How do you reconcile these two remarks....

[bendog]

Have you heard Hannity now forgot Cohen was his attorney. Liar liar pants on fire!!

Okay, so there is attorney-client privilege without a doubt. Therefore, a warrant would be needed and there would need to be sufficient evidence of him committing some type of crime in order to obtain said warrant to obtain any paperwork the attorney may have on this client. Just because you don't like him or because you think he is a liar, is not reason enough to violate his rights as a citizen of this country, thankfully.

Generally, for an attorney client relationship to be asserted for privileged communication, the attorney and client have to have a written agreement, ie a contract. It appears Hannity and Cohen didn't have that.

BUT given that we know Hannity communicates directly with Trump on what will Trump's policy be, it would be interesting to know what the two guys were chattering about. It's a weird deal. Generally Presidents are able to seek out advice from citizens without the media being able to find out precisely what was discussed. I think most of us agree that presidents need to be free to get advice from as wide a group of citizens as possible. But here you have the MEDIA giving the president advise, and then reporting on the wisdom of the policy. I don't recall that ever happening before. And it's wrong.

Weirdly is sort of the reverse of what Scooter Libby did to Judith Miller. Scooter leaked a scoop to Miller, and Miller didn't know it came from Scooter, so Miller then called Scooter to confirm the leak. And that was the end of Judith Miller having a career outside of Fox and Newsmax
.

No you do not need a written contract. If I call for a free legal consultation or legal advice over the phone, there is an expectation of privacy and that would fall under the law. Any time I speak with a lawyer about a legal issue in his professional authority as a legal expert, then he is automatically under contract.

If you're relying of free legal advice over the phone, you're a fool. LOL

You are right that it's possible to establish a lawyer client relationship without a written contract. But it must be a mutual agreement that you want, and the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that.

"the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that."

Well in that case, I guess it is nothing that you need to be so concerned over, huh?

Fuck off, lad.

 

[bendog]

As far as I'm aware, retaining a lawyer for legal services or asking for legal advice is not a crime here in the US. So, if you have some evidence that Hannity committed some crime, then by all means do share!

"I don't like him" or "I don't agree with his views" is not a crime.

Who alleged Hannity committed a crime? The only issue is that whatever Hanpatty and Cohen talked about is NOT privileged communication.

I don't think that determination is up to you.

Laddy, it's oop ta Sean. Get a focking clue

 

[ChrisL]

Okay, so there is attorney-client privilege without a doubt. Therefore, a warrant would be needed and there would need to be sufficient evidence of him committing some type of crime in order to obtain said warrant to obtain any paperwork the attorney may have on this client. Just because you don't like him or because you think he is a liar, is not reason enough to violate his rights as a citizen of this country, thankfully.

Generally, for an attorney client relationship to be asserted for privileged communication, the attorney and client have to have a written agreement, ie a contract. It appears Hannity and Cohen didn't have that.

BUT given that we know Hannity communicates directly with Trump on what will Trump's policy be, it would be interesting to know what the two guys were chattering about. It's a weird deal. Generally Presidents are able to seek out advice from citizens without the media being able to find out precisely what was discussed. I think most of us agree that presidents need to be free to get advice from as wide a group of citizens as possible. But here you have the MEDIA giving the president advise, and then reporting on the wisdom of the policy. I don't recall that ever happening before. And it's wrong.

Weirdly is sort of the reverse of what Scooter Libby did to Judith Miller. Scooter leaked a scoop to Miller, and Miller didn't know it came from Scooter, so Miller then called Scooter to confirm the leak. And that was the end of Judith Miller having a career outside of Fox and Newsmax
.

No you do not need a written contract. If I call for a free legal consultation or legal advice over the phone, there is an expectation of privacy and that would fall under the law. Any time I speak with a lawyer about a legal issue in his professional authority as a legal expert, then he is automatically under contract.

If you're relying of free legal advice over the phone, you're a fool. LOL

You are right that it's possible to establish a lawyer client relationship without a written contract. But it must be a mutual agreement that you want, and the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that.

"the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that."

Well in that case, I guess it is nothing that you need to be so concerned over, huh?

Fuck off, lad.

You did pro bono, and this is what a lawyer has to argue with? Bwa ha ha! You suck. Hopefully not many clients were fooled into giving you any work!

 

[irosie91]

Definition of witch hunt for English Language Learners

• : the act of unfairly looking for and punishing people who are accused of having opinions that are believed to be dangerous or evil

Have you heard Hannity now forgot Cohen was his attorney. Liar liar pants on fire!!

Okay, so there is attorney-client privilege without a doubt. Therefore, a warrant would be needed and there would need to be sufficient evidence of him committing some type of crime in order to obtain said warrant to obtain any paperwork the attorney may have on this client. Just because you don't like him or because you think he is a liar, is not reason enough to violate his rights as a citizen of this country, thankfully.

Generally, for an attorney client relationship to be asserted for privileged communication, the attorney and client have to have a written agreement, ie a contract. It appears Hannity and Cohen didn't have that.

BUT given that we know Hannity communicates directly with Trump on what will Trump's policy be, it would be interesting to know what the two guys were chattering about. It's a weird deal. Generally Presidents are able to seek out advice from citizens without the media being able to find out precisely what was discussed. I think most of us agree that presidents need to be free to get advice from as wide a group of citizens as possible. But here you have the MEDIA giving the president advise, and then reporting on the wisdom of the policy. I don't recall that ever happening before. And it's wrong.

Weirdly is sort of the reverse of what Scooter Libby did to Judith Miller. Scooter leaked a scoop to Miller, and Miller didn't know it came from Scooter, so Miller then called Scooter to confirm the leak. And that was the end of Judith Miller having a career outside of Fox and Newsmax
.

No you do not need a written contract. If I call for a free legal consultation or legal advice over the phone, there is an expectation of privacy and that would fall under the law. Any time I speak with a lawyer about a legal issue in his professional authority as a legal expert, then he is automatically under contract.

same is true if you speak to your next door neighbor who is a doctor of
medicine. Same is true if you happen to "confess" to a priest without
going thru the standard "I have sinned..." ritual <<< for that one ask
the pope------but I think it is true. All of this stuff was ALWAYS easy
for me. My four brothers taught me "ONE NEVER """TELLS""" "
I should add-----real clergymen of any sect seem to act on the same ethic---legally

 

[ChrisL]

As far as I'm aware, retaining a lawyer for legal services or asking for legal advice is not a crime here in the US. So, if you have some evidence that Hannity committed some crime, then by all means do share!

"I don't like him" or "I don't agree with his views" is not a crime.

Who alleged Hannity committed a crime? The only issue is that whatever Hanpatty and Cohen talked about is NOT privileged communication.

I don't think that determination is up to you.

Laddy, it's oop ta Sean. Get a focking clue

Is this courtroom talk? Ha ha!

The bottom line here is it is really not any of your nosy old lady over the fence business. People have privacy rights and retaining the services of an attorney or getting advice from an attorney is not a crime. You are the one who needs to fuck off, fake attorney.

 

[ChrisL]

As far as I'm aware, retaining a lawyer for legal services or asking for legal advice is not a crime here in the US. So, if you have some evidence that Hannity committed some crime, then by all means do share!

"I don't like him" or "I don't agree with his views" is not a crime.

Who alleged Hannity committed a crime? The only issue is that whatever Hanpatty and Cohen talked about is NOT privileged communication.

I don't think that determination is up to you.

Laddy, it's oop ta Sean. Get a focking clue

I don't speak ghetto. Sorry.

 

[irosie91]

Generally, for an attorney client relationship to be asserted for privileged communication, the attorney and client have to have a written agreement, ie a contract. It appears Hannity and Cohen didn't have that.

BUT given that we know Hannity communicates directly with Trump on what will Trump's policy be, it would be interesting to know what the two guys were chattering about. It's a weird deal. Generally Presidents are able to seek out advice from citizens without the media being able to find out precisely what was discussed. I think most of us agree that presidents need to be free to get advice from as wide a group of citizens as possible. But here you have the MEDIA giving the president advise, and then reporting on the wisdom of the policy. I don't recall that ever happening before. And it's wrong.

Weirdly is sort of the reverse of what Scooter Libby did to Judith Miller. Scooter leaked a scoop to Miller, and Miller didn't know it came from Scooter, so Miller then called Scooter to confirm the leak. And that was the end of Judith Miller having a career outside of Fox and Newsmax
.

No you do not need a written contract. If I call for a free legal consultation or legal advice over the phone, there is an expectation of privacy and that would fall under the law. Any time I speak with a lawyer about a legal issue in his professional authority as a legal expert, then he is automatically under contract.

If you're relying of free legal advice over the phone, you're a fool. LOL

You are right that it's possible to establish a lawyer client relationship without a written contract. But it must be a mutual agreement that you want, and the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that.

"the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that."

Well in that case, I guess it is nothing that you need to be so concerned over, huh?

Fuck off, lad.

You did pro bono, and this is what a lawyer has to argue with? Bwa ha ha! You suck. Hopefully not many clients were fooled into giving you any work!

I have a distant relative who is a lawyer. (sister of a sister-in-law)
I asked QUESTIONS----like "what does 'to wit' mean"" ? and
what is "heresay" ? Lawyers like to throw these simple phrases
around ---------to trick people. Another term lawyers use ALL THE
TIME to screw people is "timely" I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO
KNOW THAT I ASKED. But----fellow cybies----if some nasty lawyer
says "timely" at you------you have a RIGHT to ask in what way it is not
TIMELY?-------------don't tell anyone I handed out that valuable advice---
for FREE.....no less

 

[irosie91]

PS----I am NOT A LAWYER <ahumdallah> but as a matter
of ethics-------that which goes over the picket fence is SAFE
WITH ME

 

[ChrisL]

No you do not need a written contract. If I call for a free legal consultation or legal advice over the phone, there is an expectation of privacy and that would fall under the law. Any time I speak with a lawyer about a legal issue in his professional authority as a legal expert, then he is automatically under contract.

If you're relying of free legal advice over the phone, you're a fool. LOL

You are right that it's possible to establish a lawyer client relationship without a written contract. But it must be a mutual agreement that you want, and the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that.

"the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that."

Well in that case, I guess it is nothing that you need to be so concerned over, huh?

Fuck off, lad.

You did pro bono, and this is what a lawyer has to argue with? Bwa ha ha! You suck. Hopefully not many clients were fooled into giving you any work!

I have a distant relative who is a lawyer. (sister of a sister-in-law)
I asked QUESTIONS----like "what does 'to wit' mean"" ? and
what is "heresay" ? Lawyers like to throw these simple phrases
around ---------to trick people. Another term lawyers use ALL THE
TIME to screw people is "timely" I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO
KNOW THAT I ASKED. But----fellow cybies----if some nasty lawyer
says "timely" at you------you have a RIGHT to ask in what way it is not
TIMELY?-------------don't tell anyone I handed out that valuable advice---
for FREE.....no less

Perhaps, but they don't have to resort to saying "fuck you." ROFL! You can tell the fake lawyers because of their complete lack of self discipline and self control when it comes to simple debate on a silly website such as this. Imagine if they had to argue with another lawyer?

 

[ChrisL]

If you're relying of free legal advice over the phone, you're a fool. LOL

You are right that it's possible to establish a lawyer client relationship without a written contract. But it must be a mutual agreement that you want, and the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that.

"the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that."

Well in that case, I guess it is nothing that you need to be so concerned over, huh?

Fuck off, lad.

You did pro bono, and this is what a lawyer has to argue with? Bwa ha ha! You suck. Hopefully not many clients were fooled into giving you any work!

I have a distant relative who is a lawyer. (sister of a sister-in-law)
I asked QUESTIONS----like "what does 'to wit' mean"" ? and
what is "heresay" ? Lawyers like to throw these simple phrases
around ---------to trick people. Another term lawyers use ALL THE
TIME to screw people is "timely" I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO
KNOW THAT I ASKED. But----fellow cybies----if some nasty lawyer
says "timely" at you------you have a RIGHT to ask in what way it is not
TIMELY?-------------don't tell anyone I handed out that valuable advice---
for FREE.....no less

Perhaps, but they don't have to resort to saying "fuck you." ROFL! You can tell the fake lawyers because of their complete lack of self discipline and self control when it comes to simple debate on a silly website such as this. Imagine if they had to argue with another lawyer?

They would probably start screaming "damn Trump to hell!" at the sky fairy that they don't believe in.

 

[ChrisL]

Leftists are extremely hate filled to an absolutely insane degree. It is quite remarkable actually.

 

[2aguy]

1. Michael Cohen's lawyers averred in court that Sean Hannity is one of Michael Cohen's clients.
2. Sean Hannity asserts that he was not at all Cohen's client.
   

   Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
   -- Sean Hannity

   
   Hannity: Cohen has never represented me - CNN Video
   • No invoice. No legal fees paid. No legal advice given.

What is attorney-client privilege?

Hugh Hewitt....a lawyer and talk show host explained it......the lawyer can consider you a client and extend privilege to you even if all you do is ask advice but don't put them on the payroll......

 

[ChrisL]

If any of these people were actual lawyers, and if they had an actual lawful argument, they would be burying me with statistics, case law, and all kinds of law jargon that I probably wouldn't understand. Lol. Fuck you doesn't really count as an argument in a court of law, you know?

 

[2aguy]

1. Michael Cohen's lawyers averred in court that Sean Hannity is one of Michael Cohen's clients.
2. Sean Hannity asserts that he was not at all Cohen's client.
   

   Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
   -- Sean Hannity

   
   Hannity: Cohen has never represented me - CNN Video
   • No invoice. No legal fees paid. No legal advice given.

What is attorney-client privilege?

Here it is...from an actual attorney...

MSNBC's Hugh Hewitt: "It is possible" that Sean Hannity "did not know he was a client of Michael Cohen"

HUGH HEWITT (MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST): I want to point out that it is possible -- not likely, but possible -- that Sean did not know that he was a client of Michael Cohen. If Michael Cohen gives advice --

STEPHANIE RUHLE (HOST): If he didn't know that he was a client of Michael Cohen, why would Michael Cohen have him listed?

HEWITT: Because if Michael Cohen -- and I don't know Michael Cohen. I do know Sean. I know Elliott Broidy from Los Angeles circles. I know the president, but I don't know Michael Cohen.

If Michael Cohen goes back to his office and makes a memorandum of conversation with Sean Hannity with the expectation of confidence, it's covered by the [attorney-client] privilege. It just is. And Sean may not know about that. I just wanted to point out it's possible for them both to be telling the truth.

 

[irosie91]

"the lawyer is giving you, advice that you may make financial and "life changing" (-: decisions over. Hanpatty said he and Cohen didn't have that."

Well in that case, I guess it is nothing that you need to be so concerned over, huh?

Fuck off, lad.

You did pro bono, and this is what a lawyer has to argue with? Bwa ha ha! You suck. Hopefully not many clients were fooled into giving you any work!

I have a distant relative who is a lawyer. (sister of a sister-in-law)
I asked QUESTIONS----like "what does 'to wit' mean"" ? and
what is "heresay" ? Lawyers like to throw these simple phrases
around ---------to trick people. Another term lawyers use ALL THE
TIME to screw people is "timely" I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO
KNOW THAT I ASKED. But----fellow cybies----if some nasty lawyer
says "timely" at you------you have a RIGHT to ask in what way it is not
TIMELY?-------------don't tell anyone I handed out that valuable advice---
for FREE.....no less

Perhaps, but they don't have to resort to saying "fuck you." ROFL! You can tell the fake lawyers because of their complete lack of self discipline and self control when it comes to simple debate on a silly website such as this. Imagine if they had to argue with another lawyer?

They would probably start screaming "damn Trump to hell!" at the sky fairy that they don't believe in.

you raise an interesting point-------There are all kinds of reasons to avoid
going to court. I have a very personal reason based on POINT OF ORDER.
Besides the fact that there are times that had I been there I would have
yelled "GO FUCK YOURSELF" at a judge------or the thing that
was playing "prosecutor" (a very little civil case). THEREFORE---
fellow cybies-----no matter how disgustingly dishonest is a lawyer----
(or even a judge) ------the little person------does not get to say ----
"that's not true"-----no matter how not true the judicial fart is. The advice
I have from some friendly lawyers is-------write a note to the judge latter-----
so IT can throw it in the "circular file"

 

[irosie91]

1. Michael Cohen's lawyers averred in court that Sean Hannity is one of Michael Cohen's clients.
2. Sean Hannity asserts that he was not at all Cohen's client.
   

   Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
   -- Sean Hannity

   
   Hannity: Cohen has never represented me - CNN Video
   • No invoice. No legal fees paid. No legal advice given.

What is attorney-client privilege?

Here it is...from an actual attorney...

MSNBC's Hugh Hewitt: "It is possible" that Sean Hannity "did not know he was a client of Michael Cohen"

HUGH HEWITT (MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST): I want to point out that it is possible -- not likely, but possible -- that Sean did not know that he was a client of Michael Cohen. If Michael Cohen gives advice --

STEPHANIE RUHLE (HOST): If he didn't know that he was a client of Michael Cohen, why would Michael Cohen have him listed?

HEWITT: Because if Michael Cohen -- and I don't know Michael Cohen. I do know Sean. I know Elliott Broidy from Los Angeles circles. I know the president, but I don't know Michael Cohen.

If Michael Cohen goes back to his office and makes a memorandum of conversation with Sean Hannity with the expectation of confidence, it's covered by the [attorney-client] privilege. It just is. And Sean may not know about that. I just wanted to point out it's possible for them both to be telling the truth.

THANK YOU-----I am not a lawyer----but you---IMHO---seem
to me to have nailed it. In fact------I would EXPECT----even without a
memorandum-------that a friendly conversation on personal latest legal
problem with a lawyer DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ACTUAL CLIENT----
but still warrants LEGAL CONFIDENTIALITY (if you tell me that
you have a headache-----or even that you did not REALLY have a
headache when you refused hubby--------I AIN'T TELLIN' anyone------
even under cross examination-------it is, IMHO, legally privileged)
----I DON'T EVEN MEMORIALIZE SUCH CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENTS
IN THE MEDICAL RECORDS----TOO MANY LAWYERS MANAGE TO
GET THEIR GRUBBY HANDS ON MEDICAL RECORDS

 

[Penelope]

1. Michael Cohen's lawyers averred in court that Sean Hannity is one of Michael Cohen's clients.
2. Sean Hannity asserts that he was not at all Cohen's client.
   

   Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
   -- Sean Hannity

   
   Hannity: Cohen has never represented me - CNN Video
   • No invoice. No legal fees paid. No legal advice given.

What is attorney-client privilege?

Here it is...from an actual attorney...

MSNBC's Hugh Hewitt: "It is possible" that Sean Hannity "did not know he was a client of Michael Cohen"

HUGH HEWITT (MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST): I want to point out that it is possible -- not likely, but possible -- that Sean did not know that he was a client of Michael Cohen. If Michael Cohen gives advice --

STEPHANIE RUHLE (HOST): If he didn't know that he was a client of Michael Cohen, why would Michael Cohen have him listed?

HEWITT: Because if Michael Cohen -- and I don't know Michael Cohen. I do know Sean. I know Elliott Broidy from Los Angeles circles. I know the president, but I don't know Michael Cohen.

If Michael Cohen goes back to his office and makes a memorandum of conversation with Sean Hannity with the expectation of confidence, it's covered by the [attorney-client] privilege. It just is. And Sean may not know about that. I just wanted to point out it's possible for them both to be telling the truth.

How unlikely.

 

[AsherN]

The confidentiality is extended by the lawyer but is owned by the client. Cohen, by saying Hannity was a client, was making it possible for those documents to be considered confidential. But Hannity by stating he was NOT a client effectively rejected the offer of confidentiality.

 

[IsaacNewton]

1. Michael Cohen's lawyers averred in court that Sean Hannity is one of Michael Cohen's clients.
2. Sean Hannity asserts that he was not at all Cohen's client.
   

   Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
   -- Sean Hannity

   
   Hannity: Cohen has never represented me - CNN Video
   • No invoice. No legal fees paid. No legal advice given.

What is attorney-client privilege?

Who makes a living lying every day on air.

 

[irosie91]

The confidentiality is extended by the lawyer but is owned by the client. Cohen, by saying Hannity was a client, was making it possible for those documents to be considered confidential. But Hannity by stating he was NOT a client effectively rejected the offer of confidentiality.

not true. A professional gets to decide just what is confidential----
he does not ASK the client. There are reasons----clients are
considered NAIVE -----in the case of lawyers---OF THE LAW----
in fact---in the case of doctors----ALSO, OF THE LAW. People
are OFTEN wrongly told to give up records or LOSE