[Lurking Libertarian]

One would think that Cohen (or maybe a friend of the court) should file a motion that Lanny Davis is a conflicted attorney because he can't represent both Hillary Clinton's interest and Michael Cohen's interest because they oppose each other. Davis should have been a vociferous defender of Cohen's rights, but to do that would go against the Clinton's interests.

Cohen had other lawyers, and fired them to hire Davis. I'm sure Davis's retainer letter contained a waiver of conflicts of interest.

Cohen should be given council that has HIS interests first, like challenging the evidence gained from the illegal search of his property, or challenging the privileged communications between him and Trump.

Cohen's prior lawyers already did that, and the court ruled on all of the privilege issues (finding only about 1% of what was seized from Cohen to be privileged; those documents were not handed over to the prosecution, but the rest was). But the point is that the privilege issues were fully litigated before Davis took over.

[Political Junkie Too]

But if Davis took it to court, it would still be brought up, whether in opening or closing statements, to try to convince a jury that Cohen was pressured into something.

Davis counseled Cohen to avoid this for a reason, and I doubt that reason was for Cohen's best interests.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

One other question:

Was that 1% that was privileged just privileged between Cohen and Trump, or did the court respect Cohen's privilege with ALL of his other clients, too, before turning over documents?

I wonder how it was leaked that Hannity was a client of Cohen's, unless Cohen-Hannity privileged documents were turned over?

Generally speaking, wouldn't one think that a majority of documents in a lawyer's office is privileged communication between the lawyer and some client, and not just 1% of documents?

-PJ