http://www.newsweek.com/stormy-daniels-lawyer-lost-his-license-twice-860211

I strongly suspect that he and Cohen worked these issues together.

Oh fuck, just read the link

sounds like republicans

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.

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.

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.

but I get your reasoning

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 didn’t 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 didn’t keep him up to date with developments in the case, and he ultimately was not clear in letting the potential client know that he wasn’t 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.

of dollars worth in a private corp binding?

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.

a stock holder in the $500,000 range.

I think you answered, thanks

Small S corp, not wall street

Wait, no C corp

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.

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.