What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Jacob]

I wonder how many lawyers, administration officials, and associated hangers on will be trying to create separation from Trump on the way out the door, now that the patronage gravy train is ending.

Yeah, it will be really interesting to see how this plays out. Who will try to continue driving the Trump train, who will repudiate, who will lie low and try again when the moment is better.

Here's hoping this was the extinction burst rather than the Beer Hall Putsch.

[Malthus]

I assume this isn't normal for the President's lawyers

That is an understatement.

The convention is that a withdrawing lawyer usually does it in the least "noisy" way as possible.  The withdrawing lawyer has to be careful because until the withdrawal, the lawyer is still a fiduciary for the client and owes the client the duty of zealous advocacy.  So even if you think a client wants to do something scummy, it's likely the withdrawal notice will say some anodyne equivalent to irreconcilable differences.  It's got to be really bad to send a notice like this.

Seeing this raising more questions in my mind about the circumstances of the US atty resignations in Georgia.

EDIT: I would add that a letter like this automatically activates the potential for the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.

umm... yeah.

My first thought is "doesn't this violate solicitor-client privilege"?

And there isn't a judge in the world (in particular after what has gone down) that wouldn't remove counsel based on "breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship".

My thought as well.

This letter is aimed at doing maximum damage, and certainly succeeds. Lawyers are not supposed to do that to soon-to-be-ex-clients, no matter how hateful and/or criminal they are.

I can imagine this lawyer is rightfully pissed at Trump trying his hardest to ruin American democracy (and maybe wanting to avoid going down with him), but still ...

[The Minsky Moment]

umm... yeah.

My first thought is "doesn't this violate solicitor-client privilege"?

That seems to be the point.  Criminality or fraud is an exception to privilege.

The way I read this notice in translation is:

Dear US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: my client is a crook.  Please open an investigation and subpoena my correspondence ASAP.

[DGuller]

I predicted a while ago that Republicans would dump Trump and dump on Trump once he's out of power, as a way to create a "Clean Wehrmacht" myth.  Once Trump is out of power, he's more useful as someone to denounce.  I was starting to doubt whether that would happen, as Trump looked poised to become the highly influential cult leader even after leaving the office, but maybe this dynamic is starting to play out after all with the help of yesterday's events.

[Malthus]

umm... yeah.

My first thought is "doesn't this violate solicitor-client privilege"?

That seems to be the point.  Criminality or fraud is an exception to privilege.

The way I read this notice in translation is:

Dear US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: my client is a crook.  Please open an investigation and subpoena my correspondence ASAP.

Exactly. The issue in my mind is whether a lawyer ought to be doing that to a soon-to-be-ex-client. Here in Ontario, I would have said that they should not, but I have no idea how it is viewed there.

[Solmyr]

He'll still become a highly influential cult leader, even if he isn't leading personally.

[The Minsky Moment]

Edit: needless to say, the relevant rules will vary by jurisdiction. My instincts are all that a situation in which this can be published is really wrong ... not that I care about a wrong done to Trump, but still.

It is permissible if it is true that the services were used to perpetrate a crime.  Permissible, not mandatory.
So unless this lawyer is very foolhardy, he must be very confident that criminal activity took place, and very likely concerned that he could be a potential subject of investigation unless he can establish it was done without his knowledge and against his will.

[Barrister]

umm... yeah.

My first thought is "doesn't this violate solicitor-client privilege"?

That seems to be the point.  Criminality or fraud is an exception to privilege.

The way I read this notice in translation is:

Dear US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: my client is a crook.  Please open an investigation and subpoena my correspondence ASAP.

Yes, but while criminal activity may be a means around solicitor-client privilege, that's more for investigators to try and do.

In terms of "duty to disclose" for the lawyer, I think that's limited to imminent physical harm.

Of course it all varies jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  And Mr. Marcus here may well simply be counting on the fact that no state bar is going to fault him for harming Trump.  But it sure seems to me like a violation of his professional responsibilities.

[Barrister]

Zuckerberg announces Trump's FB ban will be indefinite, or at least for the next two weeks.

Of course, what Jack Dorsey decides is more significant.

[Admiral Yi]

Any speculation on what crime(s) the Trump campaign used this lawyer's services to perpetrate?

[The Minsky Moment]

Relevant excerpts from the PA professional code:

1.6 Confidentiality of Information
A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, except  . . . except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).
. . .
(c) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: . . .

(2) to prevent the client from committing a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another;

(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services are being or had been used . . .

. . . .
Comment 12: Third, a lawyer may not counsel or assist a client in conduct that is criminal or fraudulent. See Rule 1.2(d). To avoid assisting a client's criminal or fraudulent conduct, the lawyer may have to reveal information relating to the representation. Rule 1.6(c)(3) permits doing so.

[DGuller]

So back to that woman who was shot, it now seems like it wasn't an accident.  She seemed to be the first in line getting into a place that someone decided to protect from intrusion with deadly force.

I would be surprised if cops intentionally shot MAGA supporters.

I would be surprised too, not just because of their sympathies, but also because firing on an advancing crowd can be a very explosive course of action.  However, maybe the rioters didn't know when to take their winning and stop, and the window she tried to get through marked the boundary of an area that had to be defended at all costs.

Russians come through again with the footage, from a much better vantage point.  That was definitely an aimed shot meant to neutralize.  I guess they thought they would be allowed to breach areas indefinitely, at least until that happened, then they seemed to quickly wise up.

[Barrister]

For what it is worth, famed Twitter celebrity (and lawyer) @Popehat says this is inappropriate and unethical.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1347209895548833796

(and outside of Twitter while I don't know that he's a real heavyweight, he seems perfectly credible)

https://brownwhitelaw.com/kenneth-p-white/

[crazy canuck]

umm... yeah.

My first thought is "doesn't this violate solicitor-client privilege"?

That seems to be the point.  Criminality or fraud is an exception to privilege.

The way I read this notice in translation is:

Dear US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: my client is a crook.  Please open an investigation and subpoena my correspondence ASAP.

Yes, but while criminal activity may be a means around solicitor-client privilege, that's more for investigators to try and do.

In terms of "duty to disclose" for the lawyer, I think that's limited to imminent physical harm.

Of course it all varies jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  And Mr. Marcus here may well simply be counting on the fact that no state bar is going to fault him for harming Trump.  But it sure seems to me like a violation of his professional responsibilities.

Yeah, here the disclosure is only permitted to prevent imminent physical harm and even then the disclosure is restricted.  The declaration that the client was committing a criminal act would be an impermissible breach of privilege.  The lawyer would still be required to withdraw, but the reason given would be a breakdown in the relationship.

I would be very interested to know what the ethical obligations are in that jurisdiction.

edit:  JR provided it.

Here we see big distinction between the US and Canada in relation to property rights.  Disclosure can be given if financial interests or property may be damaged.

Also a very wide disclosure right to prevent a crime.

Relevant excerpts from the PA professional code:

1.6 Confidentiality of Information
A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, except  . . . except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).
. . .
(c) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: . . .

(2) to prevent the client from committing a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another;

(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services are being or had been used . . .

. . . .
Comment 12: Third, a lawyer may not counsel or assist a client in conduct that is criminal or fraudulent. See Rule 1.2(d). To avoid assisting a client's criminal or fraudulent conduct, the lawyer may have to reveal information relating to the representation. Rule 1.6(c)(3) permits doing so.

[The Brain]

If a Trump lawyer thinks that an action is repugnant it's probably donating money to the Red Cross or something.