Harvard Prof Goads Michael Avenatti Into Admitting He Broke Ethics Rules
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti has staked his reputation on destroying Donald Trump. But now he’s destroyed himself from a legal position, publicly and on live TV.
In an exchange on “Anderson Cooper” Friday night, Avenatti allowed esteemed Harvard University professor Alan Dershowitz to goad him into admitting he broke rule 4.2 of the American Bar Association.
The issue is pretty straightforward. A lawyer cannot speak to a person or party represented by other counsel without that counsel’s permission. The point of having legal counsel is to legally protect yourself. When a lawyer doesn’t respect this, he or she violates the American Bar Association’s ethical codes of conduct. It strains credulity to interpret Avenatti’s comments in the Anderson Cooper segment as anything but a direct violation of these standards.
Dershowitz challenged Avenatti via Twitter: “I didn’t say @MichaelAvenatti was wrong, but that if he’s right, how did he access that confidential info? He implied there were more Trump tapes. Guiliani says there’s only one with Trump’s voice. Let’s see who is right.”
Anderson Cooper brought this up in the segment, and Dershowitz explained that the issue wasn’t whether Avenatti was correct about his prediction of more tapes—the Washington Post has reported that there are 100 Michael Cohen tapes—but how he came by this knowledge. The only opportunity seems to be a conversation between Avenatti and Cohen at a restaurant. Unless Avenatti has the permission of Cohen’s legal counsel to approach him, that conversation violated the ABA’s ethical standards.
Avenatti’s response was a bluster of red herrings: “Alan, let me say this: you keep saying you don’t want to get personal with me and you keep getting personal with me…I’m gonna tell you I don’t appreciate. I’m willing to put up my track record on the last six months on this case up against yours any day of the week. I have been very, very accurate in my predictions and the statements I’ve made…”
Blah, blah, none of this is relevant. Almost nothing Avenatti said was remotely relevant to the topic of the discussion, except for this: “This information on the Trump Tower meeting — that’s not the best information Cohen has.” To which both Cooper and Dershowitz responded: “How do you know that?”
Avenatti stuttered, remarkably unprepared for the most obvious response to his ridiculous statement, then said he won’t explain how he knows these things. Dershowitz responded that Avenatti may have to answer that question in front of an ethics committee: “If they ask you how you had a conversation with a man who was represented by a lawyer and you didn’t ask his lawyer’s permission, and his lawyer is now apparently complaining about that.”
Avenatti’s then claimed Dershowitz shouldn’t talk about things he doesn’t know anything about. He went on at some length about how Dershowitz doesn’t have access to any communications between Avenatti and Cohen’s counsel in the past or present.
This is significant for two reasons: It affirms that Avenatti understands the principle of rule 4.2, and it implies that there was communication between Avenatti and Cohen’s legal counsel.
Avenatti ended this tirade with a ridiculous jab about Dershowitz attending to his disinvitations at Martha’s Vineyard. This just evidences how little class and credibility Avenatti has and highlights Dershowitz’s integrity as a legal mind.
Dershowitz is a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Hillary Clinton. He has no relationship with or fondness for Trump. But Dershowitz believes firmly in the Constitution and civil liberty. Because he hasn’t aided the resistance and has chosen to defend Trump for purely legal reasons (as he did Bill Clinton during his impeachment), he has publicly lost friends and connections. Avenatti’s attempt to bully him into silence simply reinforces the stark difference between them. One is a good man with a great legal mind, while the other is an opportunistic thug.
Dershowitz’s response was to stick to whether Avenatti committed an ethical violation: “Are you saying specifically that you were given permission by Michael Cohen’s lawyer to have that conversation with him in the restaurant? That’s a question you should answer specifically, because if you weren’t given permission to have that conversation with Michael Cohen you may have to answer to an ethics committee.”
This is uncontroversial. Dershowitz is an expert on this matter. Avenatti then immediately damned himself: “Alan, Alan guess who gave me permission? Michael Cohen. He gave me permission.”
Dershowitz replied that this is not enough. And he’s right. But it is enough to admit guilt on Avenatti’s part. He strongly implied he didn’t receive permission and therefore violated ABA code. Worst of all his attitude indicates he doesn’t care.
Avenatti then ridiculously claimed Dershowitz doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Dershowitz has a JD from Yale University and taught for three decades at Harvard. If he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then no one does, least of all a Neanderthal like Avenatti.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
69 visitors
Another thing that is becoming more obvious is the "composing" being done by Michael Cohen. That's one of the consequences of squeezing people for information.
There’s something fishy about this. It’s unethical for a lawyer to talk to a person who’s represented by a lawyer without the permission of opposing counsel. Non-lawyers may not know this but lawyers do. Michael Cohen is, himself, a lawyer. However, he’s being represented by a lawyer. So Avenatti shouldn’t be talking to him without his lawyer’s permission and I can’t imagine his lawyer giving permission for a conversation who’s only purpose is to squeeze out information to use against his client.
I’m just guessing but is it possible that Cohen set Avenatti up by giving him false/misleading/incomplete information that Avenatti can’t actually use and, if Avenatti makes the information public, turn around and accuse Avenatti of violating an ethics rule by trying to get any information from him at all?
If what you say is true, then....., how does one explain Giuliani?
He is once again getting his 15 minutes, as a whack job?
That is a workable theory … Avenatti did publish some of Cohen's personal banking records .. which I read somewhere, someone describing this action as a "premeditated drive-by shooting of [Cohen's] rights"...
There certainly seem to be a large number of people getting their 15 minutes here lately....
That doesn't sound right. The lawyer is employed by the person, if the person wants to talk to a different lawyer that would be his choice, not his employee's (lawyer).
I do not know if the ethics for lawyers is the same across the board or not - but when I was questioning the legality of what my attorney was doing (I felt what he was doing was a conflict of interest) and sought the advice of another attorney on the matter .. because I was represented by another attorney, the lawyer I called could not answer my questions … the receptionist is the one that told me I would have to fire my existing attorney, or get permission before I could have a consult with another..
It's possible. That would be kind of like a state law enforcement agency hiring some snake
Dershowitz is running flak and throwing chaff. Besides, he took too many rides on that lysergic acid diethylamide train.
Bottom line. Did the Trump Campaign have contacts with Russian oligarchs and Russian INTEL or not? Yes or no?
I think Dershowitz's affection for defending Trump has to do with Israel. Put it like this, if Trump were not a humongous supporter of Israel , I seriously doubt we would be seeing Deshowitz defending Trump all over the place.
Dershowitz's public life has revolved around Israel and it's interests for some time now.
Of course. The Israeli connection.
I wonder if all of the 'alleged and disappeared' gold bullion, silver, platinum, jewels, securities and other valuables that were in the basement vaults of Tower One ended up in Israel through the aid of Mayor Giuliani?
How about simply taking a fellow liberals word. Dershowitz say's he believes in civil liberties and was on Clinton's side when she was being investigated and is consistent when it comes to Trump.
John, it's not Dershowitz who has changed, it's liberals. What happened to the ACLU? They believed in civil rights for everyone but Page and Trump
Dershowitz supports Trump because Trump strongly supports Israel.
Your'e saying his loyalty is to Israel?
That he is suddenly that shallow?
One of his loyalties is to Israel, sure.
And thus that clouds everything he says? Suppose we leave Israel & Trump aside for a minute. In this case, here, he asked an interesting question don't you think?
Saying Dershowitz cares more about Israel is like saying Keith Ellison cares more about Saudi Arabia or Obama cares more about Kenya.
That wouldn't be a crime!
I saw that interview, and Avenatti didnt admit to anything.
-
I think time and overkill has demonstrated that Avenatti is kind of trump like. A blowhard who can't stop promoting himself. He is exploring running for president in 2020, which would increase his similarities to Trump.
Of course it appears he is about ten times smarter than Trump which would not bode well for the president* should that match up actually occur.
He needs not admit. He had knowledge of things he has no right to know. I'm sure the Trump people didn't tell him and I'm sure the US Attorney's Office didn't tell him. That leaves Cohen or his lawyer. I say Cohen is composing to get a leniency.
Wanna know what is unethical? Conspiring with a foreign enemy to manipulate our election to your advantage...
Do you want to know what else is unethical. Seeding foreign propaganda onto the internet to mislead US voters.
Ya, the Clinton Campaign. I agree.
So glad to see that you and I agree that Hillary's and the DNC's conspiring with Russia "to manipulate our election" is very unethical.
He should've known better than to tangle with the Dersh.
Typical of the Washington Compost.. I didn't read the article, but I bet the Washington Compost led the reader to believe there were 100 tapes and didn't say anything more, leading the readier to think there were 100 tapes of Trump.