- Quickdraw McLaw
- 19 Comments
- 700 Views
As you may have heard, President Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen kept audio recordings of his conversations with his client. Some of those recordings were seized from Cohen as part of a criminal probe into his business practices. Now, CNN has released one of those recordings and President Trump is tweeting about it.
Have you ever or would you ever record a client?
I anticipate three basic responses to this question. 1) He'll NO! I take my oath seriously and there is no reason to tape a client. 2) Yes, if it appears my client is trying to entice me into commuting. Crime on their behalf and I plan to assist law enforcement in catching them even at the cost of my law license, or 3) No, but TRUMP! NAZI fascists don't deserve my loyalty so he deserves it because I find him absolutely abhorrent so in this case Cohen is doing the Lord's work (not that I believe in a god) and he deserves a medal for his bravery. Go.
Lol. Commuting crime
Either spell check is a bitch, I have a Cormac McCarthy level of disregard for grammar and grammar Nazis or I am really Trump looking to give you your next trigger event, a la Covfefe! You decide.
4) Batshit crazy clients who can't remember what they told me or what I expressly told them not to do, and who arguably are unable to read followup letters, get recorded as a CYA.
July 25, 2018 at 8:59 AM – Hey, back off on the Grammar Nazi comments or I'll bump up the schedule on my triennial posting on the use of irregular verbs.
You have been warned…
So long as a one-side-consent recording isn't illegal in the jurisdiction, I don't think it's a violation of professional conduct standards to make a recording for CYA purposes, but it's pretty clearly a violation of professional conduct standards (probably in every jurisdiction) to release the recording to a freaking news organization (or anyone who is not the client, for that matter) unless ordered by a court or in connection with defending yourself against a malpractice of ethics complaint by the client, neither of which happened here. No way Cohen doesn't lose his license over this (which is moot, because he's going to lose his license for federal convictions, anyway).
Although I'd like to say I would never record a client(and have never in fact done so)there are clients like 9:01 describes.
So, desperate times call for desperate means.
You reap what you sow.
Exactly. This is what you get when you want Michael Clayton and hire Saul Goodman.
great reference!
I do not record client calls, but I can definitely see why an attorney would want to record calls with difficult clients to document what was discussed so long as the client is aware and consents to being recorded in writing.
Although I would regard recording clients as something an attorney should not be doing, I think it matters in context. Cohen has been Trump's attorney for many years, and knows what the ramifications are. I believe there is a reason that led Cohen to do these recordings, most likely on their prior past dealings with each other. Trump is known for screwing those who assist him, including attorneys. Cohen could simply be recording for the sake of not getting burn (again) by Trump. The recordings were not illegal. arguably, they were not unethical either (they were not release by Cohen at any point). The only time the recordings came out was once they were seized, and the court decided they were not subject to privilege. The cat was out of the bag, and it wasnt Cohen that brought it out either.
The bottom line that I am walking away with here is that Trump is a shady dude, who deals with shady people, and although Trump demands "loyalty," nobody trusts or is loyal to each other. His inner circle trusts each other to a fault. But once the Feds come knockin they all roll over cause they are not gonna protect another Shady dude. thats just my 2 cents
I suspect Cohen believed that Trump was taping him so his tapes would only ever come to light in the context of a doctored tape from Trump.
Off Topic https://bit.ly/2Ln9hm9
This would never happen here and if it did, Bar Counsel wouldn't pay attention.
To be fair, Bar Counsel would not pay attention in any jurisdiction. First, the Court controls the reasonableness of fees and did so in this case; OBC would not second guess a judge's Order. Secondarily OBC would refer the parties to Fee Dispute to determine the reasonableness of the fee.
This article about GT fees is hilarious. Someone sent it to me over the weekend.
It is not illegal to record in person conversations without the other side's consent in Nevada. It is probably not illegal in most states. It is illegal in Nevada to record telephone conversations. We are a two party state requiring permission. It is a crime to do so without permission. In some jurisdictions where no consent is needed, clients record attorneys and use it against them. This is why when rendering legal advice it is advisable to consider that your words can come back to bite you. Lawyers have gotten into trouble advising clients how to break the law and not get caught. Plain and simple. If you suspect someone is recording your conversation in person, it might be advisable to ask and state you are not waiving or granting permission.
In Nevada it does not matter whether you consent or not, only one party needed to record an in person conversation. Also there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, a non party to your conversation record it.
Previous Trump lawyers have testified at deposition that they never wanted to be alone with him in a room because he has alternative factual recollections. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-lawyer-called-liar-1992-deposition-article-1.2820585. Consider the tape recorder the second lawyer.