General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm calling shenanigans on Keith Davidson
So with the lastest GOP hush money thing, this certainly jumps out:
The lawyer for the woman, Keith M. Davidson, also represented two women who were paid during the presidential campaign for their silence about alleged affairs with Mr. Trump...
How on earth was Davidson getting these referrals?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,717 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I strongly suspect that he and Cohen worked these issues together.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)Oh fuck, just read the link
sounds like republicans
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yeah, as for the persons involved in these dealings (and wholly apart from where the money came from and how it was handled), I'm not seeing anyone who didn't voluntarily do or agree to whatever it is they did and agreed to.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)Disbarred twice.
Cohen is one of the worst humans alive, but his boss is the worst outside of killers.
You called it. This is big news.
BTW, ONE one THOUSANDTH of the lies, crimes, allegations, scandals, acts of treason, felonies commited by a democrat, just one, and they are gone, overnight.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I know a lot of people operate on the principle of reaching conclusions that suit what they believe.
Beliefs are fine. They are not facts.
That all this business funneled through Davidson is kind of odd, but Davidson has been a broker of unseemly information for quite some time.
It's also not unusual to refer an adverse party to counsel. It doesn't necessarily imply any sort of sneaky arrangement.
For example, when I am representing a client against an unrepresented party, it is frequently the case that I'd prefer that adverse party be represented by an attorney who is competent in the relevant area. The simplest reason in those situations is that I can't give the other party advice on the relevant law to even get them to the point where they can resolve the dispute in any rational way. So, yes, I'll say, "Hey, here are the contacts for a couple of lawyers who know this stuff. How about you see if one of them suits you?" or something to that effect. I don't expect people to believe me when I tell them "you have no claim here", but I do expect people to believe that if they write a check to another attorney to explain to them why they have no claim.
That's why, in the McDougal complaint, her factual allegations on the subject of Davidson and Cohen being in some sort of "cahoots" strike me as pretty thin, since she quotes the sort of bland courteous statements that lawyers normally make toward each other.
So, if you are Cohen, and someone comes to you with this sort of "problem" because you've dealt with it before, then it's not necessarily suspicious that Cohen would tell the individual on the other side, "Hey, why don't you get in touch with Keith Davidson, and have him explain how this might be resolved."
Maybe it's that simple. Maybe it's not. I don't know.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)but I get your reasoning
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)He was suspended once for not paying his annual fee. Meh. That happens.
The other was a med-mal plaintiff who probably ended up with a time-barred action and decided to take it out of Davidson's malpractice insurer.
This one in particular is a common hazard:
In another, he didnt tell a prospective client in another medical malpractice case that his medical records were being looked at by a nurse instead of a doctor, he didnt keep him up to date with developments in the case, and he ultimately was not clear in letting the potential client know that he wasnt taking his case. Davidson refunded $750 that the man paid for evaluating the medical records, but he had initially placed the money in a general account instead of a client trust account, which the rules require.
You have to be really clear with some people that "No, your case sucks, and I'm not taking it." On the one hand, if they want to go to another lawyer, it's preferable that they not have a communication in their possession, albeit a privileged one, that their case sucks. A good general rule is "Good news I'll send you in writing. Bad news I'll call you about." But every lawyer has had instances where they "gently" inform a prospective client that their case is not interesting, for whatever reason, and the client takes an oddly optimistic view of whatever they are told, and somehow believes otherwise.
The instances in question suggest a certain degree of sloppiness and inattention, but not an active ill-intent.
For example, mixing client and general funds is certainly against the rules, but can happen when an office worker deposits a check to the wrong account. Is it a violation? Absolutely. Is the lawyer responsible for administrative errors by staff? Sure. No question about that. But, as the suspension instead of disbarment suggests, it's not suggestive of any sort of evil scheme. The rule was designed to prevent various forms of hanky-panky. In the instance in question, the client was refunded their $750, so it's not as if he ran off to Rio with it.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)of dollars worth in a private corp binding?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)An oral agreement between whom? Two traders on an exchange floor? I think they do that with finger signs.
If you are agreeing to the purchase of personal property in excess of $5000 in California, you'll need a signed writing.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)a stock holder in the $500,000 range.
I think you answered, thanks
Small S corp, not wall street
Wait, no C corp
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If this is an actual question, as opposed to hypothetical, seek competent counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
I thought this related to some other Cohen/Trump dreadfulness I had not seen yet.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,131 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)DeminPennswoods
(15,292 posts)This is now the 3rd client Davidson represented (Stormy Daniels, McDougal and Broidy). Looks entirely possible he was the guy who was sent out to contact the prospective payees as an unbiased atty.