Attorney-Client Confidentiality Has Limits

The Trump-Cohen Predicament

The FBI raid on the office, home, apartment and safety deposit box of Attorney Michael Cohen and the seizure of his files, hard drives and recordings sure has caused a lot of consternation in Washington. 

As a former criminal defense lawyer, I can say with certainty that to obtain judicial approval for a search warrant application targeting a lawyer’s office, any lawyer’s office, the prosecutor has to go above and beyond the usual showing that evidence of a crime is probably located in the place to be searched. The application must also show that the lawyer whose files and records are to be seized was both aware that the criminal activity documented in his files took place and that he was either directly involved in the criminal activity or that his services were being used to shield the criminal activity. 

These extra hurdles exist to protect one of the most sacrosanct legal protections, the confidentiality of attorney-client communications. The things clients tell and give to their lawyers are protected from forced disclosure so that the lawyer can expect honesty from his clients and be better prepared to defend their interests. These communications are protected first by the rules of evidence that prevent the information in the lawyer’s files from being used against the client in court and also prevents the lawyer from being compelled to be a witness against his client. The confidentiality of attorney-client communications is also protected by rules governing lawyer conduct and provides an additional barrier to disclosure of information the lawyer obtained from or about the client. 

Using these protective rules, some organized criminal elements began to hire lawyers to help them conduct illegal activity and protect against the lawyer becoming a government informer. Recall the days of the mob families with their lawyer consiglieries made famous in the Godfather and you get the idea.

In order to prevent lawyers from providing cover to or profiting from illegal activities by their clients, courts and legislatures changed the rules of evidence to add a “crime-fraud” exception to the attorney-client privilege and bar associations changed their ethical rules to prohibit the same kind of activity. 

The approval of the search warrant for Attorney Cohen’s files and documents added an additional level of judicial scrutiny because it had become well known that Mr. Cohen’s main client was the President of the United States for many years prior to his recent election and had continued in that relationship after the election as well. 

There is yet another layer of confidentiality in play. Normally, lawyers are loath to make public statements about representation of their clients. Making confidential information public, removes the privilege that otherwise might have prevented forced disclosure of the information. Additionally, lawyers do not usually make public disclosures about confidential information involving their clients without first discussing the pros and cons of the disclosures with and obtaining the client’s consent to the disclosures in advance. Once the Stormy Daniels door was opened, it could never be closed. 

Federal search warrants issued for lawyers’ offices involve yet another layer of scrutiny to protect confidential information from being disclosed erroneously. Federal prosecutors use “taint teams” of lawyers who are not involved in the case in which the warrant was used. These teams go through all of the information seized and make an initial determination which evidence falls within the scope of the underlying criminal investigation and then exclude from further examination or use by the prosecution team of evidence related to other clients represented by the lawyer and information unrelated to the criminal activity outlined in the warrant application. 

Attorney Cohen and other lawyers for President Trump asked the supervising judge in the case to let them have the first look at what was seized and make the call about what should be shared with the prosecutor. That request was denied, but the judge still has the option to appoint a completely neutral “special master” to either make the initial review or oversee the work of the “taint team” to make sure the privilege is not violated. 

President Trump’s attack on the FBI’s seizures as “un-American” and against the rule of law demonstrate just how worried he is about what Mr. Cohen’s files and recorded conversations might contain. Many suggest that the material seized may very well be more damaging to the President than anything that might come out of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. So far, President Trump has avoided any direct connection to Russian election fraud even while campaign staff and other subordinates have been indicted and convicted of illegal activities. 

The saga got even more interesting when Mr. Cohen was required to identify his other clients so that the supervising judge could evaluate the scope of his privilege claim. He readily gave up the name of a prominent GOP donor who had retained him to make secret hush money payments to the donor’s mistress who had become pregnant. Cohen initially asked not to divulge the name of the third client, but the judge refused and ordered disclosure. The fact of a lawyer’s representation of a client is not confidential. Mr. Cohen then revealed that his third client was Fox News personality Sean Hannity, one of President Trump’s biggest supporters, who had been railing against the FBI seizures from the minute they took place.

The evidence sought by the search warrant included information related to the now very public payment made by Cohen to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just days before the 2016 election and to other “fixes” Cohen had undertaken on Mr. Trump’s behalf to quash damaging information from coming to light before the election. Federal charges of money laundering, illegal election campaign contributions, and others easily come to mind as possible criminal violations that could land Mr. Cohen behind bars and sweep away what remains of the Trump presidency as well. Time will tell.