclusions and exceptions as attorney-client privilege. The requirements are an attorney, a communication, intent that the communication be confidential and for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the attorney. No need for being hired, compensation, formalities, etc. The attorney has to be a real attorney, I believe. The privilege of non disclosure of the communications belongs to the client who alone can waive it. The attorney is expected to preserve his clients secrets at every peril to himself. In practice, the privilege is often unavailable. Just because your attorney is present, or is the buffer, when you instruct a buffer to push a button on a guy doesn’t mean the communication is privileged. In litigation, the claim of privilege is usually going to be strictly scrutinized. A client can waive the privilege, by disclosure, even inadvertent, I think. Ascertaining the validity of the claim of privilege almost requires revealing the communication! Not many things are more convoluted and complex. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Member |
I believe New York law only requires one participant to a conversation to agree to a recording. With regard to an attorney/client privledge, there is no privledge if a crime was discussed. If no crime, the client could have a claim against the attorney & the attorney’s license could be compromised. In this case, Trump did not object to the release of the recording. | |||
|
Now in Florida |
In this case, Trump - through his current lawyers - waived attorney/client privilege with respect to the tapes. Most likely he did so that he would be free to respond to leaks and rumors about their contents. He could not talk about them and then try to claim privilege to prevent Cohen or Lanny Davis from talking about them. Not an uncommon move if you feel the material is not particularly damaging. This does not address the ethical question of an attorney recording his client in the first place, which is actually a complicated question. There is likely no legal issue, though, if both Cohen and Trump were in NY, which is a single-party consent state. | |||
|
| Member |
Hey, I’m a “Chicago Sig Man” too... | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024