Posted on 07/26/2018 8:45:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Trump, referring to his former lawyer Michael Cohen, tweeted the following:
"What kind of a lawyer would tape a client? So sad! Is this a first, never heard of it before? Why was the tape so abruptly terminated (cut) while I was presumably saying positive things? I hear there are other clients and many reporters that are taped - can this be so? Too bad!"
Trump is correct. In the field of law, it is not customary for lawyers to surreptitiously record their clients.
Law is a highly regulated profession, a profession that is also guided by strict ethics rules. Lawyers are agents of the client, required to work on behalf of the client. The client's best interest is what the lawyer must always consider in all decisions made by the lawyer. If a lawyer fears for his personal interests when representing a particular client, and the lawyer takes actions to protect his personal interests which may not be in the client's best interest, then there is a conflict of interest, and the lawyer must withdraw from representing that client.
What President Trump is asserting in his statement is that his attorney, who was supposed to act in Trump's best interests, did not act in Trump's best interest. CARTOONS | Henry Payne View Cartoon
So what happens when a lawyer, without knowledge and without consent of his client, in opposition to his client's best interests, records his client? For starters, such a recording is in itself a possible violation of the professional responsibility that the lawyer has to his client. This would be a violation of client confidence and client trust in the lawyer. The need for the recording is also suspicious in itself — an implication that the lawyer is concerned about his own personal interests and hence has a conflict of interest in representing that client.
Each State Bar that licenses attorneys has an ethics subdivision, which oversees the professional conduct of the attorneys practicing in that state — like police officers for lawyers. If a lawyer acts in opposition to the interests of his client, then the State Bar may elect to discipline the lawyer. The objective of the ethics committee is to protect the public and clients from misconduct by lawyers, who are people in a position of trust. The ethics committee would review the allegations and decide whether a violation occurred, and if so, what the appropriate penalty should be. The highest penalty is disbarment, which is loss of license to practice law.
The New York State Bar, the overseer of Cohen's conduct, lacks a specific rule on a lawyer recording a client without the client's consent. Nonetheless, there have been Bar opinions published on this issue, which appear to take inconsistent positions on the ethics of doing this to a client. Stephen Gillers, an authority on legal ethics, explained the conflicting opinions when he spoke to The American Lawyer earlier this year: “In New York, an old State Bar opinion says taping without consent is unethical even if legal. The City Bar, in a more recent opinion, takes the position that it is almost always unethical and would be so if it were a routine practice. The County Bar takes the position that it is not unethical if legal in New York. The American Bar Association takes the position that it is not forbidden by the Model Rules.” As of now, “this is an issue on which the national profession has not come to common agreement,” Gillers advised. This means that Cohen may be able to defend against the accusations, or he may be made into a notorious example from which other lawyers will learn.
In Cohen's case, he may have other problems with the Bar as well. If Cohen is charged with any of the Federal criminal offenses that he is being investigated for by the DOJ, the charges will impact the State Bar's decision as to whether his license should be renewed, suspended or revoked.
Will Cohen have to answer to the New York State Bar for these ethics conundrums? We shall see. I can tell you this much for sure — us lawyers watching him, we have our eyes wide open and our popcorn in hand.
It starts with the raid, followed by the revelation of what they found in the raid.
NY state will not bar Cohen from practicing law.
It is far more likely the NY branch of the American Bar Association, with the NY governor and attorney general on hand, will host Cohen at a big gathering and give him a “humanitarian” award.
Maybe some question about recording...but I would think none about releasing said recordings.
What if your doctor taped your meeting with him, or disclosed your medical records to the public. Why is this any different. IF they can do this to the president of the US and get away with it, how are we all not safe from the same thing?
Exactly so.
Tapping lawyer client calls is not at all unusual, I can be hard to remember all the details of a long involved discussion. ALL should be covered by attorney client privilege, except if it is a Democrat inspired witch hunt.
Tapping lawyer client calls is not at all unusual, I can be hard to remember all the details of a long involved discussion. ALL should be covered by attorney client privilege, except if it is a Democrat inspired witch hunt.
“...What Kind of Lawyer Would Tape a Client?...“
The kind of lawyer who won’t get many more clients.
> > > WHO would hire him for dog walker?
CNN
MSNBC
ABC
NBC
CBS
New York Times
Washington Post
Harvard
Yale
Berkley
I smell a big, fat Lanny David ugly rat involved. Manny doesn’t give a flying frack what happens to Cohen and Cohen is too butt hurt and/or stupid to see it.
It really depends on whom is hurt by the sharing, doesn't it?
Here’s the part I’m popping corn for: What about this jackhole’s other clients?
I’d be suing this guy’s pants off for malpractice over this. I’d be demanding some sort of arbitrator go in and review every shred of work this guy ever did to ensure there was nothing recorded that could ever be PROFFERED to ANYONE for ANY REASON.
I agree.
So, has anyone actually asked this guy why he records?
I could think of a couple reasons. One, it’s good for transcribing so you can be sure of direction and instructions. Also, if he’s been one to get threats over the phone in the past, he may also do it for that reason.
Conversations between a lawyer and client are considered priviledged communications. It is not supposed to be shared by the lawyer even if nobody is hurt. It is clearly over the line when the intent of the lawyer is to divulge information that the client doesn’t want shared.
My doctor had a picture of me which was taken by another physician after a surgery. He hesitated to send it to ME since it would be exposed in open email due to similar HIPAA restrictions. (In the photo, I was sticking out my tongue, in jest, which made the other physician start to laugh while she was taking the picture.)
My point is this unauthorized, over-the-line disclosure of information will result in NO CONSEQUENCES for Cohen because they disclose information about a Republican, and Republicans are considered fair game.
“It starts with the raid ...”
Oh yes, I remember. How dumb of him to keep recordings in a raid target location. He probably had them on his computer or phone.
Well, maybe he transferred them to a safer place and deleted them from the computer, but snoopers can get hold of deleted data, right?
The raid itself was a relatively rare occurrence. And the release that they even existed was a big no-no.
“And the release that they even existed was a big no-no.”
Someone thought there was a benefit to releasing the recordings. What would be such a benefit that would outweigh the downside of releasing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.