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

I don't think you understand how ACP works. The "client" doesn't ask for it. So if that's were you are drawing the line, you never get there.

And as Tanq points out, there will be any number of possible people who are not clients with whom the ACP exists.

(04-20-2018 04:16 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Who would have ever thunk a Barbarian would be a lover of the game. News to me....

Golf was invented by Scotsmen.

(04-20-2018 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

I don't think you understand how ACP works. The "client" doesn't ask for it. So if that's were you are drawing the line, you never get there.

And as Tanq points out, there will be any number of possible people who are not clients with whom the ACP exists.

I don't mean to suggest it is a magic wand and one can ask for ACP and have that be granted for anything that the two talk about. But, as Hannity said, he asked to confirm that the legal advice he was receiving about real estate was protected under ACP.

At that point, him "asking" for ACP, is him acknowledging that the relationship exists. As Tanq pointed out, perhaps I'm using the club version of "client" in this case, but it still stands that Hannity acknowledged he was entering into a verbal agreement with Cohen in 2017.

So my line still stands, which is the intentional acknowledgement of ACP between two parties. If you're just talking to a lawyer at a cocktail party and legal issues are brought up, but the topic of ACP is not, then I can understand how the lawyer may view that conversation as confidential but the "client" on the other end would not have.

Hypothetically, if a layman with no legal training were to get into a discussion of legal terms with two lawyers, which one(s) would prevail?

Hypothetically, say Lad is right, and Hannity is journalist who should have disclosed his relationship with Cohen.

So what?

(04-20-2018 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Hypothetically, if a layman with no legal training were to get into a discussion of legal terms with two lawyers, which one(s) would prevail?

Both or neither, depending on the business relationship of the two lawyers.

(04-20-2018 05:32 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Hypothetically, if a layman with no legal training were to get into a discussion of legal terms with two lawyers, which one(s) would prevail?

Both or neither, depending on the business relationship of the two lawyers.

Society at large loses when there is any topic that involves two or more lawyers.

(04-20-2018 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

I don't think you understand how ACP works. The "client" doesn't ask for it. So if that's were you are drawing the line, you never get there.

And as Tanq points out, there will be any number of possible people who are not clients with whom the ACP exists.

I don't mean to suggest it is a magic wand and one can ask for ACP and have that be granted for anything that the two talk about. But, as Hannity said, he asked to confirm that the legal advice he was receiving about real estate was protected under ACP.

At that point, him "asking" for ACP, is him acknowledging that the relationship exists. As Tanq pointed out, perhaps I'm using the club version of "client" in this case, but it still stands that Hannity acknowledged he was entering into a verbal agreement with Cohen in 2017.

So my line still stands, which is the intentional acknowledgement of ACP between two parties. If you're just talking to a lawyer at a cocktail party and legal issues are brought up, but the topic of ACP is not, then I can understand how the lawyer may view that conversation as confidential but the "client" on the other end would not have.

https://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Contortionist

(04-20-2018 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't mean to suggest it is a magic wand and one can ask for ACP and have that be granted for anything that the two talk about. But, as Hannity said, he asked to confirm that the legal advice he was receiving about real estate was protected under ACP.

You don't understand. It's not something you request and the attorney grants. It attaches automatically unless you release it.

Quote:At that point, him "asking" for ACP, is him acknowledging that the relationship exists. As Tanq pointed out, perhaps I'm using the club version of "client" in this case, but it still stands that Hannity acknowledged he was entering into a verbal agreement with Cohen in 2017.

A verbal agreement? To do what? What were the terms of that agreement? More specifically, exact what relationship did it create that would have to disclosed? To have agreement under the law, you must have an offer and acceptance. What was the offer? How did the acceptance take place?

Quote:So my line still stands, which is the intentional acknowledgement of ACP between two parties. If you're just talking to a lawyer at a cocktail party and legal issues are brought up, but the topic of ACP is not, then I can understand how the lawyer may view that conversation as confidential but the "client" on the other end would not have.

That's because the privilege belongs to the "client," not the lawyer. The lawyer has to observe it unless specifically released. In that situation a question about ACP from Hannity would logically be interpreted as simply clarifying the situation, and not entry into any sort of agreemeant.

I avoid having someone discuss their legal issues when others are present since the others are not bound by confidentiality. I tell them to call my office to make an appointment. I collect a $50 consultation fee with more fees if it goes beyond half an hour. They might prefer discussing their problems in a bar with me for free but I try to avoid staying in the conversation for very long.

(04-20-2018 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

I don't think you understand how ACP works. The "client" doesn't ask for it. So if that's were you are drawing the line, you never get there.

And as Tanq points out, there will be any number of possible people who are not clients with whom the ACP exists.

I don't mean to suggest it is a magic wand and one can ask for ACP and have that be granted for anything that the two talk about. But, as Hannity said, he asked to confirm that the legal advice he was receiving about real estate was protected under ACP.

At that point, him "asking" for ACP, is him acknowledging that the relationship exists. As Tanq pointed out, perhaps I'm using the club version of "client" in this case, but it still stands that Hannity acknowledged he was entering into a verbal agreement with Cohen in 2017.

So my line still stands, which is the intentional acknowledgement of ACP between two parties. If you're just talking to a lawyer at a cocktail party and legal issues are brought up, but the topic of ACP is not, then I can understand how the lawyer may view that conversation as confidential but the "client" on the other end would not have.

Daniel Richman


It appears there is far more evidence of collusion between the FBI and the DNC/Clinton Campaign than exists for collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.

And the differential is mounting.

(04-20-2018 03:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've been explicit about that - that line is drawn when one explicitly asks for ACP.

I don't think you understand ACP. It's not something you ask for. So you are drawing the line in a place that doesn't exist.

And ACP attaches in a number of situations where a client relationship clearly doesn't exist.

The question at hand is whether the Hannity-Cohen relationship was sufficiently significant to require disclosure by Hannity. Off what I've seen, I would say that the abundance of caution position for both Cohen and Hannity, particularly Cohen, would be to disclose it. But it's very much a gray area, and I'm not aware of any rule that would require Hannity to consider himself a client on these facts or to disclose the relationship.

(04-25-2018 12:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Daniel Richman


It appears there is far more evidence of collusion between the FBI and the DNC/Clinton Campaign than exists for collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign.

And the differential is mounting.

Been that way for a long time. DNC colluded with Russia and, I understand, Ukraine, to get dirt on Trump and/or evidence Trump colluded.

Or is there enough smoke?

Funny you should mention this, there was an interesting piece in RealClearxxx today on this.

Unpacking the Other Clinton-Linked Russia Dossier

But whenever this type of stuff comes up this seems to be the response:

Response to Other Potential Collusion

But, I'm headed to Starbucks to get a glass of water and have a business meeting....

How unhinged will they get if Moon, Kim, Xi, and Trump are co-winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?

(04-27-2018 12:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How unhinged will they get if Moon, Kim, Xi, and Trump are co-winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?

So far ive really only seen liberal pundit so acknowledge that if real progress is made, that trump will deserve the credit. So likely not very unhinged.

(04-27-2018 12:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How unhinged will they get if Moon, Kim, Xi, and Trump are co-winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?

I don't think more than three individuals can share any one prize.
So, who do you exclude?

If that is the case I would go down to two -- Moon and Kim.

But that is what I would expect anyway from the Nobel Committee if that is the locus of the prize. NFW Trump would ever be deigned to walk the same hallowed ground as St. Obama in Stockholm.

Sorry no link for that, usupported bloviating on RW aspects. But there is NFW Trump is ever named.

(04-27-2018 12:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 12:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How unhinged will they get if Moon, Kim, Xi, and Trump are co-winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?

So far ive really only seen liberal pundit so acknowledge that if real progress is made, that trump will deserve the credit. So likely not very unhinged.

The singular fact that the leaders of North and South Korea met face to face is pretty fing astounding as far as progress, imo.

(04-27-2018 12:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If that is the case I would go down to two -- Moon and Kim.

But that is what I would expect anyway from the Nobel Committee if that is the locus of the prize. NFW Trump would ever be deigned to walk the same hallowed ground as St. Obama in Stockholm.

A small correction: unlike the other Nobels, the Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee and is presented in Oslo.