(03-26-2018 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Threatening physical violence is at least a high misdemeanor, sometimes a felony. Period. Don't try to squeeze that into 'posturing'. The same action coupled with the 'or else settle' is felony extortion. Period.

One *could* posture in this manner, but that would be screwing the hell out of the client (and any career) if one does so.

If one wants a fast track to disbarment on the pronto highway, this would be a picture perfect way to do it. For multiples of ethical violations and bar violations.

To the latter, doesn't Cohen's admitted action of paying the NDA settlement out of his own pocket risk his disbarment? My understanding is that him paying Daniels for Trump would be a clear ethics violation and would be a fast-track to disbarment. So if, based on his own admissions, he is willing to do something that would result in him being disbarred, why would the risk of disbarment deter him from other actions (e.g. being involved in the threats to Daniels)? Now, the question (which I asked earlier), is why he would have said he did this, and not taken another route.

And, I get the point y'all are trying to make about not using the language in the email to the Newsweek journalist to indict Cohen for the accusation leveled by Daniel's. I was unaware of just how far some lawyers were willing to go when threatening people to do what they wanted, and that the threat of physical violence is such a red line that you wouldn't use threats like what Cohen made as evidence that someone was willing to go further.

There is a slight risk.

The actual rule is Rule 1.8 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that “While representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client.”

There has to be a complaint filed, by a person with interest. Tell me who would qualify to file that complaint?

Further, the specific terminology is 'advance'. If I make a payment on behalf of a client, with *no* expectation of payback, that is, by definition, not an 'advance'.

If he was paid by Trump previously, then the passthrough doesnt meet the criteria either.

The rule is put into place specifically to keep an attorney from having an undue leverage over the client on a matter. I utterly fail to see where this in any way would be applicable here.

It just doesnt seem to meet either the wording, or the intent, of the rule to me. I dont see this as anywhere near a "clear" ethics violation in the slightest, let alone an ethics violation in the most general sense.

And he would have to do it because of the Canon of Ethics and the attorney duty to keep confidences, he cannot even identify Trump as a client in the matter. Let alone that any identification of Trump would breach the NDA itself since the NDA states that the parties cannot even admit they are parties to the agreement, let alone that they know of its existence.