On Dec 12, Michael Cohen’s attorney, David M. Schwartz of Gerstman Schwartz LLP, was tasked with demonstrating why he should not be held in contempt for filing a motion with citations to three court cases that a federal district court indicated did not exist. In response to this order, Schwartz has procured his own legal representation to manage the response.
The need to hire personal counsel arises from the possibility that Schwartz’s response may necessitate the revelation of attorney-client privileged communications under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. This information is evident from the order to show cause issued by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Further insight into this situation will be available after Cohen’s response, if any, to the privilege issue due by Dec. 28. Currently, the court has provisionally granted Schwartz’s motion to conceal the response from public view.
For legal professionals, this situation underlines the importance of proper citation in legal filings and the possible repercussions of citing non-existent court cases. It also highlights the significance of adhering to professional conduct rules and the potential invocation of attorney-client privilege.
In conclusion, we await the scheduled response which is expected to provide more clarity on the matter and possibly set a precedent on the limits of attorney-client privilege in such cases.
For more details on this case, visit Bloomberg Law.