Martin London has written an essay in the New York Law Journal, following up on my Slate piece about Michael Cohen's ethics dilemma. Here is the gist:
Of course, Cohen could have escaped both the federal election law issue and the ethical rule violation, had he said it was not really his own money, just like it was not really his own reputation or possible election victory he was protecting, but that Trump had, one way or another, provided the funds, using Cohen as a front. While those facts would have surprised nobody, Cohen was between a rock and a hard place: Advancing money for Trump’s benefit created one set of problems, but announcing that it was indeed Trump’s money, would have created another problem for him, because Disciplinary Rule 1.8 b) bars a lawyer from releasing information that will “disadvantage” the client. Given that Trump has firmly denied involvement in the matter—even to the extreme of using a fake name and failing to sign the document—an admission by Cohen that his client Trump is, in fact, the mysterious “D.D.,” would certainly be to Trump’s “disadvantage,” both politically and otherwise.
While there are some views in the academic legal community that the Disciplinary Committee should be chary when it comes to pursuing a disciplinary case that, on its face, looks like a political prosecution, I am strongly of the opposite view.
London is a highly-regarded retired Paul Weiss partner. As chairman of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of New York’s First Judicial Department from 1980-1986, he led the disbarment case against Roy Cohn.
You can read London's entire article here. (At least for now, it is not behind a paywall.)
Cohen should be disbarred, end of conversation.
"Rock and a hard place." With good reason when the client is a grifter and the attorney desires to brown nose rather than provide representation.