Michael Cohen's Admission: Breach of Attorney Client Privilege and Legal Implications
When an attorney commits a felony, the attorney-client privilege ceases to apply. However, for Michael Cohen's services to Donald Trump, it's highly questionable whether he could have been acting as an attorney, thereby raising the question of whether his admission of discussing a meeting with Moscow officials breaches attorney-client privilege.
Attorney-Client Privilege and Its Limitations
Attorney-client privilege does not protect communications involving crimes committed in cooperation between a client and their attorney. If the lawyer participates in a criminal conspiracy, the client's communications are not protected. Furthermore, the privilege only extends to what the client shares with the attorney, and not necessarily the other way around.
For example, if Cohen told Trump about efforts to meet with Russian officials during the campaign, he could legally reveal this information, as the communications and the context related to the meeting were clear and related to the campaign's actions rather than a future crime.
When is Attorney-Client Privilege Exempt?
The attorney-client privilege may be exempt for information given to an attorney about a client's intent to commit a future crime or carry out a future fraud. However, it is tricky for the lawyer to act based on this information. If a client informs the lawyer of their intent to commit a crime, the lawyer is legally permitted to take the same steps as anyone else in a such a situation.
For instance, if a client tells their lawyer about a planned murder on the way out, the lawyer can take appropriate steps, but if it's during a business context, the situation is more complex. This highlights the nuanced application of attorney-client privilege in different contexts.
Michael Cohen's Role and the Trump Campaign
Given Cohen's involvement in securing a billion-dollar deal for Trump, it's clear that his services extended beyond mere legal representation. Cohen appears to have acted as a fixer, working on a deal that Trump had long desired, starting well before the campaign and continuing through a potentially post-nomination period. Cohen's claim that he was acting without authority may have been a partial lie, as it’s unlikely Trump would seek out such a deal without some form of backing or at least expectation of cooperation.
The deal was complicated by the involvement of Russian officials and a potential bribe. At the time, there was no clear indication that the deal would materialize, and Trump could have taken other steps to secure the deal independently. Cohen's belief in the deal's potential success, despite repeated failures, suggests that the possibility of Trump's election played a significant role in his actions.
Based on the detailed investigation by the special counsel, it's plausible that Cohen either recorded communications or had prior experience with Trump's violations of bribery laws. This background knowledge may have led Cohen to believe that the deal, if made, would be acceptable to Trump. However, the full extent of Trump's knowledge and authorization remains unclear.
Concluding Thoughts
Michael Cohen's admission raises critical questions about attorney-client privilege, particularly in cases where future crimes are involved. While the privilege is essential for protecting confidential communications, it can be breached if the lawyer and client are deemed to be in a criminal conspiracy. In the Michael Cohen case, the complex interplay of legal and political interests makes the application of this privilege particularly challenging.
As the investigation continues, the legal and ethical implications of Cohen's actions will undoubtedly be a central focus, with broad implications for not only the individuals involved but also for the broader principles of attorney-client privilege and the role of lawyers in protecting their clients.