When you don't know which cover-up strategy to go with so you try all of them at once.
That picture should be entitled: "When You're So Fucked You Don't Even Realize How Fucked You Are."
Lawyer here. The general rule is when a reasonable person from the perspective of the client would believe there was an attorney-client relationship. That's it. No engagement letter is needed. No payment is required. The fact that Hannity thinks these conversations are confidential shows that a reasonable person in his shoes should know there's a relationship.
Soon we will learn who was paid off
Free consults are privileged conversations.
A person isn't your lawyer no matter how many free consults you get. You have to actually retain their services.
When you talk to a lawyer seeking advice and are not a paid client, privilege still applies.
As an example, many people hold one (or more) meetings with attorneys before they select someone to represent them. Would you argue that the subject of these meetings would not be privileged?
"Whichever one will keep me out of jail."
It is very common in law to have two separate arguments that seem to contradict each other:
My client was never in Chicago
When my client was in Chicago he never met with the victim
When my client met with the victim in Chicago, they did not argue...
The prosecution has to disprove ALL arguments even though they seem to disprove themselves.
I haven't been paying much attention to all of this for the last few days. All of a sudden we give a fuck about Sean Hannity? I don't get it. Is he being investigated for something?
Reminds me of the scene in Better Call Saul where he says to the guy: Quick, gimme a dollar. There, now I'm your lawyer. Maybe Hannity didn't have a buck on him.
I have asked the question in places off reddit and still not gotten the answer.
What is the legal benefit to publicly saying who a lawyer represents?
I know if Cohen were my attorney and suddenly my name was released I'd be mad. So what's the legal benefit? Why are his clients not a part of this case not afforded 4th amendment protections?
Is Client-Lier a protected interaction as well?