“Davidson never consented to the recordation"
I guess his lawyers are getting paid by the letter.
Dear Keith Davidson:
There is a lesson you can glean from this:
There was a fly buzzing around a barn one day when she happened upon a pile of fresh cow manure. Due to the fact that it had been hours since she had had her last meal, she flew down and began to eat. She ate and ate. Finally, she decided she had eaten enough and tried to fly away. She had eaten too much though, and could not get off the ground. As she looked around wondering what to do, she spotted a pitchfork leaning up against the wall. She climbed to the top of the handle and jumped off, thinking that once she got airborne, she would be able to take flight. Unfortunately she was wrong and she dropped like a rock, and smashed when she hit the floor. Dead!
MORAL OF THE STORY
Never fly off the handle when you know you’re full of shit.
Or he’s an unbearable of overmuchaly pretentialiositiness.
New York is one party consent. The federal statute is one party consent. The call was interstate. Good luck with that one, bucko. Though no doubt he has some California state case law on his side.
This guy is a chump with no character. It’s too bad he doesn’t know much cuz he would roll over like a well trained dog.
There’s nothing like a spat between attorneys!
I learned fairly recently (I’m not an attorney) that many things can be alleged in filings in civil court without having to actually include the evidence/proof until trial. So, much of this may very well be posturing on both sides.
And leave us not to forget that these attorneys have their own attorneys, and for whom there is zero downside to alleging anything under the sun, no matter how irrelevant. That’s part of their bread and butter because it takes more time to compile all this stuff, write it up and submit it, which is all adding to those billable hours.
Yes. It may depend on who initiated the call–if it was Cohen, it may well have been OK to record it. If the call came from California, less clear. But actually collecting anything over that is a chimera.
So with all the lawyers in California and New York tell me again how many time Davidson negotiated with Cohen over similar situations?
LBJ: “Never kick fresh shit on a hot day”.
Uh, ole Keith, still seems like the “illegally recorded” conversations show you colluding with Cohen against the interests of your client. Ooopsie.
(Also, they’re already out in the world, dude.)
Yeah., but what does David Dennison have to say about this?
Shysters shysters everywhere.
“How dare you record my incriminating conversations with you?!”
“And you two! How dare you call me a criminal?!”
So when he’s suing a former client, does he get to disclose the privileged conversations he had with her (as he appears to be doing in this complaint)?
Kind of hard to defame the professional reputation of a lawyer who has twice been suspended from practice by the California Bar.
No, the person who controls attorney-client privilege is the client, not the lawyer. Only the client can waive the privilege. There can sometimes be an “implied waiver” when a client sues a lawyer for malpractice, because the client in making that claim usually reveals some confidential communications s/he had with the lawyer. One view is that the lawyer can reveal other, related communications in defending himself or herself in such a suit, based on implied waiver. The better course, which most attorneys I know would follow, is to get an explicit waiver (in writing and/or on the record) from the client to speak about confidential matters related to the representation.
So has he just put himself in for yet another ethics disaster and potential additional counts in the civil suit? Because what Clifford was or wasn’t willing to say or do to keep the NDA payment would seem pretty much by definition privileged information. He might be able to argue that she disclosed that information by claiming that he wasn’t acting according to her instructions or in her best interests, but.
You do, however, risk sanction under Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (adopted by the Federal courts and most state courts) if you make baseless claims. If you care, the relevant part of the rule is pasted in below.
[quote="]
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; [/quote]
I suppose that there is also the possibility that Davidson could be accused of filing a SLAPP lawsuit. CA and NY both have statutes that prohibit such filings.
The word for that is sesquipedalian.