In all seriousness, why in the world was his client list compelled in public? Is this normal?
Court proceedings are generally public unless there is a reason for them to not be public. In this instance,
the judge explained "because the identities of an attorney’s clients are not subject to attorney-client privilege unless the mere name itself would reveal the kind of advice sought or given." Cohen said he has only had a few clients since Trump took office, the Judge gave them an opportunity to argue why the names should not be disclosed. Team Cohen argued that his clients really didn't want the names disclosed, which the judge said doesn't meet the burden.
Is this normal? None of this is normal. But while I have never had to deal directly with this issue, it does not appear rare for a Court to order disclosure of client lists in certain circumstances - like where an attorney himself is at the center of some issue (2 minute Google search: the
3rd Circuit just affirmed such an Order in an IRS case out of Pennsylvania in February [quoted below], the
DC Bar issued a similar ethics opinion way back in 1990). Cohen almost certainly notified his clients, but one way or another Trump's attorneys showed up to argue and Hannity's did not. If Cohen or Mr. Trump's attorneys thought the judges ruling was erroneous, they could have risked advising Cohen to withhold the information and sought an emergency appeal to the 2nd Circuit... I'm sure I'm not thinking of things they didn't.
I was under the impression a disinterested party was going to sift through everything and determine what was admissible, and what was protected by attorney client privileged. I was told that civil rights would not be trampled on in any way whatsoever. This was all above board. Instead, we get leaks (which I totally expected) and public admissions of clients. And we are cheering them on all the way. Please tell me I am missing something.
Where are you getting the impression that someone went Rambo and started trampling rights? Always a fear worth raising and certainly something that I think does happen (see my rants on here!). But Rights can be taken away with due process. In this instance, I think Uncle Sam needs to be very careful, but what do you think was over the established line?
No one is sifting through the materials at this time. The prosecution (State/Uncle Sam) wanted to set up a "taint team" who would sift though material and decide if it could go on to the prosecuting attorneys (presumably if it was privileged or not, or if it was wholly irrelevant AND privileged). Team Cohen wanted to see all the materials first and then have a special master (3rd party) review the documents and make recommendations to the Court. The President's team doesn't want the US Attorney's office or Special Master, they want to review the records themselves to decide what should be withheld from the Government. The Court has not ruled, but it looks like she is leaning towards a "taint team" inside the US Attorney's office. Presently, each side is supposed to make a list based on knowledge they have (Cohen knowing what he had and both sides presumably having an inventory of what was taken).
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/16/politics/michael-cohen-hearing/index.htmlWhat leaks are you talking about? The Mueller investigation and this US Attorney raid have had amazingly few leaks. The details of exactly what the raid was about are only trickling out as it circulates among more and more people and is discussed by Trump, Cohen, various attorneys, prosecutors and judges. nothing at all before the raid and no one knows what Mueller's team is doing other than when someone gets subpoena'd or indicted. This is a very leaky administration, but hard to point that at the US Attorney in NY or Mueller's team.
What's not above board? A US Government DOJ employee found evidence they thought pointed to a crime, he reported it to the US Attorney for the district with jurisdiction, he recused himself because of a conflict, his subordinate apparently agreed with the alleged finding of a rime and thought the only way to get info was to confiscate the subject's files which may be privileged, so he went to the appropriate party at the DOJ for extra-ordinary approval, he then went to a Federal Judge for approval, he then went to the FBI for approval and execution of the subpoena. The whole thing then went before another Federal Judge to decide if names would be revealed and start sorting out the issue of attorney client privilege.
If you think this isn't due process or above-board, please don't look at what happens in a normal criminal cases. Most cases don't have the world watching, piles of attorneys waiting to slap Uncle Sam down, or parts of the government working against itself. I 100% agree that raiding an attorneys office should not be taken lightly, but I'd guess the DOJ, FBI, Federal Judges, Prosecutors, and defense attorneys involved all think that too. If a righteous citizen could ever be vindicated in an instance of overreach by Uncle Sam... this would be it. And we shall see.
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of client lists:
The Supreme Court “has recognized the attorney-client privilege under federal law, as the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That privilege – although an essential and carefully guarded aspect of the attorney-client relationship – is not boundless. It protects only against the disclosure of confidential communications. Upjohn Co., 449 U.S. at 389; In re Teleglobe Commc’ns Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 359-60 (3d Cir. 2007). We have said that, absent unusual circumstances, the attorney-client privilege does not protect against disclosing clients’ identities. Liebman, 742 F.2d at 809; see also Gannet v. First Nat’l State Bank of N.J., 546 F.2d 1072, 1073 n.4 (3d Cir. 1976) (citing cases).
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171371np.pdf
