(04-19-2018 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By meeting with a guy previously and generally talking about very general legal matters. That is quite a stretch to "fail[] to disclose". Using that rubric, how many other people that Hannity meets at parties or at lunch every day shall he have to disclose every night?

Interesting the the line you draw to Hannity/Cohen is "directly involved" when, per Hannity, nothing substantive was ever discussed.

The line you draw to a person that had essentially co-ownership of the Clinto war room is that he must now rise to the level of "secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign" to be dinged.

Very good and artful line drawing, even though they are amazingly unbalanced in their application.

Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".

You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.

I guess that any journalist should never have any conversation with any attorney about any even generalized legal matter in any social setting whatsoever using that ethics regime.

I guess Im lucky to hell im not to be a journalist with that type of restriction.

Hannity admitted to requesting ACP with Cohen. How frequently does talking to someone at a cocktail party about "generalized legal matter(s)" include the non-attorney party explicitly asking for ACP?

Interesting. Is this a rhetorical question, or one that I can answer without a quacking about my supposed "I am an attorney and know everything about everything" issue?

Well, since it was asked --- it happens a lot. On average, if the party is over 25 people in size, almost typically a certaintly. I.e. *that* is the reason I bring it up.

But please feel free to ignore that. You ostensibly have to this point, so why stop.

Quote:Remember, Hannity has admitted to asking Cohen about legal questions regarding real estate, which is something Hannity has said he prefers to invest in, instead of markets. So it also wasn't just general legal information, he admits he was looking for specific advice.

Wow, so the guy I talked with two weeks ago about the the pros and cons of the structures of REITS, or, depending on the number of investors, whether an limited partnerships with a general partner being an LLC is preferable to certain types of holdings is in a dilemna now. Guess I need, per Lads admonishment, to get on phone and tell him he's a client now. Lad, I hate to tell you generalized legal knowledge applied to particular industries is not automatically and magically 'specific advice'.

Quote:And then, when he was told he was going to be named as a client of Cohen, requested that Cohen's lawyer not disclose his name. So Hannity knew where he stood before his name was released in court.

So informing him the day before court that he was going to be named is now the magic ingredient in the special elixir. Got it. It used to be ACP == client, but I am glad we have actually changed that tune now.

Quote:I keep going back to the fact that Hannity requesting ACP explicitly means he can't really play dumb about not knowing he was becoming a "client" of Cohen. His explicit request means that he had an understanding that what he was asking Cohen about was privileged to only himself and Cohen.

Ooops, spoke too soon. I am still looking for your citation to the fact that ACP == client. You havent bothered to provide one. You still havent satisfactorily explained the literally thousands of people that have asked me that question at parties yet, either.

Quote:If journalists started doing the same thing at cocktail mixers - asking for ACP about personal legal affairs - then yeah, they would either have to disclose that when they reported on those attorneys, avoid asking those things at cocktail parties, or cover a different beat.

I would say you probably dont go to a lot of parties with attorneys in attendance. Or perhaps you should ask journalists to act like no other person in United States would.

My suggestion is to actually find something with a little more 'client weight' in it, and I'd agree with you. Problem is you have a real challenge to pigeonhole what we know into you preconceived 'nail Hannity' mode. Problem is what we do know really doesnt come that close to what you seemingly want to believe.

No, what we have here is you seemingly responding to things I don't say and interpreting my comments in ways that you feel you can best respond to. You are hung up on the definition of client, which seems to mean to you someone who receives direct representation or who pays for services. I already provided a source that explicitly discusses the ways in which an ACP can be formed and it provides an explanation of multiple instances in which an ACP can be formed without payment (and you've stated as much). And, as you've ignored, an ACP requires two people - an attorney and a client. And in this case, regardless of payment, the person receiving the counsel would be the client.

You've also never really responded to the fact that Hannity admitted he entered into a verbal agreement with Cohen outside of saying that this happens regularly. I don't see why frequency of an action should be a rationale for removal of personal responsibility to understand what sort of verbal agreement one is entering. Hannity, or anyone else for that matter, who explicitly asks a lawyer for ACP should understand that they are now entering into a verbal agreement that said attorney will keep their conversation in confidence.

Honestly, I think all Hannity deserved was a slap on the wrist from Fox, unless it comes out that his relationship was more significant. I think that you think I think this is a much bigger deal than it is - at this point i'm more shocked at how eager you are to prove how you seem to think slightly perceived conflicts of interests aren't issues.

(04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".

You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.

Seriously, twice now you have invoked Journalism 101. I appreciate learning the facts of legal ethics from people who know - attorneys. If you are in the know about journalism ethics, please tell us.

FBI coordination on Clinton

There is more evidence of collusion between the FBI and the Clinton Campaign than there is of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


All this smoke, we need an investigation so we will know the truth.

(04-19-2018 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  FBI coordination on Clinton

There is more evidence of collusion between the FBI and the Clinton Campaign than there is of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


All this smoke, we need an investigation so we will know the truth.

Things HRC's campaign actually did that Trump's campaign is accused of doing but (likely) did not actually do:

1) Use law firms to hide the flow of money used for political purposes
2) Actively seek out damaging opposition research in order in influence the election
3) Facilitate the disbursement of cash to Russian operatives for damaging opposition research with the intention of influencing election results
4) Coordinate the release of this information once acquired to impact the election with maximum efficiency.
5) (Trump wasn't accused of this, but everyone said he would do similar things on day 1 of the admin) Acting as SoS, approve the sale of a company key to our national security to the Russian government while immediate family members (spouse) receives significant cash payments from the Russian governments into personal accounts in approximately the same time frame.

The lack of equity in this whole thing given to Trump is simply mind boggling. For every thing that Trump is accused of, Clinton has actually done that very thing and likely much worse. Oh, and don't get too worried that the thing that helped sink Clinton (stolen emails) were completely true stories and had a direct and negative impact on the democratic process as it related to how the DNC was run whereas even if the pee-tape were to exist, it merely serves as some low watermark for DJT's personal moral preferences and does not impact the democratic process whatsoever. The hypothetical of blackmail material is so laughable seeing how the countless instances of hush money paid to strippers et. al. has had zero impact on his ability (or lack thereof) to govern. Given the quality of his trysts, you have to wonder at this point how the Russian ladies would grade out...hardly blackmail material for this guy at this point.

(04-19-2018 08:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".

You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.

I guess that any journalist should never have any conversation with any attorney about any even generalized legal matter in any social setting whatsoever using that ethics regime.

I guess Im lucky to hell im not to be a journalist with that type of restriction.

Hannity admitted to requesting ACP with Cohen. How frequently does talking to someone at a cocktail party about "generalized legal matter(s)" include the non-attorney party explicitly asking for ACP?

Interesting. Is this a rhetorical question, or one that I can answer without a quacking about my supposed "I am an attorney and know everything about everything" issue?

Well, since it was asked --- it happens a lot. On average, if the party is over 25 people in size, almost typically a certaintly. I.e. *that* is the reason I bring it up.

But please feel free to ignore that. You ostensibly have to this point, so why stop.

Quote:Remember, Hannity has admitted to asking Cohen about legal questions regarding real estate, which is something Hannity has said he prefers to invest in, instead of markets. So it also wasn't just general legal information, he admits he was looking for specific advice.

Wow, so the guy I talked with two weeks ago about the the pros and cons of the structures of REITS, or, depending on the number of investors, whether an limited partnerships with a general partner being an LLC is preferable to certain types of holdings is in a dilemna now. Guess I need, per Lads admonishment, to get on phone and tell him he's a client now. Lad, I hate to tell you generalized legal knowledge applied to particular industries is not automatically and magically 'specific advice'.

Quote:And then, when he was told he was going to be named as a client of Cohen, requested that Cohen's lawyer not disclose his name. So Hannity knew where he stood before his name was released in court.

So informing him the day before court that he was going to be named is now the magic ingredient in the special elixir. Got it. It used to be ACP == client, but I am glad we have actually changed that tune now.

Quote:I keep going back to the fact that Hannity requesting ACP explicitly means he can't really play dumb about not knowing he was becoming a "client" of Cohen. His explicit request means that he had an understanding that what he was asking Cohen about was privileged to only himself and Cohen.

Ooops, spoke too soon. I am still looking for your citation to the fact that ACP == client. You havent bothered to provide one. You still havent satisfactorily explained the literally thousands of people that have asked me that question at parties yet, either.

Quote:If journalists started doing the same thing at cocktail mixers - asking for ACP about personal legal affairs - then yeah, they would either have to disclose that when they reported on those attorneys, avoid asking those things at cocktail parties, or cover a different beat.

I would say you probably dont go to a lot of parties with attorneys in attendance. Or perhaps you should ask journalists to act like no other person in United States would.

My suggestion is to actually find something with a little more 'client weight' in it, and I'd agree with you. Problem is you have a real challenge to pigeonhole what we know into you preconceived 'nail Hannity' mode. Problem is what we do know really doesnt come that close to what you seemingly want to believe.

No, what we have here is you seemingly responding to things I don't say and interpreting my comments in ways that you feel you can best respond to. You are hung up on the definition of client, which seems to mean to you someone who receives direct representation or who pays for services. I already provided a source that explicitly discusses the ways in which an ACP can be formed and it provides an explanation of multiple instances in which an ACP can be formed without payment (and you've stated as much). And, as you've ignored, an ACP requires two people - an attorney and a client. And in this case, regardless of payment, the person receiving the counsel would be the client.

You've also never really responded to the fact that Hannity admitted he entered into a verbal agreement with Cohen outside of saying that this happens regularly. I don't see why frequency of an action should be a rationale for removal of personal responsibility to understand what sort of verbal agreement one is entering. Hannity, or anyone else for that matter, who explicitly asks a lawyer for ACP should understand that they are now entering into a verbal agreement that said attorney will keep their conversation in confidence.

Honestly, I think all Hannity deserved was a slap on the wrist from Fox, unless it comes out that his relationship was more significant. I think that you think I think this is a much bigger deal than it is - at this point i'm more shocked at how eager you are to prove how you seem to think slightly perceived conflicts of interests aren't issues.

Lad what I am saying is that what Hannity describes happens literally all the fing time.

Some engineer dweeb who thinks he knows lots of **** because of the episodes of law and order he saw or because he saw some web page thinks he is being ultra smart by saying 'hey lets talk generally but youre an attorney and its privileged."

far easier to nod and say "sounds good sparky" than to actually explain in detail and ad nauseum the real mechanics.

so then a fing awesome and scintillating talk about llcs and interlocking directors and **** happens, after which i give him a referral.

and i never see the guy again and he never bothers following up on the real meat with the referral, since he is obviously the most amazingly sharp cookie in world as he just had a a fantastic insight into a c-minus, just passing the bar level insight into a general question of law.

and i shut my mouth and keep quiet. its easy, since there are so many of these patchwork legal genuises that do this that quite frankly ive fing forgotten about it by the next cocktail.

yet you discount that type of encounter into 'horrors we *must* treat that as being *deeply* involved.' or somefink.

Good for you Lad. Its an idiotic stance. Have fun jousting the real world in your quest to prove with geometric logic that there is an extra key.

and no Lad, i dont have a fing clue how large you think it is aside from the dogged determination to not let the real world intrude on your viewpoint to any great extent.

(04-20-2018 06:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 08:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess that any journalist should never have any conversation with any attorney about any even generalized legal matter in any social setting whatsoever using that ethics regime.

I guess Im lucky to hell im not to be a journalist with that type of restriction.

Hannity admitted to requesting ACP with Cohen. How frequently does talking to someone at a cocktail party about "generalized legal matter(s)" include the non-attorney party explicitly asking for ACP?

Interesting. Is this a rhetorical question, or one that I can answer without a quacking about my supposed "I am an attorney and know everything about everything" issue?

Well, since it was asked --- it happens a lot. On average, if the party is over 25 people in size, almost typically a certaintly. I.e. *that* is the reason I bring it up.

But please feel free to ignore that. You ostensibly have to this point, so why stop.

Quote:Remember, Hannity has admitted to asking Cohen about legal questions regarding real estate, which is something Hannity has said he prefers to invest in, instead of markets. So it also wasn't just general legal information, he admits he was looking for specific advice.

Wow, so the guy I talked with two weeks ago about the the pros and cons of the structures of REITS, or, depending on the number of investors, whether an limited partnerships with a general partner being an LLC is preferable to certain types of holdings is in a dilemna now. Guess I need, per Lads admonishment, to get on phone and tell him he's a client now. Lad, I hate to tell you generalized legal knowledge applied to particular industries is not automatically and magically 'specific advice'.

Quote:And then, when he was told he was going to be named as a client of Cohen, requested that Cohen's lawyer not disclose his name. So Hannity knew where he stood before his name was released in court.

So informing him the day before court that he was going to be named is now the magic ingredient in the special elixir. Got it. It used to be ACP == client, but I am glad we have actually changed that tune now.

Quote:I keep going back to the fact that Hannity requesting ACP explicitly means he can't really play dumb about not knowing he was becoming a "client" of Cohen. His explicit request means that he had an understanding that what he was asking Cohen about was privileged to only himself and Cohen.

Ooops, spoke too soon. I am still looking for your citation to the fact that ACP == client. You havent bothered to provide one. You still havent satisfactorily explained the literally thousands of people that have asked me that question at parties yet, either.

Quote:If journalists started doing the same thing at cocktail mixers - asking for ACP about personal legal affairs - then yeah, they would either have to disclose that when they reported on those attorneys, avoid asking those things at cocktail parties, or cover a different beat.

I would say you probably dont go to a lot of parties with attorneys in attendance. Or perhaps you should ask journalists to act like no other person in United States would.

My suggestion is to actually find something with a little more 'client weight' in it, and I'd agree with you. Problem is you have a real challenge to pigeonhole what we know into you preconceived 'nail Hannity' mode. Problem is what we do know really doesnt come that close to what you seemingly want to believe.

No, what we have here is you seemingly responding to things I don't say and interpreting my comments in ways that you feel you can best respond to. You are hung up on the definition of client, which seems to mean to you someone who receives direct representation or who pays for services. I already provided a source that explicitly discusses the ways in which an ACP can be formed and it provides an explanation of multiple instances in which an ACP can be formed without payment (and you've stated as much). And, as you've ignored, an ACP requires two people - an attorney and a client. And in this case, regardless of payment, the person receiving the counsel would be the client.

You've also never really responded to the fact that Hannity admitted he entered into a verbal agreement with Cohen outside of saying that this happens regularly. I don't see why frequency of an action should be a rationale for removal of personal responsibility to understand what sort of verbal agreement one is entering. Hannity, or anyone else for that matter, who explicitly asks a lawyer for ACP should understand that they are now entering into a verbal agreement that said attorney will keep their conversation in confidence.

Honestly, I think all Hannity deserved was a slap on the wrist from Fox, unless it comes out that his relationship was more significant. I think that you think I think this is a much bigger deal than it is - at this point i'm more shocked at how eager you are to prove how you seem to think slightly perceived conflicts of interests aren't issues.

Lad what I am saying is that what Hannity describes happens literally all the fing time.

Some engineer dweeb who thinks he knows lots of **** because of the episodes of law and order he saw or because he saw some web page thinks he is being ultra smart by saying 'hey lets talk generally but youre an attorney and its privileged."

far easier to nod and say "sounds good sparky" than to actually explain in detail and ad nauseum the real mechanics.

so then a fing awesome and scintillating talk about llcs and interlocking directors and **** happens, after which i give him a referral.

and i never see the guy again and he never bothers following up on the real meat with the referral, since he is obviously the most amazingly sharp cookie in world as he just had a a fantastic insight into a c-minus, just passing the bar level insight into a general question of law.

and i shut my mouth and keep quiet. its easy, since there are so many of these patchwork legal genuises that do this that quite frankly ive fing forgotten about it by the next cocktail.

yet you discount that type of encounter into 'horrors we *must* treat that as being *deeply* involved.' or somefink.

Good for you Lad. Its an idiotic stance. Have fun jousting the real world in your quest to prove with geometric logic that there is an extra key.

and no Lad, i dont have a fing clue how large you think it is aside from the dogged determination to not let the real world intrude on your viewpoint to any great extent.

Sorry that me not kowtowing to you has you so riled up. The real world does intrude into my viewpoint, I just don't see why the frequency at which people in general request ACP in a casual setting should have an effect on how that should affect ethical standards. Does the defense that everyone speeds get people out of speeding tickets?

I don't suggest that these casual encounters must be treated as being "deeply" involved - I simply suggest that people should be smart enough to put two and two together, and when they explicitly ask for ACP, they're obviously entering into a verbal agreement with an attorney, and therefore, are playing the complimentary role. And so when someone who does that works in journalism, and that relationship isn't public knowledge, they should make that relationship public knowledge should they be directly reporting on the subject.

I just think the bar should be a set a bit higher than you do in this case - sorry about that. And once again, taking Hannity at his word, I don't think this should result in anything more severe than a slap on the wrist. But to me, it's fairly cut and dry that Hannity should not have asked Cohen for legal advice in 2017 (because of who Cohen is) or he should have at least stated on his show that he sometime(s) uses Cohen for minor legal advice when he was reporting directly on Cohen.

edit: and that doesn't even touch on the fact that Hannity was informed ahead of the release that he was a client by Cohen's lawyer. So if he misunderstood the relationship, as soon as he was informed he was viewed as a client, he should have been proactive about addressing the issue.

(04-19-2018 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  FBI coordination on Clinton

There is more evidence of collusion between the FBI and the Clinton Campaign than there is of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


All this smoke, we need an investigation so we will know the truth.

Actually went through and read the article - can you put the pieces together for me for collusion at all? And specifically with the Clinton Campaign? I didn't really get any collusion, just communication that doesn't seem abnormal. And I don't see Clinton Campaign officials involved.

One email referenced holding off on administrative action as to not affect the FBI investigation, and the other mentioned discussing proposed administrative action to "keep the DOJ in the loop."

But maybe I'm missing something.

Let me try a hypothetical, and I really haven't put a lot of thought into it. Suppose Hannity says to Cohen in a social setting, "Hey, I'm thinking about buying XYZ property. I'm willing to pay up to $4 million. What do you think?" Cohen tells him he thinks that is too much, but Hannity states that remains interested up to that price. Later, someone else asks him, "Hey I've Heard Hannity might be interested in buying XYZ property. You got any idea how much he would be willing to pay?"

Is Hannity Cohen's client? Is Cohen bound to keep his discussion with Hannity confidential? If so, why?

(04-20-2018 08:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me try a hypothetical, and I really haven't put a lot of thought into it. Suppose Hannity says to Cohen in a social setting, "Hey, I'm thinking about buying XYZ property. I'm willing to pay up to $4 million. What do you think?" Cohen tells him he thinks that is too much, but Hannity states that remains interested up to that price. Later, someone else asks him, "Hey I've Heard Hannity might be interested in buying XYZ property. You got any idea how much he would be willing to pay?"

Is Hannity Cohen's client? Is Cohen bound to keep his discussion with Hannity confidential? If so, why?

That situation is muddied - as Tanq said there are instances where the understanding of when the ACP relationship is established aren't clear to both parties. In that exact instance, it would be up to Cohen to make the determination if ACP existed.

However, if the interaction happened as Hannity described it, and Hannity explicitly asked for ACP with Cohen about the conversation, then it should be clear to both Cohen and Hannity that the conversation is privileged and couldn't be shared. The key here there was verbal acknowledgment by both Cohen (attorney in respect to ACP) and Hannity (client in respect to ACP) that ACP existed.

(04-20-2018 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 06:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 08:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hannity admitted to requesting ACP with Cohen. How frequently does talking to someone at a cocktail party about "generalized legal matter(s)" include the non-attorney party explicitly asking for ACP?

Interesting. Is this a rhetorical question, or one that I can answer without a quacking about my supposed "I am an attorney and know everything about everything" issue?

Well, since it was asked --- it happens a lot. On average, if the party is over 25 people in size, almost typically a certaintly. I.e. *that* is the reason I bring it up.

But please feel free to ignore that. You ostensibly have to this point, so why stop.

Quote:Remember, Hannity has admitted to asking Cohen about legal questions regarding real estate, which is something Hannity has said he prefers to invest in, instead of markets. So it also wasn't just general legal information, he admits he was looking for specific advice.

Wow, so the guy I talked with two weeks ago about the the pros and cons of the structures of REITS, or, depending on the number of investors, whether an limited partnerships with a general partner being an LLC is preferable to certain types of holdings is in a dilemna now. Guess I need, per Lads admonishment, to get on phone and tell him he's a client now. Lad, I hate to tell you generalized legal knowledge applied to particular industries is not automatically and magically 'specific advice'.

Quote:And then, when he was told he was going to be named as a client of Cohen, requested that Cohen's lawyer not disclose his name. So Hannity knew where he stood before his name was released in court.

So informing him the day before court that he was going to be named is now the magic ingredient in the special elixir. Got it. It used to be ACP == client, but I am glad we have actually changed that tune now.

Quote:I keep going back to the fact that Hannity requesting ACP explicitly means he can't really play dumb about not knowing he was becoming a "client" of Cohen. His explicit request means that he had an understanding that what he was asking Cohen about was privileged to only himself and Cohen.

Ooops, spoke too soon. I am still looking for your citation to the fact that ACP == client. You havent bothered to provide one. You still havent satisfactorily explained the literally thousands of people that have asked me that question at parties yet, either.

Quote:If journalists started doing the same thing at cocktail mixers - asking for ACP about personal legal affairs - then yeah, they would either have to disclose that when they reported on those attorneys, avoid asking those things at cocktail parties, or cover a different beat.

I would say you probably dont go to a lot of parties with attorneys in attendance. Or perhaps you should ask journalists to act like no other person in United States would.

My suggestion is to actually find something with a little more 'client weight' in it, and I'd agree with you. Problem is you have a real challenge to pigeonhole what we know into you preconceived 'nail Hannity' mode. Problem is what we do know really doesnt come that close to what you seemingly want to believe.

No, what we have here is you seemingly responding to things I don't say and interpreting my comments in ways that you feel you can best respond to. You are hung up on the definition of client, which seems to mean to you someone who receives direct representation or who pays for services. I already provided a source that explicitly discusses the ways in which an ACP can be formed and it provides an explanation of multiple instances in which an ACP can be formed without payment (and you've stated as much). And, as you've ignored, an ACP requires two people - an attorney and a client. And in this case, regardless of payment, the person receiving the counsel would be the client.

You've also never really responded to the fact that Hannity admitted he entered into a verbal agreement with Cohen outside of saying that this happens regularly. I don't see why frequency of an action should be a rationale for removal of personal responsibility to understand what sort of verbal agreement one is entering. Hannity, or anyone else for that matter, who explicitly asks a lawyer for ACP should understand that they are now entering into a verbal agreement that said attorney will keep their conversation in confidence.

Honestly, I think all Hannity deserved was a slap on the wrist from Fox, unless it comes out that his relationship was more significant. I think that you think I think this is a much bigger deal than it is - at this point i'm more shocked at how eager you are to prove how you seem to think slightly perceived conflicts of interests aren't issues.

Lad what I am saying is that what Hannity describes happens literally all the fing time.

Some engineer dweeb who thinks he knows lots of **** because of the episodes of law and order he saw or because he saw some web page thinks he is being ultra smart by saying 'hey lets talk generally but youre an attorney and its privileged."

far easier to nod and say "sounds good sparky" than to actually explain in detail and ad nauseum the real mechanics.

so then a fing awesome and scintillating talk about llcs and interlocking directors and **** happens, after which i give him a referral.

and i never see the guy again and he never bothers following up on the real meat with the referral, since he is obviously the most amazingly sharp cookie in world as he just had a a fantastic insight into a c-minus, just passing the bar level insight into a general question of law.

and i shut my mouth and keep quiet. its easy, since there are so many of these patchwork legal genuises that do this that quite frankly ive fing forgotten about it by the next cocktail.

yet you discount that type of encounter into 'horrors we *must* treat that as being *deeply* involved.' or somefink.

Good for you Lad. Its an idiotic stance. Have fun jousting the real world in your quest to prove with geometric logic that there is an extra key.

and no Lad, i dont have a fing clue how large you think it is aside from the dogged determination to not let the real world intrude on your viewpoint to any great extent.

Sorry that me not kowtowing to you has you so riled up. The real world does intrude into my viewpoint, I just don't see why the frequency at which people in general request ACP in a casual setting should have an effect on how that should affect ethical standards. Does the defense that everyone speeds get people out of speeding tickets?

I don't suggest that these casual encounters must be treated as being "deeply" involved - I simply suggest that people should be smart enough to put two and two together, and when they explicitly ask for ACP, they're obviously entering into a verbal agreement with an attorney, and therefore, are playing the complimentary role. And so when someone who does that works in journalism, and that relationship isn't public knowledge, they should make that relationship public knowledge should they be directly reporting on the subject.

I just think the bar should be a set a bit higher than you do in this case - sorry about that. And once again, taking Hannity at his word, I don't think this should result in anything more severe than a slap on the wrist. But to me, it's fairly cut and dry that Hannity should not have asked Cohen for legal advice in 2017 (because of who Cohen is) or he should have at least stated on his show that he sometime(s) uses Cohen for minor legal advice when he was reporting directly on Cohen.

edit: and that doesn't even touch on the fact that Hannity was informed ahead of the release that he was a client by Cohen's lawyer. So if he misunderstood the relationship, as soon as he was informed he was viewed as a client, he should have been proactive about addressing the issue.

Have fun acting like Don Quixote in your quest to educate everyone in the whole wide world about the *proper* way to do it.

Yep in the theoretical world everyone would realize what you wish they would. But not everyone is as razor book sharp as Lad I hate to tell you.

When you find your ACP Shangra La tell me. I might get a party or two without the issue there. Or maybe not tell me when you find it. Parties chock full of people who dont let the real world intrude into their conversation might intimidate this bloviating asshat who expects everyone to kowtow to him.

Btw Lad I dont expect people to kowtow. but when an issue is not grounded in the real world ill mention it. sorry you are seemingly sensitive to that. i personally dont give a rats ass what you think or do, let alone kowtow.

(04-20-2018 09:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 06:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 08:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Interesting. Is this a rhetorical question, or one that I can answer without a quacking about my supposed "I am an attorney and know everything about everything" issue?

Well, since it was asked --- it happens a lot. On average, if the party is over 25 people in size, almost typically a certaintly. I.e. *that* is the reason I bring it up.

But please feel free to ignore that. You ostensibly have to this point, so why stop.


Wow, so the guy I talked with two weeks ago about the the pros and cons of the structures of REITS, or, depending on the number of investors, whether an limited partnerships with a general partner being an LLC is preferable to certain types of holdings is in a dilemna now. Guess I need, per Lads admonishment, to get on phone and tell him he's a client now. Lad, I hate to tell you generalized legal knowledge applied to particular industries is not automatically and magically 'specific advice'.


So informing him the day before court that he was going to be named is now the magic ingredient in the special elixir. Got it. It used to be ACP == client, but I am glad we have actually changed that tune now.


Ooops, spoke too soon. I am still looking for your citation to the fact that ACP == client. You havent bothered to provide one. You still havent satisfactorily explained the literally thousands of people that have asked me that question at parties yet, either.


I would say you probably dont go to a lot of parties with attorneys in attendance. Or perhaps you should ask journalists to act like no other person in United States would.

My suggestion is to actually find something with a little more 'client weight' in it, and I'd agree with you. Problem is you have a real challenge to pigeonhole what we know into you preconceived 'nail Hannity' mode. Problem is what we do know really doesnt come that close to what you seemingly want to believe.

No, what we have here is you seemingly responding to things I don't say and interpreting my comments in ways that you feel you can best respond to. You are hung up on the definition of client, which seems to mean to you someone who receives direct representation or who pays for services. I already provided a source that explicitly discusses the ways in which an ACP can be formed and it provides an explanation of multiple instances in which an ACP can be formed without payment (and you've stated as much). And, as you've ignored, an ACP requires two people - an attorney and a client. And in this case, regardless of payment, the person receiving the counsel would be the client.

You've also never really responded to the fact that Hannity admitted he entered into a verbal agreement with Cohen outside of saying that this happens regularly. I don't see why frequency of an action should be a rationale for removal of personal responsibility to understand what sort of verbal agreement one is entering. Hannity, or anyone else for that matter, who explicitly asks a lawyer for ACP should understand that they are now entering into a verbal agreement that said attorney will keep their conversation in confidence.

Honestly, I think all Hannity deserved was a slap on the wrist from Fox, unless it comes out that his relationship was more significant. I think that you think I think this is a much bigger deal than it is - at this point i'm more shocked at how eager you are to prove how you seem to think slightly perceived conflicts of interests aren't issues.

Lad what I am saying is that what Hannity describes happens literally all the fing time.

Some engineer dweeb who thinks he knows lots of **** because of the episodes of law and order he saw or because he saw some web page thinks he is being ultra smart by saying 'hey lets talk generally but youre an attorney and its privileged."

far easier to nod and say "sounds good sparky" than to actually explain in detail and ad nauseum the real mechanics.

so then a fing awesome and scintillating talk about llcs and interlocking directors and **** happens, after which i give him a referral.

and i never see the guy again and he never bothers following up on the real meat with the referral, since he is obviously the most amazingly sharp cookie in world as he just had a a fantastic insight into a c-minus, just passing the bar level insight into a general question of law.

and i shut my mouth and keep quiet. its easy, since there are so many of these patchwork legal genuises that do this that quite frankly ive fing forgotten about it by the next cocktail.

yet you discount that type of encounter into 'horrors we *must* treat that as being *deeply* involved.' or somefink.

Good for you Lad. Its an idiotic stance. Have fun jousting the real world in your quest to prove with geometric logic that there is an extra key.

and no Lad, i dont have a fing clue how large you think it is aside from the dogged determination to not let the real world intrude on your viewpoint to any great extent.

Sorry that me not kowtowing to you has you so riled up. The real world does intrude into my viewpoint, I just don't see why the frequency at which people in general request ACP in a casual setting should have an effect on how that should affect ethical standards. Does the defense that everyone speeds get people out of speeding tickets?

I don't suggest that these casual encounters must be treated as being "deeply" involved - I simply suggest that people should be smart enough to put two and two together, and when they explicitly ask for ACP, they're obviously entering into a verbal agreement with an attorney, and therefore, are playing the complimentary role. And so when someone who does that works in journalism, and that relationship isn't public knowledge, they should make that relationship public knowledge should they be directly reporting on the subject.

I just think the bar should be a set a bit higher than you do in this case - sorry about that. And once again, taking Hannity at his word, I don't think this should result in anything more severe than a slap on the wrist. But to me, it's fairly cut and dry that Hannity should not have asked Cohen for legal advice in 2017 (because of who Cohen is) or he should have at least stated on his show that he sometime(s) uses Cohen for minor legal advice when he was reporting directly on Cohen.

edit: and that doesn't even touch on the fact that Hannity was informed ahead of the release that he was a client by Cohen's lawyer. So if he misunderstood the relationship, as soon as he was informed he was viewed as a client, he should have been proactive about addressing the issue.

Have fun acting like Don Quixote in your quest to educate everyone in the whole wide world about the *proper* way to do it.

Yep in the theoretical world everyone would realize what you wish they would. But not everyone is as razor book sharp as Lad I hatecto tell you.

When you find your ACP Shangra La tell me. I might get a party or two without the issue there. Tell me when you find it.

To me, all you're arguing with me about is whether once can hold someone accountable for their misunderstanding of how ACP works.

I've provided a definition already which clearly identifies that ACP can exist without payment (and you've stated as much). http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/916/

So your entire thesis boils down to, so many people enter into ACPs without contracts and the "client" party doesn't know that, therefore Hannity does not need to be help accountable. My thesis is that Hannity does because he explicitly asked for ACP with Cohen, and therefore recognized that he was entering into a verbal agreement at the time. That's why I brought up speeding - just because everyone else speeds and ignores the speed limit doesn't mean that when one gets caught speeding, that they can use that as their defense.

Or do you think I'm mischaracterizing your position?

(04-20-2018 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  FBI coordination on Clinton

There is more evidence of collusion between the FBI and the Clinton Campaign than there is of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


All this smoke, we need an investigation so we will know the truth.

Actually went through and read the article - can you put the pieces together for me for collusion at all? And specifically with the Clinton Campaign? I didn't really get any collusion, just communication that doesn't seem abnormal. And I don't see Clinton Campaign officials involved.

One email referenced holding off on administrative action as to not affect the FBI investigation, and the other mentioned discussing proposed administrative action to "keep the DOJ in the loop."

But maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, you are.

You are missing the willingness to accept the evidence in one case, and missing the willingness to be logical in the other.

I can tell you the narrative that I think an investigation in FBI/DOJ would reveal. Nobody has come up yet with a reasonable narrative that they think the Trump/Russia investigation will reveal. They all start with something improbable like "Trump called Putin" and all end with "..and Vlad upheld his end of the bargain by publishing the truth, just like the New York Times is supposed to do".

Read flash's post #3604 for the short list.

and what I said was not limited to evidence in this set of emails.

I would add that the exoneration was composed before the investigation was done, and the Clinton staffers' interviews and hers were not done to protocol. I would add McCabe lying under oath, and Comey leaking in violation of his own protocol. The changing of the report from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"? Not an accident.

But that's why we need an investigation into the investigation. So we will, ya know, KNOW the truth.

Are you OK with an investigation by a special counsel into the bias or lack of bias within the FBI/DOJ?

Maybe neither happened. But how will we ever know, without an investigation?

(04-19-2018 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".

You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.

Seriously, twice now you have invoked Journalism 101. I appreciate learning the facts of legal ethics from people who know - attorneys. If you are in the know about journalism ethics, please tell us.

Is this what you teach in Journalism 101? How binding is it?

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

(04-20-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My thesis is that Hannity does because he explicitly asked for ACP with Cohen, and therefore recognized that he was entering into a verbal agreement at the time.

Your thesis is either 1) irrelevant, 2) wrong, or 3) both, depending upon facts not known to me.

I use a hypothetical case very near to this in my introductory business law course. There are all sorts of situations that do not create a client relationship but do create a need for confidentiality, including ACP.

(04-20-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 06:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 08:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, what we have here is you seemingly responding to things I don't say and interpreting my comments in ways that you feel you can best respond to. You are hung up on the definition of client, which seems to mean to you someone who receives direct representation or who pays for services. I already provided a source that explicitly discusses the ways in which an ACP can be formed and it provides an explanation of multiple instances in which an ACP can be formed without payment (and you've stated as much). And, as you've ignored, an ACP requires two people - an attorney and a client. And in this case, regardless of payment, the person receiving the counsel would be the client.

You've also never really responded to the fact that Hannity admitted he entered into a verbal agreement with Cohen outside of saying that this happens regularly. I don't see why frequency of an action should be a rationale for removal of personal responsibility to understand what sort of verbal agreement one is entering. Hannity, or anyone else for that matter, who explicitly asks a lawyer for ACP should understand that they are now entering into a verbal agreement that said attorney will keep their conversation in confidence.

Honestly, I think all Hannity deserved was a slap on the wrist from Fox, unless it comes out that his relationship was more significant. I think that you think I think this is a much bigger deal than it is - at this point i'm more shocked at how eager you are to prove how you seem to think slightly perceived conflicts of interests aren't issues.

Lad what I am saying is that what Hannity describes happens literally all the fing time.

Some engineer dweeb who thinks he knows lots of **** because of the episodes of law and order he saw or because he saw some web page thinks he is being ultra smart by saying 'hey lets talk generally but youre an attorney and its privileged."

far easier to nod and say "sounds good sparky" than to actually explain in detail and ad nauseum the real mechanics.

so then a fing awesome and scintillating talk about llcs and interlocking directors and **** happens, after which i give him a referral.

and i never see the guy again and he never bothers following up on the real meat with the referral, since he is obviously the most amazingly sharp cookie in world as he just had a a fantastic insight into a c-minus, just passing the bar level insight into a general question of law.

and i shut my mouth and keep quiet. its easy, since there are so many of these patchwork legal genuises that do this that quite frankly ive fing forgotten about it by the next cocktail.

yet you discount that type of encounter into 'horrors we *must* treat that as being *deeply* involved.' or somefink.

Good for you Lad. Its an idiotic stance. Have fun jousting the real world in your quest to prove with geometric logic that there is an extra key.

and no Lad, i dont have a fing clue how large you think it is aside from the dogged determination to not let the real world intrude on your viewpoint to any great extent.

Sorry that me not kowtowing to you has you so riled up. The real world does intrude into my viewpoint, I just don't see why the frequency at which people in general request ACP in a casual setting should have an effect on how that should affect ethical standards. Does the defense that everyone speeds get people out of speeding tickets?

I don't suggest that these casual encounters must be treated as being "deeply" involved - I simply suggest that people should be smart enough to put two and two together, and when they explicitly ask for ACP, they're obviously entering into a verbal agreement with an attorney, and therefore, are playing the complimentary role. And so when someone who does that works in journalism, and that relationship isn't public knowledge, they should make that relationship public knowledge should they be directly reporting on the subject.

I just think the bar should be a set a bit higher than you do in this case - sorry about that. And once again, taking Hannity at his word, I don't think this should result in anything more severe than a slap on the wrist. But to me, it's fairly cut and dry that Hannity should not have asked Cohen for legal advice in 2017 (because of who Cohen is) or he should have at least stated on his show that he sometime(s) uses Cohen for minor legal advice when he was reporting directly on Cohen.

edit: and that doesn't even touch on the fact that Hannity was informed ahead of the release that he was a client by Cohen's lawyer. So if he misunderstood the relationship, as soon as he was informed he was viewed as a client, he should have been proactive about addressing the issue.

Have fun acting like Don Quixote in your quest to educate everyone in the whole wide world about the *proper* way to do it.

Yep in the theoretical world everyone would realize what you wish they would. But not everyone is as razor book sharp as Lad I hatecto tell you.

When you find your ACP Shangra La tell me. I might get a party or two without the issue there. Tell me when you find it.

To me, all you're arguing with me about is whether once can hold someone accountable for their misunderstanding of how ACP works.

I've provided a definition already which clearly identifies that ACP can exist without payment (and you've stated as much). http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/916/

So your entire thesis boils down to, so many people enter into ACPs without contracts and the "client" party doesn't know that, therefore Hannity does not need to be help accountable. My thesis is that Hannity does because he explicitly asked for ACP with Cohen, and therefore recognized that he was entering into a verbal agreement at the time. That's why I brought up speeding - just because everyone else speeds and ignores the speed limit doesn't mean that when one gets caught speeding, that they can use that as their defense.

Or do you think I'm mischaracterizing your position?

What I am saying is that the request for ACP, especially in a social setting, approaches the illusory request with respect to representation. What matters is the context of the overall relationship, not whether some asshat saw all 12 seasons of Law and Order and just mentions it.

Your sine qua non of 'deep involvement' for an attorney and/or legal representation seems to be that the person asked for ACP. Which is facially, well to back off my previous statements, not the best thought out argument for it.

As I have stated pretty much ad nauseum through this thread, if you can show anything of substance between Cohen and Hannity, I might bite at the proposition that they had such a deep legal relationship. Anything. A passage of money, items that are more than just generalized, drafting of a document, specific advice on a specific document. But the only person providing anything of context is Hannity. And his comments leave me at the 'Hannity is a dumf--k who is repeating ACP like a myna bird or a bad extra from LA Law' level.

And, no, your speed limit argument makes no sense. It only makes sense if the thesis that you brought forth that a request for ACP throws down the magic silence cone by law. It may or may not.

What you are equating it to is 'if many break a set rule' issue. Your equating a request for ACP as a set rule doesnt fit the bill. The issue of ACP and being a client go pretty deep into the individual circumstances as a typical matter. But you seemingly replace with a surfical 'he asked for it -- deep involvement / client' rule.

And to be blunt, I dont have a fing clue where you formulated this rule from. It is so far out of left field for me in this profession that it is pretty near jaw-dropping.

But I need to bail. Some people are paying me to be a bloviating asshat and I need to attend to them (i.e. true 'clients' with real-life ACP) at the moment.

(04-20-2018 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  FBI coordination on Clinton

There is more evidence of collusion between the FBI and the Clinton Campaign than there is of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


All this smoke, we need an investigation so we will know the truth.

Actually went through and read the article - can you put the pieces together for me for collusion at all? And specifically with the Clinton Campaign? I didn't really get any collusion, just communication that doesn't seem abnormal. And I don't see Clinton Campaign officials involved.

One email referenced holding off on administrative action as to not affect the FBI investigation, and the other mentioned discussing proposed administrative action to "keep the DOJ in the loop."

But maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, you are.

You are missing the willingness to accept the evidence in one case, and missing the willingness to be logical in the other.

I can tell you the narrative that I think an investigation in FBI/DOJ would reveal. Nobody has come up yet with a reasonable narrative that they think the Trump/Russia investigation will reveal. They all start with something improbable like "Trump called Putin" and all end with "..and Vlad upheld his end of the bargain by publishing the truth, just like the New York Times is supposed to do".

Read flash's post #3604 for the short list.

and what I said was not limited to evidence in this set of emails.

I would add that the exoneration was composed before the investigation was done, and the Clinton staffers' interviews and hers were not done to protocol. I would add McCabe lying under oath, and Comey leaking in violation of his own protocol. The changing of the report from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"? Not an accident.

But that's why we need an investigation into the investigation. So we will, ya know, KNOW the truth.

Are you OK with an investigation by a special counsel into the bias or lack of bias within the FBI/DOJ?

Maybe neither happened. But how will we ever know, without an investigation?

Go ahead and investigate. McCabe lied to cover up the fact that he allowed a leak to happen to protect his own image. Ironically, that leak was that there was in fact an investigation into the Clinton Foundation (not a pro-Clinton move). From the IG report:

[quote] We concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the [Clinton Foundation] Investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior Department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception. [quote]

I think he suffered from the same issue Comey did, which was over-analyzing the situation and letting public opinion play a role in their decision making. And, again, rather ironically, Comey made a decision that also hurt Clinton.

I still don't see how the link you provided is connected to the collusion you mentioned.

(04-20-2018 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='15258718' dateline='1524196805']
FBI coordination on Clinton

There is more evidence of collusion between the FBI and the Clinton Campaign than there is of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


All this smoke, we need an investigation so we will know the truth.

Actually went through and read the article - can you put the pieces together for me for collusion at all? And specifically with the Clinton Campaign? I didn't really get any collusion, just communication that doesn't seem abnormal. And I don't see Clinton Campaign officials involved.

One email referenced holding off on administrative action as to not affect the FBI investigation, and the other mentioned discussing proposed administrative action to "keep the DOJ in the loop."

But maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, you are.

You are missing the willingness to accept the evidence in one case, and missing the willingness to be logical in the other.

I can tell you the narrative that I think an investigation in FBI/DOJ would reveal. Nobody has come up yet with a reasonable narrative that they think the Trump/Russia investigation will reveal. They all start with something improbable like "Trump called Putin" and all end with "..and Vlad upheld his end of the bargain by publishing the truth, just like the New York Times is supposed to do".

Read flash's post #3604 for the short list.

and what I said was not limited to evidence in this set of emails.

I would add that the exoneration was composed before the investigation was done, and the Clinton staffers' interviews and hers were not done to protocol. I would add McCabe lying under oath, and Comey leaking in violation of his own protocol. The changing of the report from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"? Not an accident.

But that's why we need an investigation into the investigation. So we will, ya know, KNOW the truth.

Are you OK with an investigation by a special counsel into the bias or lack of bias within the FBI/DOJ?

Maybe neither happened. But how will we ever know, without an investigation?

Go ahead and investigate. McCabe lied to cover up the fact that he allowed a leak to happen to protect his own image. Ironically, that leak was that there was in fact an investigation into the Clinton Foundation (not a pro-Clinton move). From the IG report:

Quote: We concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the [Clinton Foundation] Investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior Department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception. [quote]

I think he suffered from the same issue Comey did, which was over-analyzing the situation and letting public opinion play a role in their decision making. And, again, rather ironically, Comey made a decision that also hurt Clinton.

I still don't see how the link you provided is connected to the collusion you mentioned.

The bolded part is the very definition of bias.

so what part of public opinion led them to use the Steele dossier to get a FISA warrant?

(04-20-2018 09:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My thesis is that Hannity does because he explicitly asked for ACP with Cohen, and therefore recognized that he was entering into a verbal agreement at the time.

Your thesis is either 1) irrelevant, 2) wrong, or 3) both, depending upon facts not known to me.

I use a hypothetical case very near to this in my introductory business law course. There are all sorts of situations that do not create a client relationship but do create a need for confidentiality, including ACP.

So this all hinges on the exact definition of what a client is, right?

Per this source (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/client), the term client:

Quote: includes a person who divulges confidential matters to an attorney while pursuing professional assistance, regardless of sub-sequent employment of the attorney.

So in Hannity's case, he divulged confidential material to Cohen, since he explicitly requested an ACP.

(04-20-2018 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My thesis is that Hannity does because he explicitly asked for ACP with Cohen, and therefore recognized that he was entering into a verbal agreement at the time.

Your thesis is either 1) irrelevant, 2) wrong, or 3) both, depending upon facts not known to me.

I use a hypothetical case very near to this in my introductory business law course. There are all sorts of situations that do not create a client relationship but do create a need for confidentiality, including ACP.

So this all hinges on the exact definition of what a client is, right?

Per this source (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/client), the term client:

Quote: includes a person who divulges confidential matters to an attorney while pursuing professional assistance, regardless of sub-sequent employment of the attorney.

So in Hannity's case, he divulged confidential material to Cohen, since he explicitly requested an ACP.

Lad, what exactly are you trying to prove here about Hannity and/or Cohen? I have lost track of what you are trying to say.

(04-20-2018 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 06:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad what I am saying is that what Hannity describes happens literally all the fing time.

Some engineer dweeb who thinks he knows lots of **** because of the episodes of law and order he saw or because he saw some web page thinks he is being ultra smart by saying 'hey lets talk generally but youre an attorney and its privileged."

far easier to nod and say "sounds good sparky" than to actually explain in detail and ad nauseum the real mechanics.

so then a fing awesome and scintillating talk about llcs and interlocking directors and **** happens, after which i give him a referral.

and i never see the guy again and he never bothers following up on the real meat with the referral, since he is obviously the most amazingly sharp cookie in world as he just had a a fantastic insight into a c-minus, just passing the bar level insight into a general question of law.

and i shut my mouth and keep quiet. its easy, since there are so many of these patchwork legal genuises that do this that quite frankly ive fing forgotten about it by the next cocktail.

yet you discount that type of encounter into 'horrors we *must* treat that as being *deeply* involved.' or somefink.

Good for you Lad. Its an idiotic stance. Have fun jousting the real world in your quest to prove with geometric logic that there is an extra key.

and no Lad, i dont have a fing clue how large you think it is aside from the dogged determination to not let the real world intrude on your viewpoint to any great extent.

Sorry that me not kowtowing to you has you so riled up. The real world does intrude into my viewpoint, I just don't see why the frequency at which people in general request ACP in a casual setting should have an effect on how that should affect ethical standards. Does the defense that everyone speeds get people out of speeding tickets?

I don't suggest that these casual encounters must be treated as being "deeply" involved - I simply suggest that people should be smart enough to put two and two together, and when they explicitly ask for ACP, they're obviously entering into a verbal agreement with an attorney, and therefore, are playing the complimentary role. And so when someone who does that works in journalism, and that relationship isn't public knowledge, they should make that relationship public knowledge should they be directly reporting on the subject.

I just think the bar should be a set a bit higher than you do in this case - sorry about that. And once again, taking Hannity at his word, I don't think this should result in anything more severe than a slap on the wrist. But to me, it's fairly cut and dry that Hannity should not have asked Cohen for legal advice in 2017 (because of who Cohen is) or he should have at least stated on his show that he sometime(s) uses Cohen for minor legal advice when he was reporting directly on Cohen.

edit: and that doesn't even touch on the fact that Hannity was informed ahead of the release that he was a client by Cohen's lawyer. So if he misunderstood the relationship, as soon as he was informed he was viewed as a client, he should have been proactive about addressing the issue.

Have fun acting like Don Quixote in your quest to educate everyone in the whole wide world about the *proper* way to do it.

Yep in the theoretical world everyone would realize what you wish they would. But not everyone is as razor book sharp as Lad I hatecto tell you.

When you find your ACP Shangra La tell me. I might get a party or two without the issue there. Tell me when you find it.

To me, all you're arguing with me about is whether once can hold someone accountable for their misunderstanding of how ACP works.

I've provided a definition already which clearly identifies that ACP can exist without payment (and you've stated as much). http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/916/

So your entire thesis boils down to, so many people enter into ACPs without contracts and the "client" party doesn't know that, therefore Hannity does not need to be help accountable. My thesis is that Hannity does because he explicitly asked for ACP with Cohen, and therefore recognized that he was entering into a verbal agreement at the time. That's why I brought up speeding - just because everyone else speeds and ignores the speed limit doesn't mean that when one gets caught speeding, that they can use that as their defense.

Or do you think I'm mischaracterizing your position?

What I am saying is that the request for ACP, especially in a social setting, approaches the illusory request with respect to representation. What matters is the context of the overall relationship, not whether some asshat saw all 12 seasons of Law and Order and just mentions it.

Your sine qua non of 'deep involvement' for an attorney and/or legal representation seems to be that the person asked for ACP. Which is facially, well to back off my previous statements, not the best thought out argument for it.

As I have stated pretty much ad nauseum through this thread, if you can show anything of substance between Cohen and Hannity, I might bite at the proposition that they had such a deep legal relationship. Anything. A passage of money, items that are more than just generalized, drafting of a document, specific advice on a specific document. But the only person providing anything of context is Hannity. And his comments leave me at the 'Hannity is a dumf--k who is repeating ACP like a myna bird or a bad extra from LA Law' level.

And, no, your speed limit argument makes no sense. It only makes sense if the thesis that you brought forth that a request for ACP throws down the magic silence cone by law. It may or may not.

What you are equating it to is 'if many break a set rule' issue. Your equating a request for ACP as a set rule doesnt fit the bill. The issue of ACP and being a client go pretty deep into the individual circumstances as a typical matter. But you seemingly replace with a surfical 'he asked for it -- deep involvement / client' rule.

And to be blunt, I dont have a fing clue where you formulated this rule from. It is so far out of left field for me in this profession that it is pretty near jaw-dropping.

But I need to bail. Some people are paying me to be a bloviating asshat and I need to attend to them (i.e. true 'clients' with real-life ACP) at the moment.

See my response to Owl#s - within a second of Googling I found a reference that supports the idea that a client fits into my definition.

And this is another link that supports this interpretation: https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/client/

Quote: A client generally means a person, including a public officer, corporation, association or other organization or entity, either public or private, who is rendered services by a service provider, or who consults a service provider with an intention of obtaining services from him/her.

For example, in the context of the attorney-client relationship, some argue that you become a "client" of an attorney, at least for the purpose of obtaining privilege, as soon as you talk to an attorney about your case and regardless of whether you retain him or pay him/her.

So for Hannity, unless he was truly asking about general law that did not pertain to his situation, it seems like I have some people backing my view of a client with regards to ACP.