Michael Cohen's Testimony against Trump: The Attorney-Client Privilege Debate
The recent testimonies of Michael Cohen, who was once Donald Trump's personal attorney, have sparked significant debates about the concept of attorney-client privilege. Many wonder why Cohen chose to break this privilege by testifying against Trump, especially when asked to do so for personal and financial gain. This article delves into the reasons behind his actions, focusing on the legal and ethical aspects of attorney-client privilege.
Understanding Attorney-Client Privilege
Attorney-client privilege is a vital element of the legal system, designed to protect confidential communications between a lawyer and their client. This privilege ensures that such communications remain confidential, promoting open and honest dialogue between the lawyer and their client. However, this privilege is not absolute and can be overriden in certain circumstances, particularly when it involves criminal acts or conspiracy.
The Case of Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen, who has been disbarred and is currently in jail, recently testified against Donald Trump. This has raised questions about the viability of attorney-client privilege in certain scenarios. Several reasons can explain Cohen's actions:
Financial and Career Considerations
One of the most prominent reasons for Cohen's decision is the potential to advance his career. By testifying against a figure that is generally disliked, Cohen might be able to present himself as a disinterested and more honest witness. It is often said that he sees this as an opportunity to improve his personal and professional standing.
Lack of Attorney-Client Privilege
The concept of attorney-client privilege does not extend to criminal acts or conspiracy. Cohen's actions, which included lying to the federal government, campaign finance violations, and payment to a model to hide an affair, fall outside the scope of attorney-client privilege. Cohen had already been convicted and sentenced for these actions, making it clear that the privilege does not apply to his current testimony.
Breaking Down the Legal Justifications
When the press initially asked Cohen about the payment to Stormy Daniels, he replied that it was a matter for the attorney-client relationship. However, attorney-client privilege does not apply when actions are illegal. Cohen's involvement in these illegal activities, such as misleading the IRS, courts, and Congress, means that the privilege is not applicable.
Overcharging and Ethical Concerns
Cohen's actions extended beyond just legal violations; he was also involved in unethical business practices, such as overcharging and over-billing clients. He took thousands of dollars from Trump and was accused of stealing from customers. This behavior suggests that Cohen's actions went beyond legal boundaries, which explains why he would prioritize legal over personal integrity.
Cohen's Relationship with Trump
The relationship between Cohen and Trump has soured, which likely influenced Cohen's decision. Cohen spent time in prison due to his actions and has been disbarred, meaning that he has nothing to lose. Moreover, it is clear that Trump repeatedly asked Cohen to break the law for him, which is a breach of professional ethics and attorney-client privilege.
Preserving Issues for Appeal
If Cohen were to become a lawyer again in the future, he would have a strong legal argument to preserve the issue of attorney-client privilege for appeal. Even if a judge rules against him, his objection to the breach of privilege serves as a safeguard for future legal actions.
The Honorable Nature of the Legal Profession
Despite the low opinions some may have of Cohen, there is honor among thieves. Even other lawyers, whether Trump haters or not, recognize the unwavering dedication to ethical conduct within the profession. Cohen's actions highlight the importance of maintaining ethical standards in legal practice.
In conclusion, Michael Cohen's decision to testify against Trump is deeply rooted in the legal and ethical framework surrounding attorney-client privilege. His actions reflect a complex interplay of financial motives, legal boundaries, and ethical considerations, making his testimony a critical point of discussion in the ongoing legal saga.