In the law of evidence, a client's privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidential communications between the client and his or her attorney. Such privilege protects communications between attorney and client that are made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining professional legal advice or assistance. That privilege that permits an attorney to refuse to testify as to communications from the client. It belongs to the client, not the attorney, and hence only the client may waive it. In federal courts, state law is applied with respect to such privilege
How can Trump's former attorney now go after his own client if Attorney-Client privilege exists?
Originally posted by @whodey Attorney-Client Privilege
In the law of evidence, a client's privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidential communications between the client and his or her attorney. Such privilege protects communications between attorney and client that are made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining professional legal ...[text shortened]... How can Trump's former attorney now go after his own client if Attorney-Client privilege exists?
While I would defer to no1maruder or SH76 on this, I believe they are called the rules of evidence, and the law of evidence. See link # 1 below. I would also point out that as far as I can tell, while discussions about a client’s past crimes would typically be privileged, communications about a current or future crime involving a lawyer and client are not covered. See link # 2 below.
If you're referring to Mr. Cohen here, I'd say prosecutors on Mueller's staff or in the southern disc. of N.Y. are pretty careful folks, I very much doubt they'll risk blowing a case because they've run afoul of attorney-client privilege.
Originally posted by @whodey Attorney-Client Privilege
In the law of evidence, a client's privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidential communications between the client and his or her attorney. Such privilege protects communications between attorney and client that are made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining professional legal ...[text shortened]... How can Trump's former attorney now go after his own client if Attorney-Client privilege exists?
Trump waived any attorney-client privilege applying to the recording made by Cohen.
Originally posted by @handyandy Trump waived any attorney-client privilege applying to the recording made by Cohen.
That may be, but Trump was a former client.
It would be akin to telling your psychiatrist some information saying, "You can talk to others about it" and some years later when they become famous getting on TV telling the world about it.
It may be legal, but there seems to be something extremely unethical about it.
I can't really remember anything resembling this, can anyone else?
Originally posted by @whodey That may be, but Trump was a former client.
It would be akin to telling your psychiatrist some information saying, "You can talk to others about it" and some years later when they become famous getting on TV telling the world about it.
It may be legal, but there seems to be something extremely unethical about it.
I can't really remember anything resembling this, can anyone else?
No, your analogy has the timing wrong. Your sentence is:
It would be akin to telling your psychiatrist some information saying, "You can talk to others about it" and some years later when they become famous getting on TV telling the world about it.
but to match the order of events in Trumpgate it should read:
It would be akin to telling your psychiatrist some information and some years later saying, "You can talk to others about it" when they become famous getting on TV telling the world about it.
Originally posted by @whodey That may be, but Trump was a former client.
It would be akin to telling your psychiatrist some information saying, "You can talk to others about it" and some years later when they become famous getting on TV telling the world about it.
It may be legal, but there seems to be something extremely unethical about it.
I can't really remember anything resembling this, can anyone else?
I'm pretty sure that "attorney-client" privilege does not imply that an attorney and client are above the law.
The privilege does not make their relationship inviolate to investigation. Especially when a preponderance of evidence indicates a conspiracy to commit crimes has occurred.
Originally posted by @wolfe63 I'm pretty sure that "attorney-client" privilege does not imply that an attorney and client are above the law.
The privilege does not make their relationship inviolate to investigation. Especially when a preponderance of evidence indicates a conspiracy to commit crimes has occurred.
Client privilege say in a psychologist office visit the guy says, I just killed my wife.
Client privilege goes out the window in such cases, the psych HAS to notify authorities.
Attorney-Client Privledge
28 Jul '18 01:34
Back to Top