How do you reconcile these two remarks....

[Hutch Starskey]

If the

It's not covered at all. Especially since Hannity says they had no professional relationship.


When an Attorney-Client Relationship Begins
Before the privilege can be asserted, there must be an attorney-client relationship. Many assume that they are protected by the privilege when, in fact, no attorney-client relationship has actually been formed.

The confidentiality privilege can begin when the attorney and the client have agreed on the representation of the client. This privilege can also be asserted when a person has attempted to become a client of the attorney when the information was disclosed.

Nope, if it was for even legal advice, it is covered under client-attorney privilege.

Attorney Client Privilege - General Counsel - Wayne State University

The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest and most respected privileges. It prevents a lawyer from being compelled to testify against his/her client. The purpose underlying this privilege is to ensure that clients receive accurate and competent legal advice by encouraging full disclosure to their lawyer without fear that the information will be revealed to others. The privilege covers written and oral communications and protects both individual and institutional clients. The privilege extends from the attorney to include legal office staff that facilitates communications to and from the attorney.

The attorney-client privilege does not apply to every communication with an attorney. For the privilege to exist, the communication must be to, from, or with an attorney, and intended to be confidential. In addition, the communication must be for the purpose of requesting or receiving legal advice. For example, an e-mail or memorandum from one administrator to another concerning a legal matter typically is not privileged because such e-mail is not sent to or from an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

Communications must be kept confidential for the privilege to apply. If the substance of attorney-client communications is disclosed to persons outside the University – or even to persons within the University who are not directly involved in the matter – the privilege may be extinguished.

Your communications with General Counsel or outside counsel representing WSU should never be discussed with anyone outside WSU, including family members or friends. Within the University, such communications should be discussed only with persons who have responsibility for the particular matter.

You are a fool.

The privilege is the client's to assert.
In this case, Hannity denies being a client, dummy.

It doesn't matter if Hannity denies being a client. That does not negate his right to privacy under the law. Duh. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean that others can violate it.

It doesn't matter if Hannity denies being a client. That does not negate his right to privacy under the law. Duh. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean that others can violate it.

You are truly dopey.
He can't both deny being a client and exercise the privilege that comes with being a client.

He can deny whatever he wants to deny. If this lawyer has paperwork that has to do with a legal matter to do with this person, then he cannot just release it and talk about it. This is pretty simple to understand. Legal advice counts in the attorney-client privilege laws.

The client must assert the privilege. The attorney cannot.

 

[ChrisL]

If the
Nope, if it was for even legal advice, it is covered under client-attorney privilege.

Attorney Client Privilege - General Counsel - Wayne State University

The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest and most respected privileges. It prevents a lawyer from being compelled to testify against his/her client. The purpose underlying this privilege is to ensure that clients receive accurate and competent legal advice by encouraging full disclosure to their lawyer without fear that the information will be revealed to others. The privilege covers written and oral communications and protects both individual and institutional clients. The privilege extends from the attorney to include legal office staff that facilitates communications to and from the attorney.

The attorney-client privilege does not apply to every communication with an attorney. For the privilege to exist, the communication must be to, from, or with an attorney, and intended to be confidential. In addition, the communication must be for the purpose of requesting or receiving legal advice. For example, an e-mail or memorandum from one administrator to another concerning a legal matter typically is not privileged because such e-mail is not sent to or from an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

Communications must be kept confidential for the privilege to apply. If the substance of attorney-client communications is disclosed to persons outside the University – or even to persons within the University who are not directly involved in the matter – the privilege may be extinguished.

Your communications with General Counsel or outside counsel representing WSU should never be discussed with anyone outside WSU, including family members or friends. Within the University, such communications should be discussed only with persons who have responsibility for the particular matter.

You are a fool.

The privilege is the client's to assert.
In this case, Hannity denies being a client, dummy.

It doesn't matter if Hannity denies being a client. That does not negate his right to privacy under the law. Duh. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean that others can violate it.

It doesn't matter if Hannity denies being a client. That does not negate his right to privacy under the law. Duh. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean that others can violate it.

You are truly dopey.
He can't both deny being a client and exercise the privilege that comes with being a client.

He can deny whatever he wants to deny. If this lawyer has paperwork that has to do with a legal matter to do with this person, then he cannot just release it and talk about it. This is pretty simple to understand. Legal advice counts in the attorney-client privilege laws.

The client must assert the privilege. The attorney cannot.

You have that backwards. In order to release ANY legal information that you have on a person as an attorney, would require a warrant and rightfully so. Unless they have the person's written permission (such as applies in the HIPAA laws that doctors must abide by), then you cannot release that information publicly or even to the police without a warrant that orders you to do so.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't matter if it is your best friend, you husband, your wife, whatever. If they spoke to you as an attorney with a reasonable expectation of privacy, then you can't go around blabbing about it as an attorney. Free legal advice counts under the laws of attorney-client privilege. The setting of the conversation about legal matters does not count. Every single individual (regardless of their relationship to the attorney) is entitled to these rights as a US citizen.

 

[ChrisL]

In a court of law, they aren't going to be okay with throwing away a person's right to legal privacy because the attorney and he were having drinks at the time the discussion took place, and especially NOT any paperwork the lawyer may have regarding research he did into the case.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In a court of law, they aren't going to be okay with throwing away a person's right to legal privacy because the attorney and he were having drinks at the time the discussion took place, and especially NOT any paperwork the lawyer may have regarding research he did into the case.

The attorney would have to be acting as my attorney for me to be a client and to expect confidentiality.

It's not automatic cover in all situations.

 

[ChrisL]

In a court of law, they aren't going to be okay with throwing away a person's right to legal privacy because the attorney and he were having drinks at the time the discussion took place, and especially NOT any paperwork the lawyer may have regarding research he did into the case.

The attorney would have to be acting as my attorney for me to be a client and to expect confidentiality.

It's not automatic cover in all situations.

Well, you've obviously answered your own question already. If the lawyer has paperwork listing him as a "client", then the lawyer considers him a client and is under the attorney-client privilege. Correct?

 

[ChrisL]

I have called an attorney in the past just to get some advice, and I would not call myself a client. However, that does not by any means mean that the attorney does not have any paperwork regarding our discussions and has me as one of his clients. He is therefore bound by the attorney-client privilege law. But even if he didn't have me listed as one of his official clients, that doesn't mean he can go and blab about my legal matters to others without my explicit written consent to do so.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In a court of law, they aren't going to be okay with throwing away a person's right to legal privacy because the attorney and he were having drinks at the time the discussion took place, and especially NOT any paperwork the lawyer may have regarding research he did into the case.

The attorney would have to be acting as my attorney for me to be a client and to expect confidentiality.

It's not automatic cover in all situations.

Well, you've obviously answered your own question already. If the lawyer has paperwork listing him as a "client", then the lawyer considers him a client and is under the attorney-client privilege. Correct?

No.
The attorney has nothing to do with the privilege. It is the client's privilege and must be asserted by the client.

As long as Hannity continues to deny being a client, he has no privilege.

 

[ChrisL]

In a court of law, they aren't going to be okay with throwing away a person's right to legal privacy because the attorney and he were having drinks at the time the discussion took place, and especially NOT any paperwork the lawyer may have regarding research he did into the case.

The attorney would have to be acting as my attorney for me to be a client and to expect confidentiality.

It's not automatic cover in all situations.

Well, you've obviously answered your own question already. If the lawyer has paperwork listing him as a "client", then the lawyer considers him a client and is under the attorney-client privilege. Correct?

No.
The attorney has nothing to do with the privilege. It is the client's privilege and must be asserted by the client.

As long as Hannity continues to deny being a client, he has no privilege.

Earlier you said it must be asserted by the attorney. Now you say it has to be the client. Lol! So either way, if the attorney or Hannity considers those discussions private, then they would fall under the law. I guess you lose either way, huh?

 

[ChrisL]

If the attorney has paperwork with me listed as a client, then I am a client and he is under legal obligation. Sorry, but that is just a fact. He can't just give out his paperwork that he has on MY legal issues without my written consent or a warrant signed by a judge.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In a court of law, they aren't going to be okay with throwing away a person's right to legal privacy because the attorney and he were having drinks at the time the discussion took place, and especially NOT any paperwork the lawyer may have regarding research he did into the case.

The attorney would have to be acting as my attorney for me to be a client and to expect confidentiality.

It's not automatic cover in all situations.

Well, you've obviously answered your own question already. If the lawyer has paperwork listing him as a "client", then the lawyer considers him a client and is under the attorney-client privilege. Correct?

No.
The attorney has nothing to do with the privilege. It is the client's privilege and must be asserted by the client.

As long as Hannity continues to deny being a client, he has no privilege.

Earlier you said it must be asserted by the attorney. Now you say it has to be the client. Lol! So either way, if the attorney or Hannity considers those discussions private, then they would fall under the law. I guess you lose either way, huh?

Earlier you said it must be asserted by the attorney.

I didn't.

Post it up.

 

[ChrisL]

In a court of law, they aren't going to be okay with throwing away a person's right to legal privacy because the attorney and he were having drinks at the time the discussion took place, and especially NOT any paperwork the lawyer may have regarding research he did into the case.

The attorney would have to be acting as my attorney for me to be a client and to expect confidentiality.

It's not automatic cover in all situations.

Well, you've obviously answered your own question already. If the lawyer has paperwork listing him as a "client", then the lawyer considers him a client and is under the attorney-client privilege. Correct?

No.
The attorney has nothing to do with the privilege. It is the client's privilege and must be asserted by the client.

As long as Hannity continues to deny being a client, he has no privilege.

Earlier you said it must be asserted by the attorney. Now you say it has to be the client. Lol! So either way, if the attorney or Hannity considers those discussions private, then they would fall under the law. I guess you lose either way, huh?

Earlier you said it must be asserted by the attorney.

I didn't.

Post it up.

You are definitely not worth the effort of looking through all of your inane posts again. You are wrong. Just admit it. Lawyers cannot release paperwork that they have on clients or people who have sought out their legal professional opinions without the permission of the person or a judge.

 

[ChrisL]

IF the person confessed to the attorney that he committed a crime, then the attorney can break the attorney-client privilege if he believes that it actually happened. Attorneys also have to represent a lot of crazy people though, and that is an important thing to remember. There have been cases where people have actually admitted to committing crimes that they did not actually commit. All kinds of crazies in this world, but they still have rights that need to be protected.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The attorney would have to be acting as my attorney for me to be a client and to expect confidentiality.

It's not automatic cover in all situations.

Well, you've obviously answered your own question already. If the lawyer has paperwork listing him as a "client", then the lawyer considers him a client and is under the attorney-client privilege. Correct?

No.
The attorney has nothing to do with the privilege. It is the client's privilege and must be asserted by the client.

As long as Hannity continues to deny being a client, he has no privilege.

Earlier you said it must be asserted by the attorney. Now you say it has to be the client. Lol! So either way, if the attorney or Hannity considers those discussions private, then they would fall under the law. I guess you lose either way, huh?

Earlier you said it must be asserted by the attorney.

I didn't.

Post it up.

You are definitely not worth the effort of looking through all of your inane posts again. You are wrong. Just admit it. Lawyers cannot release paperwork that they have on clients or people who have sought out their legal professional opinions without the permission of the person or a judge.

No. Attorney's must maintain confidentiality for their clients. For those they represent professionally. Not for everyone who ever asked them a legal question.


BTW, it's nice how you completely lied about what I posted and then refused to back it up.

What a real piece of shit.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, you've obviously answered your own question already. If the lawyer has paperwork listing him as a "client", then the lawyer considers him a client and is under the attorney-client privilege. Correct?

No.
The attorney has nothing to do with the privilege. It is the client's privilege and must be asserted by the client.

As long as Hannity continues to deny being a client, he has no privilege.

Earlier you said it must be asserted by the attorney. Now you say it has to be the client. Lol! So either way, if the attorney or Hannity considers those discussions private, then they would fall under the law. I guess you lose either way, huh?

Earlier you said it must be asserted by the attorney.

I didn't.

Post it up.

You are definitely not worth the effort of looking through all of your inane posts again. You are wrong. Just admit it. Lawyers cannot release paperwork that they have on clients or people who have sought out their legal professional opinions without the permission of the person or a judge.

No. Attorney's must maintain confidentiality for their clients. For those they represent professionally. Not for everyone who ever asked them a legal question.


BTW, it's nice how you completely lied about what I posted and then refused to back it up.

What a real piece of shit.

I already posted you the link that includes legal advice even when not paid for counts as an attorney-client relationship. If you can't understand that, that is your problem. You are dense.

 

[Correll]

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?

Don't know, don't care What does it matter?


Are you saying that Comey grabbed ALL of Cohen files and is just going though them fishing for anything to fuck anyone with something?


That would be very wrong, and in keeping with what we have been seeing.

 

[ChrisL]

If the person sought legal advice of a professional capacity from an attorney, that counts under attorney-client privilege. It doesn't matter where it took place. It matters if it was LEGAL advice and there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. I mean, if you are at a convention and you stand up and ask advice, there is no expectation of privacy. If you are having a private discussion, and you ask legal advice from a professional attorney and especially if he has records of the discussion and he has listed in his business as a CLIENT, then he cannot disclose this data.

End thread.

 

[Penelope]

If nothing was in writing , how did the court know, Cohen said he was a client, Hannity denies, who is lying?

 

[ChrisL]

So, the leftists begin by claiming they don't believe that Hannity was NOT a client to arguing that it is up to him whether or not he was a client and that his paperwork regarding SOME type of legal issue is not protected even though they do really believe he was actually a client and did much more than just innocently seek some legal advice?

Which one is it? Was he a client of this attorney or did he just seek some benign legal advice? Either way, this doesn't mean he has committed any crimes.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Don't know, don't care What does it matter?


Are you saying that Comey grabbed ALL of Cohen files and is just going though them fishing for anything to fuck anyone with something?


That would be very wrong, and in keeping with what we have been seeing.

It's what you call a witch hunt.