(CNN) Communications between adult-film star Stormy Daniels and an attorney currently representing former President Donald Trump have been turned over to the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Daniels’ attorney told CNN.
The exchanges — said to date back to 2018, when Daniels sought representation — have raised the possibility that Trump’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, could be sidelined from his defense of the former president in a lawsuit with regarding Trump’s alleged role in a plot. to pay the hush money to Daniels.
Daniels’ communications with Tacopina and others at his company included details related to Daniels’ situation, according to his current attorney, Clark Brewster, who believes the communications indicate disclosure of confidential information from Daniels.
Tacopina denied that there was a conflict or that confidential information was shared with his office. He said he has not met or spoken to Daniels.
CNN has not seen the records in question. But legal ethics experts who spoke to CNN said they could bring limits to the role Tacopina could play in the trial or even his disqualification. The impact of disclosure in the case will depend on the circumstances and the substance of the communications, ethics experts said.
Examining Daniels’ alleged dealings with Tacopina and his company, however, highlights how the Trump team has already been thrown curveballs in how they approached the years-long investigation even before formally bringing the any charges against Trump.
While there are indications that the investigation has concluded and that preparations are being made for an indictment, it is not yet clear whether Trump will be indicted or when the charges will be revealed.
Brewster told CNN that he turned over the Daniels communications to prosecutors after seeing Tacopina make public statements that Brewster believed contradicted what appeared in emails from Tacopina and his companies. Daniels.
Ultimately it will be up to a judge to decide whether the communications present a conflict of interest that would require disqualification or other limitations on the advocacy Tacopina can do on behalf of the former president, should a case be filed against Trump.
A 2018 television interview Tacopina did with CNN’s Don Lemon has resurfaced in recent days, in which Tacopina suggested she may have contacted Daniels before finding another attorney. in the quiet money matter, which at the time was the focus of a federal investigation. .
“I can’t really talk about my impressions or any conversations we’ve had because there’s an attorney-client privilege attached to even a consultation,” Tacopina said in a 2018 interview. While the old clip of the interview began making the rounds again, Tacopina’s firm issued a statement this week saying “there is no attorney-client relationship” — a point Tacopina stands by today.
On Tuesday, Tacopina told CNN that his comments in the 2018 interview “make no sense” and said he invoked an attorney-client privilege during the TV appearance “to end the inquiry, because because someone by the name of Stormy Daniel asked if I would represent him, and I didn’t want to discuss the matter on television.”
“However, those circumstances do not constitute an attorney-client relationship in any form,” Tacopina said Tuesday.
Rules for lawyers and prospective clients
A key question that could be hashed out if Trump is indicted and the case goes to trial is whether Daniels’ alleged interactions with Tacopina and his firm make him a prospective client.
Under New York Bar rules, “a lawyer who learns information from a prospective client shall not use or disclose that information,” even if no attorney-client relationship is established.
If Daniels shared confidential information with Tacopina, it could lead to him — or even his company — being barred from cross-examining Daniels if he were to be put on the witness stand in a hypothetical trial against Trump.
Tacopina will not be allowed to use any information she obtained from Daniels in their communications against him as a witness, according to legal experts, and there may be an effort to investigate what she knew. an from the rest of the Trump team.
It’s up to prosecutors or Daniels to raise objections to him or his strong cross-examination of him, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Law who has written extensively on legal ethics and rules. . The judge will then decide the matter.
Another legal rule of conduct involved in the situation, Gillers said, is that which says that a lawyer who acts as a witness in a trial does not also act as an advocate. That means that if Tacopina has information that contradicts Daniels’ testimony or damages her credibility, she cannot be a witness for Trump while she is also his attorney.
There must be a real need for Tacopina as a witness for him to be disqualified, Gillers said. “He must have so critical a testimony for the judge that the witness advocate rule disqualifies him.”
The ethics rules are designed to protect not only Daniels, but also Trump himself, said Fordham Law School professor Bruce Green, who directs the university’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics. It could put Trump in an unfair position if his attorney feels he needs to pull his punches in his defense because of his communications with Daniels.
However, Green called the question of disqualification a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” question for judges, because disqualifying an attorney deprives a defendant of counsel of his choice. .
Prosecutors are likely to ask Trump to waive any potential conflict, so he can’t raise the conflict as an issue if he is indicted and convicted and intends to appeal.
CNN’s Paula Reid and Kara Scannell contributed to this report.