Judge Extends Evidence Deadline For Cohen Team On Attorney-Client Privilege

on September 19, 2017 in Washington, DC.
WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 19: Michael Cohen, U.S. President Donald Trump's personal attorney, speaks to the media after finding out the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing at which he was to appear was canceled, ... WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 19: Michael Cohen, U.S. President Donald Trump's personal attorney, speaks to the media after finding out the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing at which he was to appear was canceled, on September 19, 2017 in Washington, DC. The committee is investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

NEW YORK — A U.S. District Judge on Friday reluctantly agreed to give attorneys for Michael Cohen an extension to provide evidence bolstering their claim that much of the information seized from Cohen by federal agents Monday is protected by attorney-client privilege.

Judge Kimba Wood said Cohen’s team will need to turn over by Monday a full list of Cohen’s legal clients and the attorneys he’s retained in various legal matters, as well as evidence proving that the parties were engaged in an attorney-client relationship.

The judge had taken the unusual step of calling two recesses throughout the day to give Cohen’s legal team time to gather this requested information. Her impatience at their failure to do so was palpable by late afternoon.

Wood directed that Cohen be present in court at the next hearing on Monday “so we don’t need to have any more adjournments.”

Court filings unsealed Friday revealed that Cohen has been under grand jury investigation for months for alleged “criminal conduct” related primarily to his “personal business dealings.”

In court, the Manhattan attorney and long-time fixer for Donald Trump was represented by a trio of lawyers — one who had only joined the case on Friday afternoon. They were there to argue that they should get to review the documents seized from Cohen’s office, apartment and hotel room this week before federal prosecutors do so. According to reports, the search warrants related to payouts Cohen coordinated for women who have claimed to have had affairs with Trump, as well as to a taxi business Cohen is involved with.

In the courtroom Friday afternoon, the prosecution argued that Cohen’s team is trying to use attorney-client privilege to both keep the government from reviewing the information they have searched and to protect their client from having to turn over additional information pertinent to the case.

Assistant US Attorney Tom McKay said the law was very clear that the privilege “can’t be used as both a sword and a shield.”

Cohen’s team deserved no extension to try to prove their “wildly overbroad claims of privilege” for material that was lawfully obtained through search warrants, McKay insisted.

Though Wood ultimately granted Cohen’s team additional time, she referred to the prosecution’s concerns as “well-taken.”

Cohen’s lawyers will need to turn over the requested material by 10 a.m. Monday, and court will reconvene at 2 p.m.—with Cohen himself seated at the counsel’s table.

Latest Muckraker

Notable Replies

  1. Todd Harrison, a lawyer for Cohen, told Judge Kimba Wood that he had not had time to compile a full list of Cohen’s clients, and could not comply with a request to reveal their names to the court because of “ethical obligations” to protect their identities.

    Where in the hell are they finding these morons? And how are they all managing to pass New York’s ball-crackingly hard bar exam?

  2. Harrison better have what Judge Wood wants at 4:00. And he’d better be straight up with his answers. Because I do not think the Court is in a mood for any dicking around from these guys.

  3. LOL. That’s one of the most fun things in a courtroom battle…watching someone make an argument like “we don’t know this yet, we haven’t had a chance to review it yet, we need more time to put it into focus and get the information together” and then 10 minutes later launch into an argument that could only be credible if the previous arguments weren’t true. Judge’s HATE that kind of game playing.

  4. Seriously. If you’re not keeping a client list or at least a rolodex that you can just printout and go through to identify clients and former clients, then I’d call that almost malpractice. It’s such a basic thing and absolutely necessary for checking conflicts.

  5. [quote=“sniffit, post:5, topic:70907”]
    and absolutely necessary for checking conflicts.
    [/quote]You do see what you wrote there, right? Conflicts…ha!

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

61 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for pantala Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for commiedearest Avatar for apphouse50 Avatar for losamigos Avatar for juliagrey Avatar for sniffit Avatar for mike_in_houston Avatar for phrostbyte Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for darrtown Avatar for tena Avatar for established_1781 Avatar for bankerpup Avatar for scrimmins Avatar for marcc1213 Avatar for rickjones Avatar for jacksonhts Avatar for irishbark Avatar for michaelryerson Avatar for socalista Avatar for atldrew Avatar for ibecool

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: