Not really. Rudy could claim he was Trump's lawyer, though illegally (due to inactive status). The AC privilege belongs to both lawyer and client, and clients aren't dinged for having a lawyer who doesn't comply with bar rules.
But Rudy has more privilege problems than that.
But Rudy has more privilege problems than that.
It's a common problem of the mob "consigliere" -- AC privilege ends where participation in the crimes begins. Attorneys legit defend clients for all kinds of PAST crimes. But when you get your hands dirty in a PRESENT crime, "crime/fraud exception" neuters privilege.
It ain't like in the movies, where the mob boss has a priest go out and do assassinations, because the priest can't get done for it. Privileges, all of them, end where crime and fraud begin.
I'm not gonna do every detail, but anyone looking at Rudy's course of conduct can see that he's an active participant in whatever crimes and frauds Trump is committing. That blows up privilege without needing the arcana of bar status.
So the questions: "Was he actually giving legal advice? Did he have bar status? did he charge?" are all the wrong questions.
The question is: "was he participating in the client's crime or fraud?"
That's a hard yes for the Ghoul.
The question is: "was he participating in the client's crime or fraud?"
That's a hard yes for the Ghoul.
