Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels [UPDATED with a working link]

Michael Cohen may have even more problems brewing than previously suspected.  I have an essay up on Slate explaining an ethics issue that has not yet been widely recognized.  Here is the gist:

The Stormy Daniels affair appears to be growing more complex by the day—with its dueling lawsuits and contradictory claims—but one central fact appears beyond dispute: On the eve of the 2016 presidential election, attorney Michael Cohen paid the former porn star $130,000 in hush money, so that she would stay silent about her alleged affair with his client, Donald Trump. Given the timing, the payoff to Daniels looks a lot like an unreported campaign contribution, which would constitute a crime under U.S. law, but Cohen insists that he simply paid the money from the goodness of his heart.

That might seem like a pretty shaky defense, even if Cohen really used his home equity line to get the funds as he claims, but it turns out to be no defense at all. Cohen should be in hot soup either way.

As a New York lawyer, Cohen is required to follow Rule 1.8 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that “While representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client.” There are some exceptions for indigent clients, which are obviously inapplicable to Trump, so the only real issue is whether Cohen’s payment was made in connection with litigation. If so, it is pretty clear that Cohen has violated his state’s legal ethics rules.

You can read the whole piece here. (I did not write the headline.)

Comments

[lawprof]

Steve--The link appears broken.

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

He is the perfect attorney for our new MAN OF STEEL. Rules, ethics, norms are merely rumble strips on the highway to cash and gold toilets. Even a high brow boutique Leading Super Solo like me knows not to post client bond. This stuff is really not that difficult. Maybe it is....

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

...what do you expect from a bunch of grifters?

[anon]

Steve

One must assume that you know DSSLC, and that you are very very good friends. You typically leave his inane blathering up on your posts, and remove responses to it. On occasion, as I recall, you have even allowed DSDLC's response to remain, while deleting the comment to which he responded. After allowing his inane blathering to remain and after deleting all comments responding in kind, you typically close the comments. A wise judge, indeed.

Just amazing, really. Do you need a court jester? (He doesn't jest at you, significantly.) Or, do you laugh at his attempts at humor and find his comments insightful? Or, are you very aware of DSSLC's identity (he is obviously from a certain area of the country)? Do you believe that DSSLC's comments attract interest in your posts? (For example, the comment above was posted nearly ONE WEEK AFTER DSSLC's first comment, and long after any real interest by anyone else would have been otherwise demonstrated; was this intended to get readers to go back to the original post?)

Just wondering.

And, btw, if you delete this comment, but leave the DSSLC comments above, you will have proved the point.