[Mr. K]

How in the hell is it appropriate to make that information public?

[House Atreides]

The Deep State STASI thinks that measures of appropriateness and legality don’t apply to them. They think ANYTHING GOES applies to them.

They are both wrong and lawless.

[jjotto]

it’s probably easily found on LexisNexis in paperwork for court cases. Attributing the info to sleazy search warrant raids is just a way to mislead the public.

[AndyJackson]

That is on the Court.

[KC_Lion]

How in the hell is it appropriate to make that information public?

It's not.

But that is not the point.

These people will do ANYTHING.

[Lurking Libertarian]

How in the hell is it appropriate to make that information public?

The identity of a lawyer's client is not privileged. You have to disclose the name of the client to support a claim of attorney-client privilege.

[rolling_stone]

at worst they should have revealed it only to the judge in camera...without public knowledge...impeach the judge

[savedbygrace]

I thought I understood it until I read this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_502

[nutmeg]

Actually, I think I remember Sean stating that Cohen was indeed his personal lawyer whenever he had Michael Cohen on his FNC show as a guest.

Sean always said something like: "In full disclosure, Michael Cohen does legal work for me."

[jazminerose]

It is absolutely not appropriate and a gross violation of privilege.

Of course, if the judge was Kimba Wood, getting thecourt order should have been pretty easy.