(04-17-2018 01:58 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  A big part of the whole ordeal is also when Hannity first requested advice thus establishing the attorney-client relationship: Was it before Trump's candidacy or after? If it was before, then this is just an unfortunate coincidence. If it is after, then it calls into question Hannity's judgement about his impartiality as a supposed journalist even if this was some innocent conversation over cocktails. It appears as though it was just barely professional free advice, but given Hannity's stature and the fact that Trump was in the middle of a presidential campaign, a reasonable person might say, "I probably should not engage this person in an attorney-client relationship, even if it is tempting to get free legal advice."

To me, it seems unethical on Hannity's part to have engaged Cohen after Trump's candidacy was announced. I won't strongly defend this if other people want to say it is a free country and you can do as you please, but if Hannity had been ethical, then he wouldn't have to deal with this **** storm at the moment. Usually when you act according to some minimum set of ethics, you don't have to worry about stuff like this.

Guys -- are you so clueless as to have missed Hannity explicitly jumping on the Trump boat in a real early manner?

And, sorry, no way he is 'reporter'. He is explicitly a commentator. He is no more a 'reporter' than Rush Limbaugh (or for that matter, Rachel Maddow) is.

I dont expect impartiality from any of the three mentioned above. I guess you do?

Further, whom a person uses to seek advice from makes not an iota of difference. Period. Using your logic, no media organizations should ever employ the services of Perkins Coie (you know, the DNC's go-to lawfirm). No difference whatsoever there.

Yet I would wager dollars to donuts that media of all sorts use that firm.

But, heaven's to betsy, according to Lad, how dare I bring that last legalish-point up. My apologies....

(04-17-2018 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 01:58 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  A big part of the whole ordeal is also when Hannity first requested advice thus establishing the attorney-client relationship: Was it before Trump's candidacy or after? If it was before, then this is just an unfortunate coincidence. If it is after, then it calls into question Hannity's judgement about his impartiality as a supposed journalist even if this was some innocent conversation over cocktails. It appears as though it was just barely professional free advice, but given Hannity's stature and the fact that Trump was in the middle of a presidential campaign, a reasonable person might say, "I probably should not engage this person in an attorney-client relationship, even if it is tempting to get free legal advice."

To me, it seems unethical on Hannity's part to have engaged Cohen after Trump's candidacy was announced. I won't strongly defend this if other people want to say it is a free country and you can do as you please, but if Hannity had been ethical, then he wouldn't have to deal with this **** storm at the moment. Usually when you act according to some minimum set of ethics, you don't have to worry about stuff like this.

Guys -- are you so clueless as to have missed Hannity explicitly jumping on the Trump boat in a real early manner?

And, sorry, no way he is 'reporter'. He is explicitly a commentator. He is no more a 'reporter' than Rush Limbaugh (or for that matter, Rachel Maddow) is.

I dont expect impartiality from any of the three mentioned above. I guess you do?

Further, whom a person uses to seek advice from makes not an iota of difference. Period. Using your logic, no media organizations should ever employ the services of Perkins Coie (you know, the DNC's go-to lawfirm). No difference whatsoever there.

Yet I would wager dollars to donuts that media of all sorts use that firm.

But, heaven's to betsy, according to Lad, how dare I bring that up. My apologies....

Hannity has a show on a major news network where he projects himself to be a journalist, so regardless of whether he has flipped flopped over the years (which he has: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...5e01f1e3), he should hold himself to a similar ethical standard. Even Dirshowitz told him he made a mistake by not disclosing the information. I figure you might take his opinion over mine.

And yes, I would expect Rachel Maddow to divulge conflicts of interest like this on her show, should it be relevant.

I would also expect, should a news services use the DNC's law firm, that if they ran a story or commentary on said law firm, they would disclose that they are clients of the law firm. I hear NPR do that all the time on their shows.

Again, I have no issue with Hannity choosing the firm - but you're blind if you do not see the ethical issue with not disclosing his relationship when he discussed Cohen, nor the fact that it was not a good idea in the first place to ask for legal advice under the admitted request of having attorney-client privilege.

(04-17-2018 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 01:58 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  A big part of the whole ordeal is also when Hannity first requested advice thus establishing the attorney-client relationship: Was it before Trump's candidacy or after? If it was before, then this is just an unfortunate coincidence. If it is after, then it calls into question Hannity's judgement about his impartiality as a supposed journalist even if this was some innocent conversation over cocktails. It appears as though it was just barely professional free advice, but given Hannity's stature and the fact that Trump was in the middle of a presidential campaign, a reasonable person might say, "I probably should not engage this person in an attorney-client relationship, even if it is tempting to get free legal advice."

To me, it seems unethical on Hannity's part to have engaged Cohen after Trump's candidacy was announced. I won't strongly defend this if other people want to say it is a free country and you can do as you please, but if Hannity had been ethical, then he wouldn't have to deal with this **** storm at the moment. Usually when you act according to some minimum set of ethics, you don't have to worry about stuff like this.

Guys -- are you so clueless as to have missed Hannity explicitly jumping on the Trump boat in a real early manner?

And, sorry, no way he is 'reporter'. He is explicitly a commentator. He is no more a 'reporter' than Rush Limbaugh (or for that matter, Rachel Maddow) is.

I dont expect impartiality from any of the three mentioned above. I guess you do?

Further, whom a person uses to seek advice from makes not an iota of difference. Period. Using your logic, no media organizations should ever employ the services of Perkins Coie (you know, the DNC's go-to lawfirm). No difference whatsoever there.

Yet I would wager dollars to donuts that media of all sorts use that firm.

But, heaven's to betsy, according to Lad, how dare I bring that up. My apologies....

Hannity has a show on a major news network where he projects himself to be a journalist, so regardless of whether he has flipped flopped over the years (which he has: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...5e01f1e3), he should hold himself to a similar ethical standard.

The question isnt whether he has 'flipped or flopped' (a seemingly vapid idea that you pulled out of the ether, but apparently done so in order to wedge in a snarkfest that you feel is germane, I guess) but as a 'commentator' does he have to adhere those same supposed restrictions? Stick to the question posed, not the one you make up, please. I wold posit that Rush doesnt, nor really does Hannity. Funny when one disgrees with Hannity for some he is a self-bloviating commentator, yet at other times he is a 'respected journalist'. Really do enjoy those 'flips and flops' on that point of view.

Btw, I have always considered Hannity to to be a self-bloviating commentator, and nothing from his mouth really rises to even a modicum of the 'to take seriously' scale.

Quote:I would also expect, should a news services use the DNC's law firm, that if they ran a story or commentary on said law firm, they would disclose that they are clients of the law firm. I hear NPR do that all the time on their shows.

Assuming in arguendo that they feel they are clients, great, I share sentiments. Please feel free to overlook the commentary about 'please keep this as privileged vs. I am a client' that the situation can produce. Let me repost it, in the event you will deign a real world experience from a guy who proclaims "I am an attorney and know everything about everything" type guy as nothing more than bloviating ****....

Quote:in my experience, if I had a quarter for everytime that someone mentioned 'you're an attorney what we say is privileged' I'd be far better off. Really far better off. I'd still be really far better off even if you excluded everyone who thought that that encounter rose to the level of a 'representation'.

-----

Quote:it was not a good idea in the first place to ask for legal advice under the admitted request of having attorney-client privilege.

Again, re-quoted for you:

Quote:in my experience, if I had a quarter for everytime that someone mentioned 'you're an attorney what we say is privileged' I'd be far better off. Really far better off. I'd still be really far better off even if you excluded everyone who thought that that encounter rose to the level of a 'representation'.

But, nah, why listen to a bloviating *******. You already made that point...... But why let real world situations get in the way of the point you try to hammer home.

btw: drill down into Perkins' client list -- you would be surprised at who their media clients are; and who their 'conglomerates who own media outlets' are. You would also be surprised at how silent those media outlets are, on that subject given Perkins' rather deep prominence to the 'pee papers.'

Can't wait to see the utter outrage over that.

Or am I being too "I am lawyer I know everything about everything" for your taste here?

(04-17-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 01:58 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  A big part of the whole ordeal is also when Hannity first requested advice thus establishing the attorney-client relationship: Was it before Trump's candidacy or after? If it was before, then this is just an unfortunate coincidence. If it is after, then it calls into question Hannity's judgement about his impartiality as a supposed journalist even if this was some innocent conversation over cocktails. It appears as though it was just barely professional free advice, but given Hannity's stature and the fact that Trump was in the middle of a presidential campaign, a reasonable person might say, "I probably should not engage this person in an attorney-client relationship, even if it is tempting to get free legal advice."

To me, it seems unethical on Hannity's part to have engaged Cohen after Trump's candidacy was announced. I won't strongly defend this if other people want to say it is a free country and you can do as you please, but if Hannity had been ethical, then he wouldn't have to deal with this **** storm at the moment. Usually when you act according to some minimum set of ethics, you don't have to worry about stuff like this.

Guys -- are you so clueless as to have missed Hannity explicitly jumping on the Trump boat in a real early manner?

And, sorry, no way he is 'reporter'. He is explicitly a commentator. He is no more a 'reporter' than Rush Limbaugh (or for that matter, Rachel Maddow) is.

I dont expect impartiality from any of the three mentioned above. I guess you do?

Further, whom a person uses to seek advice from makes not an iota of difference. Period. Using your logic, no media organizations should ever employ the services of Perkins Coie (you know, the DNC's go-to lawfirm). No difference whatsoever there.

Yet I would wager dollars to donuts that media of all sorts use that firm.

But, heaven's to betsy, according to Lad, how dare I bring that up. My apologies....

Hannity has a show on a major news network where he projects himself to be a journalist, so regardless of whether he has flipped flopped over the years (which he has: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...5e01f1e3), he should hold himself to a similar ethical standard.

The question isnt whether he has 'flipped or flopped' (a seemingly vapid idea that you pulled out of the ether, but apparently done so in order to wedge in a snarkfest that you feel is germane, I guess) but as a 'commentator' does he have to adhere those same supposed restrictions? Stick to the question posed, not the one you make up, please. I wold posit that Rush doesnt, nor really does Hannity. Funny when one disgrees with Hannity for some he is a self-bloviating commentator, yet at other times he is a 'respected journalist'. Really do enjoy those 'flips and flops' on that point of view.

Btw, I have always considered Hannity to to be a self-bloviating commentator, and nothing from his mouth really rises to even a modicum of the 'to take seriously' scale.

Quote:I would also expect, should a news services use the DNC's law firm, that if they ran a story or commentary on said law firm, they would disclose that they are clients of the law firm. I hear NPR do that all the time on their shows.

Assuming in arguendo that they feel they are clients, great, I share sentiments. Please feel free to overlook the commentary about 'please keep this as privileged vs. I am a client' that the situation can produce. Let me repost it, in the event you will deign a real world experience from a guy who proclaims "I am an attorney and know everything about everything" type guy as nothing more than bloviating ****....

Quote:in my experience, if I had a quarter for everytime that someone mentioned 'you're an attorney what we say is privileged' I'd be far better off. Really far better off. I'd still be really far better off even if you excluded everyone who thought that that encounter rose to the level of a 'representation'.

-----

Quote:it was not a good idea in the first place to ask for legal advice under the admitted request of having attorney-client privilege.

Again, re-quoted for you:

Quote:in my experience, if I had a quarter for everytime that someone mentioned 'you're an attorney what we say is privileged' I'd be far better off. Really far better off. I'd still be really far better off even if you excluded everyone who thought that that encounter rose to the level of a 'representation'.

But, nah, why listen to a bloviating *******. You already made that point...... But why let real world situations get in the way of the point you try to hammer home.

Tanq, you may want to start reading my posts more clearly, and at least clicking on the links I've sent. Hannity occupies a space a bit different than Rush because he has a program on a news network. As such, he himself has described himself as both a journalist and not a journalist (see the WashPo link I posted). I did not pull that out of the ether to wedge in a snarkfest - I went to Google, did some research into Hannity himself, and found an article that spoke the labels he applies to himself.

As to the rest of your post, what you're saying doesn't jive with the legal definition of attorney-client privilege (ACP) - heck, it even states in the name that it is a privilege between an attorney and a client. So while your real world opinion results in numerous occasions where people who have asked you for your counsel under ACP and haven't paid you, it doesn't matter. Those people should have known that asking for a privilege only afforded to CLIENTS were in fact, becoming a client.

In the end, like I said, I only think what Hannity did was unethical through a journalism prism. And, based on what you're saying, if it wasn't unethical, it must have meant he was an idiot not to realize he was the client in a situation where he explicitly stated he wanted ACP.

And nice deflection about my "outrage" over this issue. First, I'm not outraged - I've repeatedly stated my opinion on the matter that was brought up, and I don't really think anything raises to the level of outrage. I literally, just as your routinely referenced Dershowitz said, believe that Hannity should have disclosed his connection and that he made a bad choice. So outrageous!!!!!

Second, I like how you seem to set the bar of having an opinion on a matter at a level that requires one to be fully informed of all topics in the matter of legal representation. I didn't bring this story up - I responded to a post on this board. Go ahead and post something about Perkins and I'll give you my opinion on that as well.

But go ahead, ignore very relevant portions of my text to play the victim card after I pointed out that you attempt to use your chosen career as a trump card against those who have a brain, a bit of logic, and a smattering of legal understanding to form an opinion. I've proven that I do understand that your experience holds weight (see the conversation about the Daniel's goon threats), but it is not the be all, end all.

(04-17-2018 04:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've proven that I do understand that your experience holds weight (see the conversation about the Daniel's goon threats), but it is not the be all, end all.

Dude, that had to be crammed down your throat like a bad tuna salad sandwich that had sat in a 90 degree day for 8 hours, and by at least one, maybe two others. And over the better course of a day, mind you. Glad you brought that incident up.

As to the meat of your post, I am glad that everyone in the friggin world should consider themselves a client of mine, in all respects, when they ask for advice over the proverbial 'can you keep this quiet' proviso. Hate to tell you in the real world, while I do, they dont. Not even close to a majority in that scenario.

So please opine and preach to us lowly real-worlders how the world *really* works, it is especially appealing from the eyes of a twenty-something year old that has never even touched his/her toe into the meat of the subject. And you have the temerity to opine "it is getting thick" as I supposedly continuously, apparently on every subject mind you, comment that "I am a lawyer therefore I know everything about everything". Now that is somewhat richly ironic in my book.... wouldnt you agree?

But glad to know your deep thoughts on where you think the entire world stands as a realistic matter on this issue of everyone understanding where they are a client or not, especially in the context of informal conversations.... Got it! I do understand the truly theoretical world that you seemingly subscribe to on the matter. And it makes sense in that frame. Real-world -- it is a simply stupid statement.

And, before I really get anywhere near into a David Hogg type comparison here, yes Lad, I do know quite a bit about the legal world. And to be absolutely fing blunt, in that world I probably do hold a significant advantage over the un-, sloppily- ,and mis-informed.

To equate that to your comment "I am a lawyer therefore I know everything about everything", well in the legal aspects I do have a hand up. As to "everything about everything" aspect, far from it. And it is that portion that I have told you to GFY.

Quote:Those people should have known that asking for a privilege only afforded to CLIENTS were in fact, becoming a client.

I suggest you get a law degree, pass a fing bar or two, then go to a cocktail party or two and give us a report card back. The vast majority dont understand that issue.

As for your comment that the ACP is afforded *only* to clients, well my little misinformed friend, you are absolutely dead wrong.

Anything that is said by any 'prospective' client is covered, whether or not they become a client.

Again, too bad the real world intrudes upon a supposed 'fact' there. There is a disparity again between the numbers of people afforded the ACP and those that are represented, or clients. I suggest you try another issue and/or fact, since you obviously just made this one up on the fly.

(04-17-2018 05:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 04:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've proven that I do understand that your experience holds weight (see the conversation about the Daniel's goon threats), but it is not the be all, end all.

Dude, that had to be crammed down your throat like a bad tuna salad sandwich that had sat in a 90 degree day for 8 hours, and by at least one, maybe two others. And over the better course of a day, mind you. Glad you brought that incident up.

As to the meat of your post, I am glad that everyone in the friggin world should consider themselves a client of mine, in all respects, when they ask for advice over the proverbial 'can you keep this quiet' proviso. Hate to tell you in the real world, while I do, they dont. Not even close to a majority in that scenario.

But glad to know your deep thoughts on where you think the world stands on this understanding.... Got it!

Yes, it did take a compelling explanation, as opposed to the "trust me, I'm a lawyer" schtict. Shocking!

If the entire world explicitly states they want ACP like Hannity did and don't think they are the client in that relationship, they are absolute idiots. What role do they think they play in the ACP arrangement, the attorney?

But regardless, what is your point really - your thesis? That Hannity is such an idiot that he didn't understand he was the client in the ACP and therefore he didn't have any ethical obligation when commenting on Cohen to disclose the relationship?

(04-17-2018 05:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 04:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've proven that I do understand that your experience holds weight (see the conversation about the Daniel's goon threats), but it is not the be all, end all.

Dude, that had to be crammed down your throat like a bad tuna salad sandwich that had sat in a 90 degree day for 8 hours, and by at least one, maybe two others. And over the better course of a day, mind you. Glad you brought that incident up.

As to the meat of your post, I am glad that everyone in the friggin world should consider themselves a client of mine, in all respects, when they ask for advice over the proverbial 'can you keep this quiet' proviso. Hate to tell you in the real world, while I do, they dont. Not even close to a majority in that scenario.

But glad to know your deep thoughts on where you think the world stands on this understanding.... Got it!

And, before I really get into a David Hogg type comparison here, yes Lad, I do know quite a bit about the legal world. And to be absolutely fing blunt, in that world I probably do hold a significant advantage over the un- sloppily- and mis-informed.

To equate that to your comment "I am a lawyer therefore I know everything about everything", well in the legal aspects I do have a hand up. As to "everything about everything" aspect, far from it. And it is that portion that I have told you to GFY.

To your edit - I've never said you don't have a hand up. I've admitted as much. Do I need to keep reposting the same quote where I explicitly state that?

But recently, when talking about situations that just involve the law in a general sense, and not the carrying out of the law or legal complexities, you've attempted to use your hand up as a trump card that shuts down a conversation that does not really deal with legal minutiae. I mean, congrats that you've had countless people take your counsel and not view themselves as a client - that's their mistake and their misunderstanding of the situation.

Does that mean my opinion on the matter, and how Hannity handled the situation, is worthless? I don't think so because it doesn't deal in the minutiae of the law. In reality, at this point, all we're differing in is apparently how stupid people are when they don't understand that explicitly asking for ACP logically results in a party being the attorney and another being the client.

(04-17-2018 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does that mean my opinion on the matter, and how Hannity handled the situation, is worthless? I don't think so because it doesn't deal in the minutiae of the law. In reality, at this point, all we're differing in is apparently how stupid people are when they don't understand that explicitly asking for ACP logically results in a party being the attorney and another being the client.

First this edit to my previous post:

Quote:I suggest you get a law degree, pass a fing bar or two, then go to a cocktail party or two and give us a report card back. The vast majority dont understand that issue.

Followed by another tidbit:

Quote:As for your comment that the ACP is afforded *only* to clients, well my little misinformed friend, you are absolutely dead wrong.

Anything that is said by any 'prospective' client is covered, whether or not they become a client.

Again, too bad the real world intrudes upon a supposed 'fact' there. There is a disparity again between the numbers of people afforded the ACP and those that are represented, or clients. I suggest you try another issue and/or fact, since you obviously just made this one up on the fly.

Hell, dont believe the above statement about the ACP covering not *just* clients. Your bolded statement must obviously be correct. In contravention of every state's canon of ethics as well, mind you. But please opine as the self-annointed expert on this, why dont you. But, what the f--k do I know. I am just an attorney. I obviously am fing clueless on ACP. Bummer.

Lad, I really hope you look **** up before making statements like the bolded again, tbh.

If I didn't know better, I'd think some of you guys like to argue just to argue....

(04-17-2018 06:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does that mean my opinion on the matter, and how Hannity handled the situation, is worthless? I don't think so because it doesn't deal in the minutiae of the law. In reality, at this point, all we're differing in is apparently how stupid people are when they don't understand that explicitly asking for ACP logically results in a party being the attorney and another being the client.

First this edit to my previous post:

Quote:I suggest you get a law degree, pass a fing bar or two, then go to a cocktail party or two and give us a report card back. The vast majority dont understand that issue.

Followed by another tidbit:

Quote:As for your comment that the ACP is afforded *only* to clients, well my little misinformed friend, you are absolutely dead wrong.

Anything that is said by any 'prospective' client is covered, whether or not they become a client.

Again, too bad the real world intrudes upon a supposed 'fact' there. There is a disparity again between the numbers of people afforded the ACP and those that are represented, or clients. I suggest you try another issue and/or fact, since you obviously just made this one up on the fly.

Hell, dont believe the above statement about the ACP covering not *just* clients. Your bolded statement must obviously be correct. In contravention of every state's canon of ethics as well, mind you. But please opine as the self-annointed expert on this, why dont you. But, what the f--k do I know. I am just an attorney. I obviously am fing clueless on ACP. Bummer.

Lad, I really hope you look **** up before making statements like the bolded again, tbh.

Tanq - I think you are completely misunderstanding how I am using the word client here. I actually had looked up ACP to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding it.

I read through both of these websites first:

http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/916/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney..._privilege

I think you are taking my statements and assuming I am only referring to people who are paying for a service - I was not. I was using client in the broad sense, as described in my readings. Quoting the first link about:

Quote:An express contract is not necessary to form an attorney-client relationship; the relationship may be implied from the conduct of the parties. However, the relationship cannot exist unilaterally in the mind of the potential client absent a “reasonable belief” that the attorney-client relationship exists. The implied relationship may be evidenced by several factors, including, but not limited to, the circumstances of the conversation, the payment of fees to an attorney, the degree of sophistication of the would-be client, the request for and receipt of legal advice, and the history of legal representation between the alleged client and the practitioner. While this list of factors is illustrative, none of these factors, standing alone, will affirmatively establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship.

Anyone (client) who literally says to a lawyer, that the information they are about to discuss is subject to ACP HAS to know that they are the client in that case. In this, case, they are acknowledging that they are entering into an ACP situation by explicitly asking for that relationship to exist! How can you argue against that???

Tanq, if you only respond to one thing in this post, please let it be the question about how in the world you would justify someone EXPLICITLY asking a lawyer to discuss legal matters under the premise of Attorney Client Privilege, not understanding they were the client in that scenario. How? This is not a situation where they are just chatting about legal matters as OO earlier suggested - this involves someone EXPLICITLY requesting the privileges of a client.

(04-17-2018 06:20 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  If I didn't know better, I'd think some of you guys like to argue just to argue....

I don't know about that...



edit: but good point, thanks for that.

(04-17-2018 05:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 05:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 04:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've proven that I do understand that your experience holds weight (see the conversation about the Daniel's goon threats), but it is not the be all, end all.

Dude, that had to be crammed down your throat like a bad tuna salad sandwich that had sat in a 90 degree day for 8 hours, and by at least one, maybe two others. And over the better course of a day, mind you. Glad you brought that incident up.

As to the meat of your post, I am glad that everyone in the friggin world should consider themselves a client of mine, in all respects, when they ask for advice over the proverbial 'can you keep this quiet' proviso. Hate to tell you in the real world, while I do, they dont. Not even close to a majority in that scenario.

But glad to know your deep thoughts on where you think the world stands on this understanding.... Got it!

Yes, it did take a compelling explanation, as opposed to the "trust me, I'm a lawyer" schtict. Shocking!

Amazing. My original comment was found to be true. Utterly unbelievable. My 'Im a lawyer and I know this ****' was fundamentally true. In-fking amazing!

But I guess that's a fairly accurate portrayal of my 'Im a lawyer and I know the legal aspect' schtick portrayed against your 'Im wet behind the ears, dont know **** from shinola in the legal world, and really really really wanting to believe that Cohen's statements indicate he physically threatens opposition all the time without impunity' schtick, eh?

(04-17-2018 06:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 06:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does that mean my opinion on the matter, and how Hannity handled the situation, is worthless? I don't think so because it doesn't deal in the minutiae of the law. In reality, at this point, all we're differing in is apparently how stupid people are when they don't understand that explicitly asking for ACP logically results in a party being the attorney and another being the client.

First this edit to my previous post:

Quote:I suggest you get a law degree, pass a fing bar or two, then go to a cocktail party or two and give us a report card back. The vast majority dont understand that issue.

Followed by another tidbit:

Quote:As for your comment that the ACP is afforded *only* to clients, well my little misinformed friend, you are absolutely dead wrong.

Anything that is said by any 'prospective' client is covered, whether or not they become a client.

Again, too bad the real world intrudes upon a supposed 'fact' there. There is a disparity again between the numbers of people afforded the ACP and those that are represented, or clients. I suggest you try another issue and/or fact, since you obviously just made this one up on the fly.

Hell, dont believe the above statement about the ACP covering not *just* clients. Your bolded statement must obviously be correct. In contravention of every state's canon of ethics as well, mind you. But please opine as the self-annointed expert on this, why dont you. But, what the f--k do I know. I am just an attorney. I obviously am fing clueless on ACP. Bummer.

Lad, I really hope you look **** up before making statements like the bolded again, tbh.

Tanq - I think you are completely misunderstanding how I am using the word client here. I actually had looked up ACP to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding it.

I read through both of these websites first:

http://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/916/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney..._privilege

I think you are taking my statements and assuming I am only referring to people who are paying for a service - I was not. I was using client in the broad sense, as described in my readings. Quoting the first link about:

Quote:An express contract is not necessary to form an attorney-client relationship; the relationship may be implied from the conduct of the parties. However, the relationship cannot exist unilaterally in the mind of the potential client absent a “reasonable belief” that the attorney-client relationship exists. The implied relationship may be evidenced by several factors, including, but not limited to, the circumstances of the conversation, the payment of fees to an attorney, the degree of sophistication of the would-be client, the request for and receipt of legal advice, and the history of legal representation between the alleged client and the practitioner. While this list of factors is illustrative, none of these factors, standing alone, will affirmatively establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship.

Anyone (client) who literally says to a lawyer, that the information they are about to discuss is subject to ACP HAS to know that they are the client in that case. In this, case, they are acknowledging that they are entering into an ACP situation by explicitly asking for that relationship to exist! How can you argue against that???

Tanq, if you only respond to one thing in this post, please let it be the question about how in the world you would justify someone EXPLICITLY asking a lawyer to discuss legal matters under the premise of Attorney Client Privilege, not understanding they were the client in that scenario. How? This is not a situation where they are just chatting about legal matters as OO earlier suggested - this involves someone EXPLICITLY requesting the privileges of a client.

Lad, all this dumf--k attorney knows is a couple of things.

If someone is a prospective client and tells me **** -- ACP applies. They may not understand it applies. They are not afforded many of the other major tenets of a client.

If someone asks me for more than generic feel-good broad based, will get a failing answer on the bar exam -- ACP applies. They may not understand it applies. They are not afforded many of the other major tenets of a client.

If a friend asks me over a cocktail a fact specific question, leading with "hey privilege applies" -- ACP applies. They may not understand it, as it is said 'as friends can you tell me', but it does. But they are not a client afforded all the benefits under the ethics regime (i.e. I have no obligation to 'represent zealously')

If a guy says "I want to hire you" for this matter and he, in fact does -- ACP and full client luxuries afforded under the ethics code are in force.

If a current client talks to you about any legal matter -- same as above.

Many times ACP applies, but they are not clients. Black and white first year legal ethics, Lad.

The best example of ACP applying *even* to a non-client is this: if ACP did not apply to *potential* clients, even if turned down from representation, then the attorney could use the facts gleaned in the interview of the potential to their advantage.

Or, in the case of a criminal defendant, the state could subpoeana every single attorney with who, they had interviewed to glean facts.

In order to determine if one *can* or *should* represent a person, that requires that the person be able to tell all of the facts without danger of prejudice to themselves.

It is easy-peasy for the ACP to apply even when they are not a client. Also easy-peasy for it to apply when they dont realize that they may *be* a client.

Given that amazingly wide range of situations (and there are for more), neither Hannity's comments, nor Cohen's comments or testimony, nor both when looked at in tandem create a weird unsoluble juxtaposition for me.

Leave it to then media to create one, though...

And, as I said, I suggest you get a JD, pass a bar or two, and go to any cocktail party. The answer to your 'unsoluble' puzzle above would be plain as day. It fits closest to the friend in the bar. It is said in ignorant jest. And, to be blunt, I wouldnt stop Hannity from being one of those people in the ignorant jest category. The group makes up probably about 2/3 of the population in general. People ask for elgal advice all the time, they ask for 'youre an attorney so privilege, right'? all the time, but almost no one in that scenario believes an attorney-client relationship has been established. Nor do the requestors typically believe that that situation exists.

Lad, when you go to a party and meet a doctor, and you ask him a medical question, do you actually believe a doctor/patient relationship has been created? If you ask him 'can you keep this under your hat', do you actually believe that a formal doctor privilege has been created?

What you dont seem to realize is that the ACP can exist (or asserted by a party, and a good lawyer will always err on the side of asserting) even without the existence of a attorney/client relationship. As in the 'prospective' client example, no attorney/client relationship exists, existed, or will exist. Yet ACP applies to the prospective interview.

Yeah, you made a massively incorrect assumption about my definition of client, and based on the links I provided, the definition in this case. I am aware that’s client doesn’t mean someone being represented in this case.

(04-17-2018 07:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yeah, you made a massively incorrect assumption about my definition of client, and based on the links I provided, the definition in this case. I am aware that’s client doesn’t mean someone being represented in this case.

Actually you made several bad assumptions as well.

First, to make attorney/client privilege equivalent with having attorney/client relationship. Your quote only applies to the attorney/client relationship, not to whether ACP applies. If you have the relationship, the privilege applies. Not all privilege holders enjoy an attorney/client relationship.

Second, you were seemingly unaware that if there is a question at all in the attorney's mind, the privilege should be asserted.

Third, it is far easier for the attorney to assert the privilege if the person is a client. Thus, it is very easy for Cohen to assert that about Hannity. Even if Hannity does not believe he is a client.

Fourth, most people think the only relatioship is established *if* there is payment. Look at Hannity's statement -- he predicates the denial at least partly on 'no payment'. Whether there is a relationship or not, or whether ACP exists or not, is in no way predicated solely on payment.

*That* is why the cocktail party advice seekers really do not think privilege applies -- they think they havent crossed that Rubicon yet. I have a built in defense -- being a dumfuck I just forget the conversation after the next drink in that situation, and also with the friend's advice situation.

And lastly, a good attorney will inform someone in the 'nether region' that they are being compelled to 'out them' as either having privilege or as a client. And 99 times out of a 100 in that 'weird border' case they will make the exact same comment that Hannity made -- I expected our conversations to be held in confidence, but I was never a client. And legally speaking that is not a conflicting view, in the slightest.

There is no smoking gun here, no wild ass thing to pursue. It is a big nothing-burger.

And I'm fing tired and going to go get a drink and finish up some real work.

Edited to add: And as final note, the Cornell online definition is legally fundamentally misleading as it limits the scope of the privilege specifically to 'clients'. Established ethics precedents in every jurisdiction expand the ACP to well beyond clients. And, to be honest the term 'client' in the legal world of ethics means specifically 'somebody who enjoys all the benefits of the attorney accorded under the ethics statutes.' In that vein, without the proper knowledge of those precedents, most confidentiality provisions are facially misleading.

ACP can and is afforded all the time and very explicitly to non-clients, as was explained to you earlier. There is no way to shoehorn the term 'client' to 'clients and non-clients who tell you stuff in the course of an interview.' But then again I am a literalist a-hole who hates the idea of 'living definitions' with a passion.

And when using the term client, is no dual definition of a client when it comes down to the actual relationship. No ifs, ands, or buts.

(04-17-2018 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I suspect it is more Hannity needing some legal nuances explained to him, so that he can address them on air, and Cohen was convenient.

I would presume good journalists would make sure they had the facts straight before they went on the air with an opinion. You know, like CNN.

If I were a journalist, and wanted to opine on (for example) attorney-client privilege, I might ask Tanqtonic for a primer before I went on air. Doesn't mean I committed a crime, or raped a woman, or needed to pay off a Russian or two.

Just a couple of months ago, i went to an attorney for advice, and got it. Had nothing to do with being a sleaze.

But would you hire Tanq and claim attorney-client privilege for that encounter? An encounter that is not offering legal advice to you, but really consulting services. If that was the case, Fox would have likely paid the legal fees for Cohen's consulting services.

Now that Hannity is denying even having Cohen as his lawyer, despite Cohen and Cohen's lawyer saying that he was a client, and one who didn't want to be named, seems really odd. If it was just a primer on subject matter, they really screwed the pooch by not being forthright from the start.

And OO, when you went to the attorney for advice, was it on a legal matter you were personally involved with? Or was it to get a primer on a legal matter you weren't personally involved with? You're spot on that having an attorney and discussing legal issues with them is not an immediate admission of anything - be that guilt, sleaze, or perfect innocence.

Pipeline being sold and they wanted a release of liability. I wanted advice on whether I should sign off or not.

I am think more that Cohen/Hannity happened to be at the same place at the same time (NOT the Russian Embassy) and Hannity asked for a clarification of some issues, the same we have been getting clarification form Tanq for weeks here.

Sometimes, if I need clarification of the law, I ask a lawyer. If I can do this in a hallway or at a party, so much the better, as I can maybe get away without paying for it.

Sometimes, If I see my dentist at Wal-mart, I tell him about my toothache. he always wants me to come in.

Some with my doctor.

And lad, I presume you are an engineer, so it would be the same if I needed a definition of some sort in engineering.

I appreciate all the people here who help out with expertise they may have, and all without sending a bill.

Are any of you a septic tank guy? I need some advice.

(04-17-2018 08:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I suspect it is more Hannity needing some legal nuances explained to him, so that he can address them on air, and Cohen was convenient.

I would presume good journalists would make sure they had the facts straight before they went on the air with an opinion. You know, like CNN.

If I were a journalist, and wanted to opine on (for example) attorney-client privilege, I might ask Tanqtonic for a primer before I went on air. Doesn't mean I committed a crime, or raped a woman, or needed to pay off a Russian or two.

Just a couple of months ago, i went to an attorney for advice, and got it. Had nothing to do with being a sleaze.

But would you hire Tanq and claim attorney-client privilege for that encounter? An encounter that is not offering legal advice to you, but really consulting services. If that was the case, Fox would have likely paid the legal fees for Cohen's consulting services.

Now that Hannity is denying even having Cohen as his lawyer, despite Cohen and Cohen's lawyer saying that he was a client, and one who didn't want to be named, seems really odd. If it was just a primer on subject matter, they really screwed the pooch by not being forthright from the start.

And OO, when you went to the attorney for advice, was it on a legal matter you were personally involved with? Or was it to get a primer on a legal matter you weren't personally involved with? You're spot on that having an attorney and discussing legal issues with them is not an immediate admission of anything - be that guilt, sleaze, or perfect innocence.

Pipeline being sold and they wanted a release of liability. I wanted advice on whether I should sign off or not.

I am think more that Cohen/Hannity happened to be at the same place at the same time (NOT the Russian Embassy) and Hannity asked for a clarification of some issues, the same we have been getting clarification form Tanq for weeks here.

Sometimes, if I need clarification of the law, I ask a lawyer. If I can do this in a hallway or at a party, so much the better, as I can maybe get away without paying for it.

Sometimes, If I see my dentist at Wal-mart, I tell him about my toothache. he always wants me to come in.

Some with my doctor.

And lad, I presume you are an engineer, so it would be the same if I needed a definition of some sort in engineering.

I appreciate all the people here who help out with expertise they may have, and all without sending a bill.

Are any of you a septic tank guy? I need some advice.

Hannity has said that he asked Cohen for legal advice with regards to real estate and explicitly asked that ACP be given.

So in your other examples, how often would you ask an engineer, or a dentist, or any other random professional for advice and then expect them to protect that conversation from potential legal action. Ever? Maybe if you were talking to a doctor and it is covered by HIPA.

You're focusing far too much on the money exchanging hands - as Tanq helped me explain - being a client in the sense of being on the receiving end of ACP doesn't require money to change hand. In the case of Hannity, that is what happened. Hannity explicitly asked that his conversations to be protected under ACP, even though money wasn't changing hands. He says he knowingly entered into an agreement in which he would be a part of ACP, ergo, a client to Cohen.

Again, that isn't the issue, nothing legally wrong with going to Cohen for advice. But someone who is in such a public position and working in the news industry, should be smarter and disclose that type of information when explicitly reporting or offering opinion on him.

(04-17-2018 09:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hannity has said that he asked Cohen for legal advice with regards to real estate and explicitly asked that ACP be given.
So in your other examples, how often would you ask an engineer, or a dentist, or any other random professional for advice and then expect them to protect that conversation from potential legal action. Ever? Maybe if you were talking to a doctor and it is covered by HIPA.

In at least some of your cases, never. I'm not aware of any engineer-client privilege, for example. It's HIPAA, by the way, and it probably would make most conversations with a medical doctor or dentist privileged.

Quote:You're focusing far too much on the money exchanging hands - as Tanq helped me explain - being a client in the sense of being on the receiving end of ACP doesn't require money to change hand. In the case of Hannity, that is what happened. Hannity explicitly asked that his conversations to be protected under ACP, even though money wasn't changing hands. He says he knowingly entered into an agreement in which he would be a part of ACP, ergo, a client to Cohen.
Again, that isn't the issue, nothing legally wrong with going to Cohen for advice. But someone who is in such a public position and working in the news industry, should be smarter and disclose that type of information when explicitly reporting or offering opinion on him.

I'm no fan of Hannity. I don't think anyone who has made the bucks that he's made is an idiot, but he plays one on radio and TV. That being said, I'm really having a hard time understanding the outrage here.

(04-17-2018 09:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 08:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I suspect it is more Hannity needing some legal nuances explained to him, so that he can address them on air, and Cohen was convenient.

I would presume good journalists would make sure they had the facts straight before they went on the air with an opinion. You know, like CNN.

If I were a journalist, and wanted to opine on (for example) attorney-client privilege, I might ask Tanqtonic for a primer before I went on air. Doesn't mean I committed a crime, or raped a woman, or needed to pay off a Russian or two.

Just a couple of months ago, i went to an attorney for advice, and got it. Had nothing to do with being a sleaze.

But would you hire Tanq and claim attorney-client privilege for that encounter? An encounter that is not offering legal advice to you, but really consulting services. If that was the case, Fox would have likely paid the legal fees for Cohen's consulting services.

Now that Hannity is denying even having Cohen as his lawyer, despite Cohen and Cohen's lawyer saying that he was a client, and one who didn't want to be named, seems really odd. If it was just a primer on subject matter, they really screwed the pooch by not being forthright from the start.

And OO, when you went to the attorney for advice, was it on a legal matter you were personally involved with? Or was it to get a primer on a legal matter you weren't personally involved with? You're spot on that having an attorney and discussing legal issues with them is not an immediate admission of anything - be that guilt, sleaze, or perfect innocence.

Pipeline being sold and they wanted a release of liability. I wanted advice on whether I should sign off or not.

I am think more that Cohen/Hannity happened to be at the same place at the same time (NOT the Russian Embassy) and Hannity asked for a clarification of some issues, the same we have been getting clarification form Tanq for weeks here.

Sometimes, if I need clarification of the law, I ask a lawyer. If I can do this in a hallway or at a party, so much the better, as I can maybe get away without paying for it.

Sometimes, If I see my dentist at Wal-mart, I tell him about my toothache. he always wants me to come in.

Some with my doctor.

And lad, I presume you are an engineer, so it would be the same if I needed a definition of some sort in engineering.

I appreciate all the people here who help out with expertise they may have, and all without sending a bill.

Are any of you a septic tank guy? I need some advice.

Hannity has said that he asked Cohen for legal advice with regards to real estate and explicitly asked that ACP be given.

So in your other examples, how often would you ask an engineer, or a dentist, or any other random professional for advice and then expect them to protect that conversation from potential legal action. Ever? Maybe if you were talking to a doctor and it is covered by HIPA.

You're focusing far too much on the money exchanging hands - as Tanq helped me explain - being a client in the sense of being on the receiving end of ACP doesn't require money to change hand. In the case of Hannity, that is what happened. Hannity explicitly asked that his conversations to be protected under ACP, even though money wasn't changing hands. He says he knowingly entered into an agreement in which he would be a part of ACP, ergo, a client to Cohen.

Again, that isn't the issue, nothing legally wrong with going to Cohen for advice. But someone who is in such a public position and working in the news industry, should be smarter and disclose that type of information when explicitly reporting or offering opinion on him.

I'm focusing far too much on he money? What money?

Are you now my therapist?

If so, please stop diagnosing me in public.

Just a feeling, but I think if this was Rachel Maddow, we would each be taking the other side.

In any case, from what i understand, this whole thing is just so Mueller and his proxies can root through Cohen's files, searching for gold. No specific crime in mind, just anything will do. I wish he and his w/could just look for evidence of collusion with the Russians,the job they were charged with, but instead it seems they just want as many indictments as possible.

Tell me again, why is all this important?

(04-17-2018 09:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 09:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hannity has said that he asked Cohen for legal advice with regards to real estate and explicitly asked that ACP be given.
So in your other examples, how often would you ask an engineer, or a dentist, or any other random professional for advice and then expect them to protect that conversation from potential legal action. Ever? Maybe if you were talking to a doctor and it is covered by HIPA.

In at least some of your cases, never. I'm not aware of any engineer-client privilege, for example. It's HIPAA, by the way, and it probably would make most conversations with a medical doctor or dentist privileged.

Quote:You're focusing far too much on the money exchanging hands - as Tanq helped me explain - being a client in the sense of being on the receiving end of ACP doesn't require money to change hand. In the case of Hannity, that is what happened. Hannity explicitly asked that his conversations to be protected under ACP, even though money wasn't changing hands. He says he knowingly entered into an agreement in which he would be a part of ACP, ergo, a client to Cohen.
Again, that isn't the issue, nothing legally wrong with going to Cohen for advice. But someone who is in such a public position and working in the news industry, should be smarter and disclose that type of information when explicitly reporting or offering opinion on him.

I'm no fan of Hannity. I don't think anyone who has made the bucks that he's made is an idiot, but he plays one on radio and TV. That being said, I'm really having a hard time understanding the outrage here.

Typo in HIPAA there - I appreciate the correction.

And the "outrage" (I don't really see outrage, but I do see people criticizing Hannity
- some more so than others) is because Hannity portrays himself as a news anchor at best, or at worst, is an opinion "writer" on a news station. Because he is involved with journalism in one way or another, through his association with Fox, he should have an ethical obligation to inform his viewers of his relationship with Cohen, when he is reporting or giving his opinion on Cohen.

That's how it works in the news, and you can find a multitude of articles citing ethics and journalism professionals stating as much. I remember you responding to me about conflicts of interests with regards to McCabe and that if you even think there might be one, then you act on it. Hannity should have acted on it and disclosed his relationship when discussing Cohen on his show.