...the privilege does not apply to a client identity in most cases? You can ignore it if you want, but that is what they said. I gave you three cites, you thought they didn't apply, I told you why they did, and you are ignoring that. You are welcome to do your own research. You will find the dozens of other cases that state the law in the exact same way (in addition to the many law review articles).

You keep saying the privilege exists to protect client identity but that there are exceptions. That is exactly backwards. The general rule is that the privilege does not apply to protect client identity from disclosure and there are a few limited exceptions -- where the disclosure of the name itself would disclose a privileged communication (not true for Hannity -- disclosing his name tells us nothing about why he sought advice from Trumps lawyer or what Cohen told him in that advice) and where the disclosure of the client identity would reveal the client sought advice for the illegal activity at issue in the case -- again, not true here.

You clearly feel the law is they way you envision it. Call it Sabremetics Truthiness Law. You are wrong. I hope that if you are a lawyer you are not assuming this to be true for your clients, because then you're making a pretty big mistake.


[Post edited by Hood at 04/16/2018 11:27PM]