Monday, April 16, 2018

How should we handle attorney-client privilege?

Alan Dershowitz has this proposal:
There is a better and safer way to deal with this issue than the current approach of using prosecutors and FBI agents to do the sifting. A law should be enacted under which anytime the government is seeking to search an office or home that may contain confidential and privileged information, the search team must be accompanied by a judicial officer – a judge, a magistrate or someone appointed to fulfill that function.
That judicial officer should be the only one ever to read material that is eventually deemed to be confidential. A judge can be trusted not to leak far better than FBI agents or prosecutors. And if a judge were to leak, it would be easy to identify the source of the unlawful disclosure, since the single judge would be the only one to have access to the confidential material.
And Trump's lawyers have filed papers this weekend asking to do an initial review before the government gets a chance.  Here's the WSJ coverage:
Lawyers for President Donald Trump say they should be allowed to review the material seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation last week from Mr. Trump’s longtime lawyer Michael Cohen before government investigators begin their ​own, according to a court filing late Sunday.
The filing asks​ a Manhattan federal judge to stop the government from using a “taint team” of prosecutors to review the evidence for documents protected by attorney-client privilege and to issue an order allowing Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump and their legal teams to comb through it first for “materials over which the President asserts privilege.”
After Mr. Trump identifies which communications he believes are privileged, the government taint team can make objections, the filing said, and the court can make the final determination about which materials investigators are allowed to see.
 Trump won't be at the hearing today.  He's in Miami.  Here's how to avoid the traffic.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's a practical solution. A better one is to have the judge appoint a special master to do that. Can you really see a magistrate or DJ going to the search.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps this should be handled like foia. The party with the records produces responsive docs and a privilege log.

I wonder if Cohen will point out Hillary's lawyers were allowed to go though her emails to determine unilaterally which were responsive, and then bleached those they determined were not. If you're the judge, how do you react to that proposal? How does FBI argue it's unfair having set that precedent? Are the situations meaningfully different?

Anonymous said...

Was a warrant issued for HRC's email?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else see a separation of powers problem from the President's request to see the documents first?

Anonymous said...

Dersh lacks foresight. If you have a problem with searches of attorneys offices, why promote a mechanism that will ensure they increase 10 fold. This is like the bail reform act...PTD will be sparingly used...sure.

Anonymous said...

Also a little tired about hearing how great the SDNY is. Totally overrated.

Anonymous said...

Dershy off base as usual. Only matters to him because of his love for DJT.

Anonymous said...

Cohen and Trump lawyers so bad. Amateur hour.

Anonymous said...

Bill Pryor smackdown at the supreme court