(04-20-2018 12:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My thesis is actually summarized really well in that source. I am one who argues that you become a "client" of an attorney, at least for the purpose of obtaining privilege, as soon as you talk to an attorney about your case and regardless of whether you retain him or pay him/her.

From the perspective of the lawyer, under the ABA Canons of Ethics, it is my understanding that even an off-hand conversation can create some presumption of privilege. That seems to be the rule you are following.

But, does that same off-hand conversation create a need for disclosure by a journalist? I'm not familiar with the ethical requirements for that profession (and would have guessed from the conduct I have observed that there are none), so perhaps you or someone could indicate where the line is drawn on that side.

My point, and I think at least part of Tanq's, is that "client" is not a term with a single definition that fits all contexts. There are entirely plausible fact situations where a lawyer would be required to observe certain privileges, but where no client relationship within any commonly accepted definition would exist. Off what limited amount I've read and heard, this situation would clearly fall within that area.

I agree about your statement about client having multiple definitions, depending on the context (and I haven't refutred that). And I also agree that there are situations where an attorney would view someone as a "client" and that view would not be reciprocated.

But I disagree with you on the situation clearly falling into that category because of the fact that Hannity has said he explicitly asked for ACP. I view that as an acknowledgement by Hannity that he recognizes that he now is viewed as one of those definitions "client" because he requested the privilege.

Actually you are again mixing and matching 'client'.

Most people are clueless as to the broadest and weakest definition that you want to use; I can point to hundreds (if not more) cases of people asking for ACP (even away from a social setting, like a in a lawyer's office), and the conversation about representation took place. And yes, that utterly large definition of 'client' forms re: Canon of Ethics on privilege.

Next day, the putative client says 'no way, dont want you as the attorney'. Most normal people who are not 'schooled' in the nuances of attorney ethics will broadly proclaim that 'Tanq didnt and does not represent me'. In their subjective mind, the deeper representation version of client controls their outlook of what a 'client' is.

I mean, you are hanging your hat on that someone not versed in legal matters whatsoever has full control and grasp of the nuances of the Attorney Canon of Ethics to make your case. Do you not understand how far you are stretching here?

Quote:Now, perhaps he misunderstood that, but when he was informed by Cohen's attorney that he was considered a client by Cohen (as Cohen's attorney said he contacted Hannity and Hannity requested anonymity), Hannity should have made that status public due to the numerous times he had reported on Cohen during the period he was a "client" to Cohen.

The only defense here is that, as Tanq has mentioned, Hannity did not believe that his actions elevated him to the status of a client of Cohen's. But ignorance only goes so far, and I don't believe it goes far enough in this case. Again, no legal issues, but Hannity should have, and could have, done the more ethical thing and disclosed the relationship (especially after Cohen's lawyer contacted him), but he didn't. Now, if it comes out that Hannity informed Fox at that point and they said that he did not need to disclose that information to the public, then I lay the blame at Fox's leadership for not handling it correctly.

I will agree that once the nuances were explained to him, then he should have disclosed. I cannot agree to anytime before, as I just do not believe that Hannity is a fing legal scholar on the nuances of the application of what a client is relating to the accordance of ACP.

I mean, there are bright people here and it has taken fing scores of posts over several days and arguments to explain to a layperson in anywhere near a coherent manner that the term 'client' is and has different meanings dependent upon the circumstances. And literally changes upon the subjective belief of either party in some cases. And somehow you expect a dull tool like Hannity to grasp that even before sitting down?

Cmon man.... that is a wildly unrealistic expectation even for a great deal of sophisticated consumers of legal services, even more so for someone that Hannity appears to be.