How do you reconcile these two remarks....

[Hutch Starskey]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

If he didn't pay him there is no attorney/client privilege.

Well, obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. Attorney/client privilege extends to advice and counseling even if they are not paid or actually hired to do a job.

No it doesnt. There is no client unless the person seeking advice and the attorney agree that the attorney will represent them.

 

[ChrisL]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

No. One is either a client or not.

Sean Hannity said that he never paid for his services or retained him as a lawyer but that he did seek legal advice from him. So what is your issue? Obviously, he (like you) made the mistake of thinking that you are not actually a "client" from a legal perspective unless you are a PAYING client, but that is not the case. So? What is your issue?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Well, the guy seemed to get FREE legal advice from Cohen. Maybe because he's Trump's lawyer and Trump was paying for it all.

Well, the guy seemed to get FREE legal advice from Cohen.

It doesn't seem like to me. Check out the linked video. In it, one'll hear Hannity explicitly state he received no legal advice form Cohen.

Note: I put a link on "legal advice" because what laymen would call "legal advice" and what attorneys call legal advices are often different. That difference is made clear upon one's putting an attorney on retainer or otherwise becoming a client of an attorney.


Correction:

I misspoke. Hannity does say he asked Cohen some legal questions.​

The issue here is one of those where people will say "this didn't happen", and they're being slippery and whatever. He probably thought he could say this and it'd all be confidential.

Personally I don't think any of this is actually an issue, yet people are going nuts about it. Who cares whether he helped a TV person?

 

[ChrisL]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

If he didn't pay him there is no attorney/client privilege.

Well, obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. Attorney/client privilege extends to advice and counseling even if they are not paid or actually hired to do a job.

No it doesnt. There is no client unless the person seeking advice and the attorney agree that the attorney will represent them.

That is BS, and I already posted a link to try and educate you leftists, but you just don't get it.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's called ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, and it is a very IMPORTANT right that we have. Get your facts straight, libs.

Tell it to the judge.

What is there to tell? Why don't you tell since you seem to already know. ROFL!

You gotta be somebody's ex wife. He was either a client or not. You figure that one out.

Oh, here come the personal remarks. Ahem, not working. You know as much about me as you do about Hannity or any other private US citizen who has privacy rights.

I'm sorry. I could have been wrong about that ex wife remark. You're more of the ex mother in law type.

 

[ChrisL]

If I seek the legal advice of an attorney and I don't pay for it, he or she is still under attorney/client legal binding contract. Period. End of story.

 

[ChrisL]

It's called ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, and it is a very IMPORTANT right that we have. Get your facts straight, libs.

Tell it to the judge.

What is there to tell? Why don't you tell since you seem to already know. ROFL!

You gotta be somebody's ex wife. He was either a client or not. You figure that one out.

Oh, here come the personal remarks. Ahem, not working. You know as much about me as you do about Hannity or any other private US citizen who has privacy rights.

I'm sorry. I could have been wrong about that ex wife remark. You're more of the ex mother in law type.

Typical leftist. Can't argue the points, knows that he is wrong (as always), and has to resort to personal attacks. You lost this debate a long time ago.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Two guys setting at a bar drinking adult beverages talking real estate and you idiots want him drawn and quartered... sad little monkeys, all of you...

/——/ And Billy Clinton meeting the AG in private on her plane while Hildabeast is under investigation is perfectly OK.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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?

Well, the guy seemed to get FREE legal advice from Cohen. Maybe because he's Trump's lawyer and Trump was paying for it all.

Well, the guy seemed to get FREE legal advice from Cohen.

It doesn't seem like to me. Check out the linked video. In it, one'll hear Hannity explicitly state he received no legal advice form Cohen.

Note: I put a link on "legal advice" because what laymen would call "legal advice" and what attorneys call legal advices are often different. That difference is made clear upon one's putting an attorney on retainer or otherwise becoming a client of an attorney.


Correction:

I misspoke. Hannity does say he asked Cohen some legal questions.​

The issue here is one of those where people will say "this didn't happen", and they're being slippery and whatever. He probably thought he could say this and it'd all be confidential.

Personally I don't think any of this is actually an issue, yet people are going nuts about it. Who cares whether he helped a TV person?

Personally I don't think any of this is actually an issue, yet people are going nuts about it.

"Going nuts?" Not by a long shot, but I can't lie, I find it entertaining. It's great fodder for cocktail party quips.

 

[ChrisL]

Here you go, dummies.

attorney-client privilege

fourth, the communication must have occurred for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, orassistance in some legal proceeding,

Now, argue that shit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

If he didn't pay him there is no attorney/client privilege.

Well, obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. Attorney/client privilege extends to advice and counseling even if they are not paid or actually hired to do a job.

No it doesnt. There is no client unless the person seeking advice and the attorney agree that the attorney will represent them.

That is BS, and I already posted a link to try and educate you leftists, but you just don't get it.

Well SOMEBODY doesn't get it.

 

[ChrisL]

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

If he didn't pay him there is no attorney/client privilege.

Well, obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. Attorney/client privilege extends to advice and counseling even if they are not paid or actually hired to do a job.

No it doesnt. There is no client unless the person seeking advice and the attorney agree that the attorney will represent them.

That is BS, and I already posted a link to try and educate you leftists, but you just don't get it.

Well SOMEBODY doesn't get it.

Yeah you don't get it, obviously. Even if I go to an attorney for advice over the telephone, he is still under a binding legal agreement that he cannot tell people about what we discussed. That is the law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Well, the guy seemed to get FREE legal advice from Cohen. Maybe because he's Trump's lawyer and Trump was paying for it all.

Well, the guy seemed to get FREE legal advice from Cohen.

It doesn't seem like to me. Check out the linked video. In it, one'll hear Hannity explicitly state he received no legal advice form Cohen.

Note: I put a link on "legal advice" because what laymen would call "legal advice" and what attorneys call legal advices are often different. That difference is made clear upon one's putting an attorney on retainer or otherwise becoming a client of an attorney.


Correction:

I misspoke. Hannity does say he asked Cohen some legal questions.​

The issue here is one of those where people will say "this didn't happen", and they're being slippery and whatever. He probably thought he could say this and it'd all be confidential.

Personally I don't think any of this is actually an issue, yet people are going nuts about it. Who cares whether he helped a TV person?

Personally I don't think any of this is actually an issue, yet people are going nuts about it.

"Going nuts?" Not by a long shot, but I can't lie, I find it entertaining. It's great fodder for cocktail party quips.

I have the Huffington Post app on my phone, I looked at it today for a few minutes. Most of it was about this story.

Maybe one in every three reports is about Hannity, Cohen or whatever.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Leftists, always trying to violate the rights of the people.

Attorney-Client Privilege
In the law of evidence, a client's privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidentialcommunications between the client and his or her attorney. Such privilege protects communications between attorney andclient that are made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining professional legal advice or assistance. That privilege thatpermits an attorney to refuse to testify as to communications from the client. It belongs to the client, not the attorney, andhence only the client may waive it. In federal courts, state law is applied with respect to such privilege.

The attorney-client privilege encourages clients to disclose to their attorneys all pertinent information in legal matters byprotecting such disclosures from discovery at trial. The privileged information, held strictly between the attorney and theclient, may remain private as long as a court does not force disclosure. The privilege does not apply to communicationsbetween an attorney and a client that are made in furtherance of a Fraud or other crime. The responsibility for designatingwhich information should remain confidential rests with the client. In its most common use, however, the attorney claims theprivilege on behalf of the client in refusing to disclose to the court, or to any other party, requested information about theclient's case.

As a basic construction in the judicial system, the privilege is an ancient device. It can be found even in Roman law—forexample, Marcus Tullius Cicero, while prosecuting the governor of Sicily, could not call the governor's advocate as a witness,because if he were to have done so, the governor would have lost confidence in his own defender. Over the years, the closetie between attorney and client developed further with reforms in English Common Law.

Because the attorney-client privilege often balances competing interests, it defies a rigid definition. However, one often-cited characterization was set forth in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950). The courtarticulated five requirements: first, the person asserting the privilege must be a client, or must have sought to become a clientat the time of disclosure; second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, thecommunication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively—no non-clients may be included in thecommunication; fourth, the communication must have occurred for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, orassistance in some legal proceeding, and not for the purpose of committing a crime; fifth, the privilege may be claimed orwaived by the client only (usually, as stated above, through counsel).

You dont read so good.

The underlined portion says clearly that there must be an attorney- client relationship. Not advice in casual conversation.

first, the person asserting the privilege must be a client, or must have sought to become a clientat the time of disclosure; second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, thecommunication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively—no non-clients may be included in thecommunication; fourth, the communication must have occurred for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, orassistance in some legal proceeding, and not for the purpose of committing a crime; fifth, the privilege may be claimed orwaived by the client only (usually, as stated above, through counsel).

 

[ChrisL]

Unless they have a reason to issue a warrant to LEGALLY obtain the records of Hannity from this lawyer, then they haven't got shit. You get that?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

Money doesn't have to change hands. Lawyers do pro-bono work all the time. Cohen told the judge that Hannity was his client. There was no misunderstanding his claim. Was he lying?

He said he sought out his legal opinion before but never actually hired him as a lawyer. Why does this confuse you so much?

You're the one confused.

 

[ChrisL]

Leftists, always trying to violate the rights of the people.

Attorney-Client Privilege
In the law of evidence, a client's privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidentialcommunications between the client and his or her attorney. Such privilege protects communications between attorney andclient that are made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining professional legal advice or assistance. That privilege thatpermits an attorney to refuse to testify as to communications from the client. It belongs to the client, not the attorney, andhence only the client may waive it. In federal courts, state law is applied with respect to such privilege.

The attorney-client privilege encourages clients to disclose to their attorneys all pertinent information in legal matters byprotecting such disclosures from discovery at trial. The privileged information, held strictly between the attorney and theclient, may remain private as long as a court does not force disclosure. The privilege does not apply to communicationsbetween an attorney and a client that are made in furtherance of a Fraud or other crime. The responsibility for designatingwhich information should remain confidential rests with the client. In its most common use, however, the attorney claims theprivilege on behalf of the client in refusing to disclose to the court, or to any other party, requested information about theclient's case.

As a basic construction in the judicial system, the privilege is an ancient device. It can be found even in Roman law—forexample, Marcus Tullius Cicero, while prosecuting the governor of Sicily, could not call the governor's advocate as a witness,because if he were to have done so, the governor would have lost confidence in his own defender. Over the years, the closetie between attorney and client developed further with reforms in English Common Law.

Because the attorney-client privilege often balances competing interests, it defies a rigid definition. However, one often-cited characterization was set forth in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950). The courtarticulated five requirements: first, the person asserting the privilege must be a client, or must have sought to become a clientat the time of disclosure; second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, thecommunication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively—no non-clients may be included in thecommunication; fourth, the communication must have occurred for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, orassistance in some legal proceeding, and not for the purpose of committing a crime; fifth, the privilege may be claimed orwaived by the client only (usually, as stated above, through counsel).

You dont read so good.

The underlined portion says clearly that there must be an attorney- client relationship. Not advice in casual conversation.

first, the person asserting the privilege must be a client, or must have sought to become a clientat the time of disclosure; second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, thecommunication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively—no non-clients may be included in thecommunication; fourth, the communication must have occurred for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, orassistance in some legal proceeding, and not for the purpose of committing a crime; fifth, the privilege may be claimed orwaived by the client only (usually, as stated above, through counsel).

If he asked the lawyer his opinion on a legal matter, it doesn't matter whether it was within a casual conversation or not. The same rules apply as he was asked his "professional" advice or opinion.

 

[ChrisL]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

Money doesn't have to change hands. Lawyers do pro-bono work all the time. Cohen told the judge that Hannity was his client. There was no misunderstanding his claim. Was he lying?

He said he sought out his legal opinion before but never actually hired him as a lawyer. Why does this confuse you so much?

You're the one confused.

No, you are. They would need to obtain a warrant to legally look at or use anything regarding Sean Hannity and his interactions with the lawyer that were related to professional advice/opinions.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

Money doesn't have to change hands. Lawyers do pro-bono work all the time. Cohen told the judge that Hannity was his client. There was no misunderstanding his claim. Was he lying?

He said he sought out his legal opinion before but never actually hired him as a lawyer. Why does this confuse you so much?

You're the one confused.

No, you are. They would need to obtain a warrant to legally look at or use anything regarding Sean Hannity and his interactions with the lawyer that were related to professional advice/opinions.

Isn't that what happened?

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

What is attorney-client privilege?

Well, the guy seemed to get FREE legal advice from Cohen. Maybe because he's Trump's lawyer and Trump was paying for it all.

Well, the guy seemed to get FREE legal advice from Cohen.

It doesn't seem like to me. Check out the linked video. In it, one'll hear Hannity explicitly state he received no legal advice form Cohen.

Note: I put a link on "legal advice" because what laymen would call "legal advice" and what attorneys call legal advices are often different. That difference is made clear upon one's putting an attorney on retainer or otherwise becoming a client of an attorney.


Correction:

I misspoke. Hannity does say he asked Cohen some legal questions.​

The issue here is one of those where people will say "this didn't happen", and they're being slippery and whatever. He probably thought he could say this and it'd all be confidential.

Personally I don't think any of this is actually an issue, yet people are going nuts about it. Who cares whether he helped a TV person?

Personally I don't think any of this is actually an issue, yet people are going nuts about it.

"Going nuts?" Not by a long shot, but I can't lie, I find it entertaining. It's great fodder for cocktail party quips.

I have the Huffington Post app on my phone, I looked at it today for a few minutes. Most of it was about this story.

Maybe one in every three reports is about Hannity, Cohen or whatever.

I have the Huffington Post app on my phone

As I said before....

It's great fodder for cocktail party quips.

LOL