(04-20-2018 02:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.

Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?

Objection, your honor. Asked and answered.

Why are you belaboring this? Are you trying to trick somebody into stating unequivocal support for Hannity? What part of "hack commentator who is no real journalist" hasn't already been made abundantly clear?

I'm belaboring it as much as anyone else is - do you not see the back and forth here?

I responded to Owl#s with a situation that wasn't clear to me if Owl#s would have felt a sufficient relationship was created to require disclosure. I honestly think Owl#s would say, based on what he's written, that it isn't an issue because formal payment or representation did not occur.

And I have no goal of trying to trick anyone to say they support Hannity - as you mentioned plenty of people have said they don't even deem Hannity a journalist. Ironically, that comment has mainly been a response as to why they don't think it's an issue that Hannity did not disclose the issue.

My goal is to try and figure out why, in my mind, it's clear that Hannity was not ethical in this situation, yet others view it as being clear that he was ethical in this situation.

(04-20-2018 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.

Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?

Objection, your honor. Asked and answered.

Why are you belaboring this? Are you trying to trick somebody into stating unequivocal support for Hannity? What part of "hack commentator who is no real journalist" hasn't already been made abundantly clear?

I'm belaboring it as much as anyone else is - do you not see the back and forth here?

I responded to Owl#s with a situation that wasn't clear to me if Owl#s would have felt a sufficient relationship was created to require disclosure. I honestly think Owl#s would say, based on what he's written, that it isn't an issue because formal payment or representation did not occur.

And I have no goal of trying to trick anyone to say they support Hannity - as you mentioned plenty of people have said they don't even deem Hannity a journalist. Ironically, that comment has mainly been a response as to why they don't think it's an issue that Hannity did not disclose the issue.

My goal is to try and figure out why, in my mind, it's clear that Hannity was not ethical in this situation, yet others view it as being clear that he was ethical in this situation.

I read it as being clear that it's irrelevant since nobody expects or requires commentators to be ethical, and it's between possible and probable that he didn't intentionally fail to disclose a client-attorney connection to Cohen.

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.
Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

(04-20-2018 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

That Hannity had an ethical lapse in judgement by not publicly acknowledging his legal relationship with Cohen when reporting/commenting on him.

And then, so.....?

(04-20-2018 02:14 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I read it as being clear that it's irrelevant since nobody expects or requires commentators to be ethical, and it's between possible and probable that he didn't intentionally fail to disclose a client-attorney connection to Cohen.

All this verbiage, and Frizzy says it all in a single sentence.

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.
Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.

You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

(04-20-2018 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

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

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

That Hannity had an ethical lapse in judgement by not publicly acknowledging his legal relationship with Cohen when reporting/commenting on him.

And then, so.....?

Well, the whole thing started when someone disagreed that this was an ethical violation on Hannity's part. You seem to care enough about it not being one to respond to me.

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.
Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.

You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

Let's say, if a certain female candidate for president asked her law firm to find somebody to get dirt on her opponent from Russians, would that be covered by ACP?

Hypothetically.

(04-20-2018 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.
Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.

You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

Let's say, if a certain female candidate for president asked her law firm to find somebody to get dirt on her opponent from Russians, would that be covered by ACP?

Hypothetically.

My understanding is yes, unless the request was breaking a law. So I believe it would not be covered by ACP if Clinton discussed getting Russians to hack into the RNC to steal emails. If it was just about generic opposition research using publicly available records or interviewing witnesses, then I believe it would be covered.

(04-20-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.

You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

Let's say, if a certain female candidate for president asked her law firm to find somebody to get dirt on her opponent from Russians, would that be covered by ACP?

Hypothetically.

My understanding is yes, unless the request was breaking a law. So I believe it would not be covered by ACP if Clinton discussed getting Russians to hack into the RNC to steal emails. If it was just about generic opposition research using publicly available records or interviewing witnesses, then I believe it would be covered.

Clinton? Who is this Clinton? I was merely postulating a hypothetical.

(04-20-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.

You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

Let's say, if a certain female candidate for president asked her law firm to find somebody to get dirt on her opponent from Russians, would that be covered by ACP?

Hypothetically.

My understanding is yes, unless the request was breaking a law. So I believe it would not be covered by ACP if Clinton discussed getting Russians to hack into the RNC to steal emails. If it was just about generic opposition research using publicly available records or interviewing witnesses, then I believe it would be covered.

actually it probably would not be. the privilge attaches to communications relating to legal matters and advice.

if my attorney and myself head to the strip club and we talk about Brandi' bodacious body --- not privileged even if i pay. a bill for the time.

i really dont think 'digging for political dirt' would easily be truthfully categorized as discussions on legal advice.

care to try again?

(04-20-2018 03:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.

You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

Let's say, if a certain female candidate for president asked her law firm to find somebody to get dirt on her opponent from Russians, would that be covered by ACP?

Hypothetically.

My understanding is yes, unless the request was breaking a law. So I believe it would not be covered by ACP if Clinton discussed getting Russians to hack into the RNC to steal emails. If it was just about generic opposition research using publicly available records or interviewing witnesses, then I believe it would be covered.

actually it probably would not be. the privilge attaches to communications relating to legal matters and advice.

if my attorney and myself head to the strip club and we talk about Brandi' bodacious body --- not privileged even if i pay. a bill for the time.

i really dont think 'digging for political dirt' would easily be truthfully categorized as discussions on legal advice.

care to try again?

So, as long as communications are not germane to an immediate legal matter/advice, they are open for discovery?

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.

Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?

Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

the depth discussing in depth legal issues of concern on a weekly basis for multiple weeks would not be a non-client. there would probably be legal representation at that point. your predicate makes your last paragraph assertion fail.

i dont see where this level of cintact was sustained. care to point out where that assertion comes from?

(04-20-2018 03:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 03:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.

You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

Let's say, if a certain female candidate for president asked her law firm to find somebody to get dirt on her opponent from Russians, would that be covered by ACP?

Hypothetically.

My understanding is yes, unless the request was breaking a law. So I believe it would not be covered by ACP if Clinton discussed getting Russians to hack into the RNC to steal emails. If it was just about generic opposition research using publicly available records or interviewing witnesses, then I believe it would be covered.

actually it probably would not be. the privilge attaches to communications relating to legal matters and advice.

if my attorney and myself head to the strip club and we talk about Brandi' bodacious body --- not privileged even if i pay. a bill for the time.

i really dont think 'digging for political dirt' would easily be truthfully categorized as discussions on legal advice.

care to try again?

So, as long as communications are not germane to an immediate legal matter/advice, they are open for discovery?

yeppers. if cohen and hannity talked about slamming beers and chicks it is discoverable. but only an attorney who is not freshly dead will not assert privilege.

further if you asked me if you should get a will (the most basic advice evah....) the acp applies from my end. but you are still not a client. nor would 99.9 per cent of people think they were a client.

see where this is pointing to?

(04-20-2018 03:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.

Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?

Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

the depth discussing in depth legal issues of concern on a weekly basis for multiple weeks would not be a non-client. there would probably be legal representation at that point. your predicate makes your last paragraph assertion fail.

i dont see where this level of cintact was sustained. care to point out where that assertion comes from?

It was a hypothetical to see how far the non-payment/non-representation would stretch the definition of a non-client per Owl#s view. That's why I said, "let's say" at the start of the sentence.

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.
Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.
You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

I don't see the point of discussing a hypothetical that has no apparent relationship to facts. My only point was that you could have a situation where attorney A says, "I treated B as a client," but layman B says, "A was not my attorney," or, "I was not a client of A," and both could be correct within their individual contexts.

Let's try this a different way. Let's focus not on Cohen but on Hannity. At what point would you say that the relationship crosses the line into becoming one that Hannity is duty-bound to disclose? In other words, where do you draw that line?

(04-20-2018 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.
Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.
You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

I don't see the point of discussing a hypothetical that has no apparent relationship to facts. My only point was that you could have a situation where attorney A says, "I treated B as a client," but layman B says, "A was not my attorney," or, "I was not a client of A," and both could be correct within their individual contexts.

Let's try this a different way. Let's focus not on Cohen but on Hannity. At what point would you say that the relationship crosses the line into becoming one that Hannity is duty-bound to disclose? In other words, where do you draw that line?

I've been explicit about that - that line is drawn when one explicitly asks for ACP. At the point, in my opinion, it's clear that Hannity has become a "client' of Cohen because he was asking an attorney for a privilege that only exists between an attorney and client. Logic dictates that this this situation, the non-attorney member of the ACP must be the "client."

So that's why I keep bringing up how Hannity explicitly requested ACP with Cohen when discussing legal matters, and he says. That is the line - the explicit request for confidentiality that only exists between an attorney and a "client." And as we have demonstrated, the term "client" has multiple definitions in this sense.

(04-20-2018 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Going back to when he had the show with Colmes, he would let Colmes make some of the nuttiest arguments in the history of the planet , and would do nothing to call him out or respond. I thought he was stupid. Looking back, it may have been part of their shtick. Or maybe he’s really stupid.
Unless you can explain it in terms of some unique provision of journalistic ethics (about which I freely admit I have only passing knowledge), I can postulate any number of situations where an attorney would be obligated to observe ACP, but no relationship would be created that would constitute sufficient nexus to require disclosure by the lay person.

Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.
You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

I don't see the point of discussing a hypothetical that has no apparent relationship to facts. My only point was that you could have a situation where attorney A says, "I treated B as a client," but layman B says, "A was not my attorney," or, "I was not a client of A," and both could be correct within their individual contexts.

Let's try this a different way. Let's focus not on Cohen but on Hannity. At what point would you say that the relationship crosses the line into becoming one that Hannity is duty-bound to disclose? In other words, where do you draw that line?

where hannity subjectively believed he was a client. a full client. not just one for purposes of privilege

(04-20-2018 03:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's say Hannity had meetings with Cohen on a weekly basis in 2017 to discuss his legal affairs relating to real estate, yet Cohen never billed nor represented Hannity. And during all of these meetings, Hannity requested ACP. In your mind, should Hannity have disclosed the relationship?
Cohen is obligated to observe ACP, but there were no financial transactions or legal representation.

What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.
You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

I don't see the point of discussing a hypothetical that has no apparent relationship to facts. My only point was that you could have a situation where attorney A says, "I treated B as a client," but layman B says, "A was not my attorney," or, "I was not a client of A," and both could be correct within their individual contexts.

Let's try this a different way. Let's focus not on Cohen but on Hannity. At what point would you say that the relationship crosses the line into becoming one that Hannity is duty-bound to disclose? In other words, where do you draw that line?

I've been explicit about that - that line is drawn when one explicitly asks for ACP. At the point, in my opinion, it's clear that Hannity has become a "client' of Cohen because he was asking an attorney for a privilege that only exists between an attorney and client. Logic dictates that this this situation, the non-attorney member of the ACP must be the "client."

So that's why I keep bringing up how Hannity explicitly requested ACP with Cohen when discussing legal matters, and he says. That is the line - the explicit request for confidentiality that only exists between an attorney and a "client." And as we have demonstrated, the term "client" has multiple definitions in this sense.

You should restate that to ACP exists between an attorney and certain other people, including but not limited to clients.

Client is a true word of art that really means only one thing to an attorney, Lad. If you are a client, you enjoy the full gamut of protections under the Canon or Ethics. If you are not a client, you dont. There are no multiple definitions. There *are* other people who *might* enjoy certain protections under the Canon of Ethics, some of those under the ACP. But those other people will almost *never* be referred to as a 'client' by an attorney. Period.

They *might* be referred to as such when the DOJ asks 'who are your clients' under the auspices of a Hoovering of the clients office and files. The astute attorney includes those 'other people' as 'clients' in that limited sense, and for that limited purpose so as to protect the privilege for those other people.

The problem you are using a *very* particular word of art like Conan using a club in this instance of your 'thesis'.

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

(04-20-2018 03:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.
You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

I don't see the point of discussing a hypothetical that has no apparent relationship to facts. My only point was that you could have a situation where attorney A says, "I treated B as a client," but layman B says, "A was not my attorney," or, "I was not a client of A," and both could be correct within their individual contexts.

Let's try this a different way. Let's focus not on Cohen but on Hannity. At what point would you say that the relationship crosses the line into becoming one that Hannity is duty-bound to disclose? In other words, where do you draw that line?

I've been explicit about that - that line is drawn when one explicitly asks for ACP. At the point, in my opinion, it's clear that Hannity has become a "client' of Cohen because he was asking an attorney for a privilege that only exists between an attorney and client. Logic dictates that this this situation, the non-attorney member of the ACP must be the "client."

So that's why I keep bringing up how Hannity explicitly requested ACP with Cohen when discussing legal matters, and he says. That is the line - the explicit request for confidentiality that only exists between an attorney and a "client." And as we have demonstrated, the term "client" has multiple definitions in this sense.

You should restate that to ACP exists between an attorney and certain other people, including but not limited to clients.

Client is a true word of art that really means only one thing to an attorney, Lad. If you are a client, you enjoy the full gamut of protections under the Canon or Ethics. If you are not a client, you dont. There are no multiple definitions. There *are* other people who *might* enjoy certain protections under the Canon of Ethics, some of those under the ACP. But those other people will almost *never* be referred to as a 'client' by an attorney. Period.

They *might* be referred to as such when the DOJ asks 'who are your clients' under the auspices of a Hoovering of the clients office and files. The astute attorney includes those 'other people' as 'clients' in that limited sense, and for that limited purpose so as to protect the privilege for those other people.

The problem you are using a *very* particular word of art like Conan using a club in this instance of your 'thesis'.

You meant the opposite, right? Golf requires precision in both selection and use of a club.