Is the attorney-client relationship itself covered under attorney-client privilege or confidentiality?

Cohen’s attorney said his records should be kept from prosecuters because it would harm his other clients. The judge said, “prove it.”

You can’t argue in court with facts you hide from the court.

Similarly, if you say you medical records show you were harmed, you can’t keep them confidential. The records can be subpeonaed from your doctor and the court will enforce the demand.

Hannity himself has insisted that Cohen wasn’t his attorney and that he never sought legal counsel from Cohen. So no, it’s not a matter of attorney-client privilege.

@Call_Me_Jay Is that really how the Hannity relationship came out? Isn’t that sort of challenge usually answered without public disclosure?

@Zaku I don’t know about usually.

Here is how Hannity’s name came out:

NY Times – April 16, 2018 - Before the name was revealed, [Cohen’s lawyer] Mr. Ryan argued that the mystery client was a “prominent person” who wanted to keep his identity a secret because he would be “embarrassed” to be identified as having sought Mr. Cohen’s counsel.

Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the hearing to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient cause to withhold a client’s name, and Judge Wood agreed.

“I’m directing you to disclose the name now,” she said.

Hannity’s case is interesting. And I’m surprised that Cohen’s team was so easily forced to give him up. The reaction to the revelation demonstrates the truth of Hannity’s assertion that mere public knowledge of who does his lawyering would besmirch his (already shitty) reputation.

And I’m surprised that Cohen’s team was so easily forced to give him up.

It’s one name, peripheral to their much bigger problems.

And federal judges do not tolerate games. You don’t waste their time or test their patience without consequences.

They have nearly absolute rule in their courtrooms. I’ve attended trials and have friends who argue in federal court, and they are extremely deferential to the judges.

You’re right. Since the Feds siezed Cohen’s files, the Hannity news was almost certainly doomed to exposure in the near future, and as such is probably a joke compared to upcoming revelations.

@Call_Me_Jay Interesting… thanks. It surprises me, as it does seem like unnecessary publicization. No doubt the situation is complex…

One cannot claim the privilege without disclosing the relationship.

And the privilege does not mean forever confidential; it means that anything disclosed but covered by the privilege is inadmissible as evidence, and cannot be used as a guide to find other evidence.

The Attorney-Client relationship is still intact. It’s the abuse of that privilege that has been taken into question. When both the Attorney & the Client abuse that privilege by appearing to be breaking the letter of the law will bolder steps be taken. Abuse of power should not be tolerated!!!
I seriously doubt that the average client will ever have to worry about the same happening to them as I know my lawyer would NEVER take $130,000 out of his personal checking account to save my sorry, broke butt without expecting it to be repaid & probably with interest!!!

Yes, but the attorney-client relation depends on actually being attorney and client. Cohen would have to actually be Hannity’s attorney of record in some legal case. The whole “I might have slipped him a $10 and asked a question” does not an attorney-client relationship make.

_Cohen would have to actually be Hannity’s attorney of record in some legal case. _

Lawyers perform lots of other services outside the courts. Like preparing wills, trusts, reviewing contracts, etc.

And of course, negotiating and writing private contracts like a non-disclosure agreement.

Legal cases aren’t limited to courtroom functions.