General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsdhol82
(9,352 posts)Response to Kingofalldems (Original post)
dhol82 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Leghorn21
(13,524 posts)Leghorn21
(13,524 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It might not be in California, since it isn't the same as going before a judge. And the laws in this may vary by state.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)I would think that, even if he were barred in CA, the extent to which he is involved (with creating the LLC, making the payments, etc), he really ought not to be the lawyer representing tRump in this case. In fact, he should probably have his own lawyer.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)But Cohen shouldn't be representing The Don in this case anyway. It's like a matryoshka doll: Don has a lawyer; look closer and that lawyer has a lawyer; and that lawyer will have a lawyer of his own. At some point someone needs to just say "Stop, put them all in prison for life!"
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)I found an answer. Maybe you will too.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Assuming you have valid information it seems more conducive to discussion to share that knowledge, rather than make a snide comment about Googling.
dem4decades
(11,282 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,062 posts)He might have good PR sense (and it is possible that he has better legal saavy than the complaint demonstrates), but I'm having a field day with the complaint itself in my bar skills course - it is a goldmine of gibberish.
Just as a simple example - the lack of a signature NEVER makes a contract void. Writing and signatures relate to enforcement, not to the underlying validity of the contract (whether the contract is void).
As to enforcement, most contracts don't have to be in writing at all, let alone signed. If a signature is required, it is the signature of the party "against whom enforcement is sought." Stormy's posture is that she is looking for a declaration she is not bound by the contract - in other words, she is the party against whom enforcement sought. And she signed the agreement. From an enforcement against her standpoint, it would make no difference whether he signed it.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)The point is not to win a judgement, but to force Trump to admit that the contract exists and he is a party to it.
And I think some wealthy Democratic donor is financing the whole thing.
unblock
(52,196 posts)Or himself dba essential consultants llc. Donnie was a different party to the agreement.
If Cohen was a party to a tripartite agreement, he couldnt also represent another party to the same agreement anyway.
That said, the arbitration would have had to be done on behalf of Cohen/essential consultants and not Donnie.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)I hope he's put away a lot of money from 45 in the past. Cohen may be loyal to 45 but I don't see it working both ways. 45 will dump him like a hot rock if he thinks it's best for himself.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)Is he leveraged to the point of Trump himself, as his little daughter said on TV 15 years ago.....
8 billion dollars less wealthy than the homeless guy on the street in fron of Trump Tower NYC?
bitterross
(4,066 posts)I'm not sure I believe anything he's said.
gopiscrap
(23,756 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)to represent a client at arbitration as his/her attorney. Mediation, no.
triron
(21,999 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I believe one is always able to represent themselves. Not that thats what happened here.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)My gosh, he's an attorney (suppose to be well educated).
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)Stormy entanglement?
Thanks, King
Kingofalldems
(38,451 posts)It would seem that the arbitrator's ruling may not be legal.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)You can have permissible evidence introduced at arbitration as legal evidence, expert witnesses and witnesses. The arbitrator is like a judge and will decide the fate of the hearing pro or negative or both. If the arbitration is binding, whatever the outcome is it's final. Either way, a person who represents clients that is not licensed to practice law in the State of California is considered invalid.
If Cohen represented his client in a Mediation, which also is like a mini trial, it doesn't matter if he is licensed or not as long as he advise the mediator and the other side.
An binding arbitration carries a whole lot of weight.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)what am I missing here?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)what went on with Cohen and his client. Basic California Arbitration what I mentioned above.
mulsh
(2,959 posts)I did searches of four current CA attorneys and five deceased attorneys. I was able to find all of them as soon as I pushed the button.
have a search if you like:
[link:http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch?FreeText=Michael+Dean+Cohen&SoundsLike=true&SoundsLike=false|J
(edited to report the above search results)
gibraltar72
(7,503 posts)OldHippieChick
(2,434 posts)is a practice known as "pro hac vice" where an attorney from another state can be vouched for by a local attorney for one case only and allowed to practice.
mulsh
(2,959 posts)OldHippieChick
(2,434 posts)law was violated so long as this statute was followed.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)Entertainment-value-wise, at least.