If I speak with an attorney, but do not pay for any services and just "talk" with the attorney, thus I'm not a client, am I still protected under attorney-client privilege, without being a "client"?
Legal question
- Thread starter MountaineerWV
- Start date
opcorn:Appears that under the case Alexander vs. United States that payment is not required for protection.......didn't know that......
So I guess lawyers are just like Priests.......confess your crimes away and you are protected.......and for FREE!
So I guess lawyers are just like Priests.......confess your crimes away and you are protected.......and for FREE!
Why is it a big deal that Hannity May or may not have been a client. Seriously? I don’t get the problem. Assuming he was a client, I’d be suing the **** out of Govt right now if my name came out as a client and they were unable to connect me to what the individual was raided for.
It just shows that Hannity’s attorney client rights were violated. You guys have seriously departed from reality.
Because everything else has been a dead end and they're really digging for just anything at this point?
Why shouldn't the Justice dept raid Cheryl Mills office for info on Hiliary? huma etc?
I'm laughing at you.....and that it occurred. And no, his attorney-client privilege has not been violated. The judge had the right to ask in the courtroom. His (Cohen's) attorney even had the option to write it on a piece of paper in hopes the judge would not read it aloud (maybe she would have, probably would have) but he volunteered to blurt it out. LOL!
And your "depart from reality" comment was icing on the cake. You and THE should start charging for your comedic relief.
Ok, go with me here for a second down the logic superhighway.
When you seek services of an attorney, and let’s say Hannity did. The services you sought were completely irrespective of the case being brought by SDNY and SC. Do you not maintain the expectation of privacy if that’s what you desired?
I know I’ve sought legal council on some stuff that I don’t want my name associated with. Is my anonymity not protected within the boundaries of the attorney client privilege?
I’m not arguing the Govt didn’t have a right to raid his office etc. If they have a case, go after him. No issue there. That’s never been my argument since this occurred. My argument is with the ability to maintain my expected privilege assuming it’s all legal. The mere fact Hannity’s name came out in and of itself already blew the doors off of it and that’s my point.
Moreover, if they’re going through the documents and they come across some really juicy stuff, but unrelated to their case, where do you stand on that information being leaked? Because as sure as I’m typing this, it will be leaked if it’s damaging to Hannity. Are you ok with that?
What if while going through the files, they come across information that is criminal in nature but unrelated to the case, do you think it would be ok for them to leak that information to in-turn start a separate investigation?
I’m honestly asking yours, OMs, Boom, MWV, and whoever else wants to weigh in on their opinion for the examples I’ve provided.
the existence/non-existence of an attorney-client relationship can be very fact-dependent, such that a general, all-encompassing rule is hard to come by. different facts, different circumstances, different results. one reason State Bars tell lawyers to make sure there is a written agreement with the client, to avoid misunderstandings.
IF my feeble memory serves me, i believe the above poster is correct that the judge gave the lawyer the opportunity to give her the name of the third client in whatever manner made him more comfortable, with the option of writing it on a piece of paper, but the lawyer blurted out Hannity's name voluntarily.
IF my feeble memory serves me, i believe the above poster is correct that the judge gave the lawyer the opportunity to give her the name of the third client in whatever manner made him more comfortable, with the option of writing it on a piece of paper, but the lawyer blurted out Hannity's name voluntarily.
Why is that so hard to accept? I like most of his administration’s policy decisions. I don’t like Trump. I don’t have to as long as he’s executing policy that is inline with my belief and policy platform. As long as he continues to do those things, I’ll vote for him the next election, it doesn’t mean that I like him. Do you think you have to like someone to vote for them? Is that seriously your argument?
I'll stick to what we know for the time being. The judge asked Cohen who his clients are. He offered that there were three clients. That wasn't good enough for the judge. She wanted to know WHO they were, because there were many documents obtained during the execution of the search warrant. Cohen's attorney answered the question in open court. Simply naming a client is not a violation of attorney-client privilege. In fact, it is necessary to keep records/evidence separate. Cohen paid at least two females hush money. These payments are being investigated. This investigation and case is within the purview of the SDNY (don't confuse this with the SC investigation, in which Cohen has already told investigators he never went to Prague).
If none of the Hannity documents have anything to do with paying porn stars or playboy bunnies or paying for silence of a congressional mistress or her abortion or conspiring to cover any of that up or violating campaign finance laws or covering any of that up, then no other details of Hannity's relationship with Cohen should be released.
Cohen's team was given a chance to give the court the name under seal. In my personal opinion, Cohen added Hannity as a 3rd "client" to try and seem more lawyery, since the government basically said he's not a lawyer. Hannity should be pissed at Cohen, if he's pissed at all.
To credibly answer your question, I would want to understand the context of the situation, read the court file, the pleadings filed by all concerned, and the transcript of what the testimony and arguments were in court. Depends on the facts unique to this case. This is why i get so frustrated at journalists and others who complain about a jury verdict after a group of our citizens heard everything both sides had to offer and made a decision on that, rather than a 10-second sound bite. For example, the McDonald’s hot coffee verdict. When i heard the sound bite report of the verdict on tv one morning (woman gets rich from pouring hot coffee on herself while driving), i thought the verdict sucked. But i know one of the lawyers in that case. When i saw him next after the verdict, he explained the facts to me, which i checked out from other sources. Once i learned the facts, i changed my mind and view that verdict as absolutely justified. The actual facts were pretty much 180 degrees from the media spin. Point is, i’m hesitant to second-guess the federal judge without knowing what she knows. If she committed substantial legal error, it will be straightened out on appeal.
She had third degree burns throughout her pelvis becuase the coffee was heated to the point that it caused severe burns much faster than any other restaurant would have.
They never mention that the woman initially tried to settle with McDonalds for 20k. That was just enough to cover her medical bill and her daughters lost income for the time taking care of her. McDonalds offered $800.
Lots of interesting facts. McDonald’s served their coffee hotter than home coffee makers were allowed to heat it. Before she was burned, more than 700 other people had notified McDonald’s that they were burned by McDonald’s coffee. She was a passenger, not the driver (i believe her grandson was driving). The car was not moving. She was trying to get the lid off the styrofoam cup to add cream or sugar. Because of the excessive temperature of the coffee, when it spilled onto her groin, it was almost an instantaneous burn before she could pull her pants away from her skin; there was testimony from a burn expert that if the coffee had been served at regular temperature, much less severe injury. She suffered third degree burns of her vaginal area and perineum, requiring skin grafts.
When the McDonald’s representative testified at trial, on cross-exam he was asked why they served the coffee so hot. He said because their focus groups told them it smelled better hot, thus increasing sales and repeat customers. When asked if they were going to lower the temperature in light of more than 700 people being burned, trying to not yield an inch apparently, he said “No.” That pissed off the jury. They imposed punitive damages equal to two days of net profits from coffee sales, hardly a back-breaker. Even so, the jury found her to be 20% at fault, which reduced the verdict by that percentage. Then the judge further reduced the verdict to $600,000 (again, my recollection on the figure).
McDonald’s then told her that they would appeal and appeal and drag it out so she would die before she ever saw a penny of the verdict. She accepted a lower, confidential settlement.
And thus the tort reform movement was propelled by that crazy hot coffee verdict from an out-of-control jury.
When the McDonald’s representative testified at trial, on cross-exam he was asked why they served the coffee so hot. He said because their focus groups told them it smelled better hot, thus increasing sales and repeat customers. When asked if they were going to lower the temperature in light of more than 700 people being burned, trying to not yield an inch apparently, he said “No.” That pissed off the jury. They imposed punitive damages equal to two days of net profits from coffee sales, hardly a back-breaker. Even so, the jury found her to be 20% at fault, which reduced the verdict by that percentage. Then the judge further reduced the verdict to $600,000 (again, my recollection on the figure).
McDonald’s then told her that they would appeal and appeal and drag it out so she would die before she ever saw a penny of the verdict. She accepted a lower, confidential settlement.
And thus the tort reform movement was propelled by that crazy hot coffee verdict from an out-of-control jury.
I was simply attempting humor. I didn't intend to offend anyone if I did and I apologize if I did.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
You really do live in a different world. It is very interesting.