Michael Cohen's mystery third client is Sean Hannity

[DB]

@DB
Generally lawyers give you a free meeting.  You don't sign anything unless you hire them.  That meeting is considered privlidged.

I don't spend hannity money on lawyers either.

Do lawyers generally consider the person they give the free meeting to and nothing more a client? I doubt it.

My understanding is the "free meeting" is to determine if the lawyer wants to represent you and if you want the lawyer to represent you. When you both agree you become a client - with billing to follow. It is similar to the "free estimate" before you agree to purchase something.

[ABX]

All of this back and forth doesn't matter. No matter what you think of Hannity, he is a private citizen not under investigation himself.

[240B]

Apparently the Left, meaning 'the system', is claiming that Cohen is not a real attorney with attorney/client confidentiality because he only has one client, President Trump. Why this make any difference, how they came to this conclusion has not been explained.

So then Cohen said, 'I have more than one client.' The court ordered him to release his client list and he blurted out 'Hannity'. That is how all of this came about.

[DB]

Apparently the Left, meaning 'the system', is claiming that Cohen is not a real attorney with attorney/client confidentiality because he only has one client, President Trump. Why this make any difference, how they came to this conclusion has not been explained.

So then Cohen said, 'I have more than one client.' The court ordered him to release his client list and he blurted out 'Hannity'. That is how all of this came about.

Cohen isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer...

[driftdiver]

Do lawyers generally consider the person they give the free meeting to and nothing more a client? I doubt it.

My understanding is the "free meeting" is to determine if the lawyer wants to represent you and if you want the lawyer to represent you. When you both agree you become a client - with billing to follow. It is similar to the "free estimate" before you agree to purchase something.

@DB

And to make that decision you have to tell them what's going on.  Now I realize I don't spend Hannity money on lawyers.  My main one is about 375 an hour but I had a 1000 an hour one tell me it was priviledged.

[DB]

@DB

And to make that decision you have to tell them what's going on.  Now I realize I don't spend Hannity money on lawyers.  My main one is about 375 an hour but I had a 1000 an hour one tell me it was priviledged.

Based on that has been said, I doubt Hannity was a client in any form. Just something Cohen said to indicate he wasn't a one client lawyer (as mentioned above by 240B). For a lawyer he seems pretty loose with the facts and that could get him in a lot of trouble when looked at under a microscope.

[corbe]

   I'm kinda surprised El Rushbo's name didn't come up since he's been married something like 37 times, Family Values, hell yaaaa!.

[Free Vulcan]

In Iowa, any convo you have with a lawyer on a legal matter will be considered privileged, paid or not. Reveal it and you will be disciplined if not disbarred. The mere act of conveying legal info back and forth automatically falls under the attorney-client relationship.

[edpc]

Based on that has been said, I doubt Hannity was a client in any form. Just something Cohen said to indicate he wasn't a one client lawyer (as mentioned above by 240B). For a lawyer he seems pretty loose with the facts and that could get him in a lot of trouble when looked at under a microscope.

Well, the statement Cohen made was in court.  Apparently, he either thinks Hannity is a client or he's being exceedingly cautious.  We know Cohen has been Trump's attorney for a decade.  In all that time, he's had three clients - Trump, Broidy, and Hannity.  We know he's written two NDAs.  We know FOX has been rife with sexual harassment allegations.  Given the slavish devotion to Trump, it's not exactly a huge leap to suppose Hannity managed to silence someone secretly with Cohen's help.

[ABX]

   I'm kinda surprised El Rushbo's name didn't come up since he's been married something like 37 times, Family Values, hell yaaaa!.

He can afford better lawyers.

[mystery-ak]

Dershowitz confronts Hannity: 'You should have disclosed your relationship with Cohen'
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/383460-dershowitz-confronts-hannity-you-should-have-told-viewers-about-your

[edpc]

Dershowitz confronts Hannity: 'You should have disclosed your relationship with Cohen'
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/383460-dershowitz-confronts-hannity-you-should-have-told-viewers-about-your

“I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective,” Hannity tweeted, adding that those conversations “dealt almost exclusively about real estate."

Hahahaha.......real estate.  If that's all it was, you wouldn't care if people knew about the relationship.  BTW - 'almost exclusively' means other things were discussed.  If they were just talking and nothing formal was ever done, and no records exist, there's no reason to claim privilege.

[Frank Cannon]

Dershowitz confronts Hannity: 'You should have disclosed your relationship with Cohen'
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/383460-dershowitz-confronts-hannity-you-should-have-told-viewers-about-your

Can't argue with Dersh on this. I don't care if someone has a dirtbag Attorney on their payroll, but if you are an MSM mouthpiece, you better make mention of it.

[truth_seeker]

In Iowa, any convo you have with a lawyer on a legal matter will be considered privileged, paid or not. Reveal it and you will be disciplined if not disbarred. The mere act of conveying legal info back and forth automatically falls under the attorney-client relationship.

That's my understanding too.

[Sanguine]

Can't argue with Dersh on this. I don't care if someone has a dirtbag Attorney on their payroll, but if you are an MSM mouthpiece, you better make mention of it.

Yep.

[Slip18]

Which means there’s no privilege.

Exactly.  But there used to be such a thing as "Honor." Guess we lost that, too.

I know Hannity is a real cheerleader for our President, so I am wondering if Hannity told Cohen it was okay to mention his name in open court.

Kind of reminds me of the movie star "thing" in California.  In the days before cell phones, the starlets would have someone call them so everyone knew they were in a restaurant.

So many tricks out there.  I do not know if this was a trick.

 

[Frank Cannon]

In the days before cell phones....

When the Rochester was that? Back in the 1500's?

Are you really old or are you Amish?

[Slip18]

@Sanguine

The judge said a list of clients is not priviledged information.

I wonder if another judge would disagree with that statement.

We all know judges are not infallible.  I think this judge put her foot over that little line in the sand. 

I would like to see what other judges have to say about this opinion of hers.

Just too weird for me.

 

[Slip18]

Simple. The relationship exists, with or without a written contract. And with or without the exchange of consideration.

At least in California, a contract for services can be verbal. And there are many implied aspects of contracts.

Likewise a professional owes his client certain standards of performance, ethics, honest dealing, fiduciary responsibility, if a deal and money result, or if they get no result.

Each profession has its own professional standards, plus the state has even more.

Remember how CPAs used to "self-regulate," until Arthur Andersen and Enron?
 

Yep.  A handshake was enough.

 

[Slip18]

Apparently the Left, meaning 'the system', is claiming that Cohen is not a real attorney with attorney/client confidentiality because he only has one client, President Trump. Why this make any difference, how they came to this conclusion has not been explained.

So then Cohen said, 'I have more than one client.' The court ordered him to release his client list and he blurted out 'Hannity'. That is how all of this came about.

And yet another twist to this already twisted event.  Perhaps Cohen is an attention monger.

This is becoming a "Murder on the Orient Express" scenario.

I guess the old adage "follow the money" would be apropos here.

 

[Slip18]

   I'm kinda surprised El Rushbo's name didn't come up since he's been married something like 37 times, Family Values, hell yaaaa!.

Why not?  Good one!

 

[Slip18]

Well, the statement Cohen made was in court.  Apparently, he either thinks Hannity is a client or he's being exceedingly cautious.  We know Cohen has been Trump's attorney for a decade.  In all that time, he's had three clients - Trump, Broidy, and Hannity.  We know he's written two NDAs.  We know FOX has been rife with sexual harassment allegations.  Given the slavish devotion to Trump, it's not exactly a huge leap to suppose Hannity managed to silence someone secretly with Cohen's help.

Oh, nooooo!  Not another one of those. Please say it ain't so! 

 

[Slip18]

When the Rochester was that? Back in the 1500's?

Are you really old or are you Amish?

I am your great great grandmother.  Now sit down and try to behave yourself.

 

[montanajoe]

I suspect what is going on is that the judge has serious doubts about Cohen's credibility. Contrary to popular belief lawyers are not allowed to lie to a judge...it's termed "Fraud upon the Court" and a judge is bound to ask probative questions to ascertain if the lawyer is being truthful in his/her statements before the Court.....

There was probably a discussion of the issue in chambers before the hearing and Cohen said something to raise the judge's suspicion that he was not being forthright......

[txradioguy]

Dershowitz confronts Hannity: 'You should have disclosed your relationship with Cohen'
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/383460-dershowitz-confronts-hannity-you-should-have-told-viewers-about-your

Alan hits on the crux of the matter and why this is a big deal to everyone.