Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony

The Big Dog said:
Oh dear, recording client without notice or consent is a violation of the duty of loyalty.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

The Big Dog said:
The issue is not whether a court may find that they are not privileged, the issue is that it is not for the lawyer to decide that they were not privileged and offer them up as part of a pleas involving his own personal crimes that had nothing to do with Trump, which is exactly what he did. Resist until ordered to disclose, that is the lawyers' duty. This mutt was dead to rights on tax claims so he offered up his clients to take the heat off of himself.

That is exactly what lawyers should never do.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that argument has no legal basis.
 
The Big Dog said:
No it is not for reasons that I have explained and cited to already.

protip; a lawyer's entitlement to payment is subject to the Code of professional responsibility, and is not like crossbow's entitlement to get paid for walking the neighbors dog.
Click to expand...

It is not up to the client to decide what legally professional for the lawyer that they hire.

The client is at liberty to fire the lawyer anytime that they wish to do so, however the client is still obligated to pay his bills.
 
jimbob said:
Why? Do lawyers have to be loyal? I thought they had to be professional and act legally in their clients best interest.

I see no problem in recording a conversation that is not privileged, if it is legal to do so in that location.

Even if the conversation is privileged, given how Trump has had a reputation for disputing facts, it would seem prudent to record it in case he decided to sue based on his claims about the advice he received or instructions he gave.
Click to expand...

literally the preamble to the rules that Cohen was obligated to follow:

"The touchstone of the client-lawyer relationship is the lawyer’s obligation to assert the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system, to maintain the client’s confidential information except in limited circumstances, and to act with loyalty during the period of the representation."

Do you understand that everything you wrote involves putting Cohen's interests ahead of his clients.

Another fact, you claim it is prudent to record Trump, assuming that is true, why did Cohen not tell his client he was doing it?? Because Cohen was putting his interests above his clients.
 
Crossbow said:
Thanks much for the additional data.

However, the real point is that Trump agreed to pay Cohen and now Trump is refusing to pay Cohen.

Therefore, once again Trump is showing himself to be nothing but a stupid, greedy, idiotic, liar.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. Trump was stupidly cheap in how he treated Cohen.
 
Crossbow said:
It is not up to the client to decide what legally professional for the lawyer that they hire.

The client is at liberty to fire the lawyer anytime that they wish to do so, however the client is still obligated to pay his bills.
Click to expand...

hoo boy, here are the rules:

https://www.nysba.org/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=50671

Read them and get back to me with any questions, in the meantime can i respectfully suggest that you hold off polluting the thread with your grossly uniformed opinions?

Thanks in advance from everyone.

I mean folks, not only have I explained that not only might a client not have to pay a lawyer's fees, a court can actually order the lawyer to repay (or disgorge) fees back to the client. I actually linked to an actual lawyer's actual explanation of this very fact in this very thread.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
literally the preamble to the rules that Cohen was obligated to follow:

"The touchstone of the client-lawyer relationship is the lawyer’s obligation to assert the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system, to maintain the client’s confidential information except in limited circumstances, and to act with loyalty during the period of the representation."

Do you understand that everything you wrote involves putting Cohen's interests ahead of his clients.

Another fact, you claim it is prudent to record Trump, assuming that is true, why did Cohen not tell his client he was doing it?? Because Cohen was putting his interests above his clients.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. The adversarial system does not include a lawyer committing crimes for his client. And nowhere does it say that a lawyer can't protect himself against a dishonest and criminal client.

What's important to recognize is that very little of Cohen's services was actually legal work so it isn't or should be treated as the work of a lawyer. The only question to be considered is did Trump Indemnify Cohen?
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
No, it doesn't. The adversarial system does not include a lawyer committing crimes for his client. And nowhere does it say that a lawyer can't protect himself against a dishonest and criminal client.

What's important to recognize is that very little of Cohen's services was actually legal work so that isn't or should be treated as the work of a lawyer. The only question to be considered is did Trump Indemnify Cohen?
Click to expand...

And could such an indemnity be legally enforceable? A contract for illegal acts is not enforceable.
 
The Big Dog said:
hoo boy, here are the rules:

https://www.nysba.org/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=50671

Read them and get back to me with any questions, in the meantime can i respectfully suggest that you hold off polluting the thread with your grossly uniformed opinions?

Thanks in advance from everyone.

I mean folks, not only have I explained that not only might a client not have to pay a lawyer's fees, a court can actually order the lawyer to repay (or disgorge) fees back to the client. I actually linked to an actual lawyer's actual explanation of this very fact in this very thread.
Click to expand...

It is your argument genius.

So you point out in this document where the client is allowed to automatically allowed to not pay his lawyer what the client agreed to pay his lawyer.
 
jimbob said:
And could such an indemnity be legally enforceable? A contract for illegal acts is not enforceable.
Click to expand...

Now that might be a reasonable argument. That said, making that argument is tantamount to confessing to a crime.
 
Just so the folks understand, Cohen wants his clients to pay his legal fees incurred in defending the criminal cases brought against Cohen, including the tax fraud and bank fraud claims.

Just so we are all on the same page.

what a rat ******.
 
Crossbow said:
It is your argument genius.
Click to expand...

Ahh, not going to read anything I posted and now are polluting the thread with lies that wrong things like "The client is at liberty to fire the lawyer anytime that they wish to do so, however the client is still obligated to pay his bills" is MY argument.

I get it now, cool cool.
 
rat ****** cannot stop lying:

Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee last week, in which he told lawmakers: “I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from Mr. Trump.”
Click to expand...
Lanny Davis, a lawyer for Mr. Cohen, said Wednesday that in the months after the FBI raid, Mr. Cohen was open to a pardon from the president. “During that time period, he directed his attorney to explore possibilities of a pardon at one point with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani as well as other lawyers advising President Trump,” Mr. Davis said. He referred to the discussions with the president’s lawyers as the “ongoing ‘dangling’ of a possible pardon.”
Click to expand...

trump made him lie about that too! pay his bills!
 
The Big Dog said:
Just so the folks understand, Cohen wants his clients to pay his legal fees incurred in defending the criminal cases brought against Cohen, including the tax fraud and bank fraud claims.

Just so we are all on the same page.

what a rat ******.
Click to expand...

You mean his criminal client?

From what I can see, you would rather that Cohen continued to commit crimes on the behalf of Trump. Your problem isn't that Cohen is unethical, but that he refused to continue being unethical.

Calling someone a "rat" is a term that a criminal would use against another criminal who is no longer loyal to him. No one else would describe the person with that term. So I'd stop using it.
 
The Big Dog said:
Ahh, not going to read anything I posted and now are polluting the thread with lies that wrong things like "The client is at liberty to fire the lawyer anytime that they wish to do so, however the client is still obligated to pay his bills" is MY argument.

I get it now, cool cool.
Click to expand...

Why not make your point quoting the relevant text? Handing someone an encyclopedia and saying if they just read through all of it, they'd see how it supports them is not really reasonable. In fact it's crap. That in effect is what you're doing.

It also suggests that your argument is weak. That you really don't know what you're talking about.

Why not show us "that big brain on Brett"?
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Ahh, not going to read anything I posted and now are polluting the thread with lies that wrong things like "The client is at liberty to fire the lawyer anytime that they wish to do so, however the client is still obligated to pay his bills" is MY argument.

I get it now, cool cool.
Click to expand...

So make state your specific citation already.

There is no way that I am going to read a document that is over 100 pages long just to prove for your point for you.
 
The Big Dog said:
No it is not for reasons that I have explained and cited to already.

protip; a lawyer's entitlement to payment is subject to the Code of professional responsibility, and is not like crossbow's entitlement to get paid for walking the neighbors dog.
Click to expand...
Protip : "Duty of loyalty" is not a thing. It's pretentious pap, impressing only you. That's but one of the reasons why you haven't explained anything, and the sources you trust for citations are worthless to normal people.
 
The Big Dog said:
Surreptitiously tape recording his client without their consent or disclosure

breaching attorney client privilege without the clients' consent

monstrous conflicts of interest



Attorneys cannot waive attorney client privilege just because they committed numerous crimes and want to sell out their clients to keep their asses out of jail



C'mon folks, I get that TDS is debilitating, but the Michael Cohen should get paid theory that is being floated here is astounding.



You can hate Trump with every fiber of your being and still realize that Cohen seeking fees is idiotic.



Or not,
Click to expand...
It's not our theory. Cohen is claiming it is part of the contract he had with Trump. It is up to them to come up with the evidence for and against since we can't know the details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom