Donald Trump is proving that being charged with a crime can't stop you from suing people involved in your case. This is great news for criminal defendants everywhere. Often people charged with crimes are misadvised by their legal counsel not to sue snitches or alleged "victims" from their cases. Such advise typically has little to due with the merits of the tort and more to do with trying to make your judge hate you less. This tactic can be extremely useful when the snitch or alleged "victim" engaged in illegal activity against you and the government does not care.
Michael Cohen is Donald Trump's former lawyer, as his lawyer he has a duty to Trump not to talk about anything he did while employed by him. There are of course limited exceptions to attorney/client privilege under the law. Those exceptions include the crime/fraud exception which could describe Trump's use of Cohen's services for the purpose of making allegedly unlawful hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. If those payments are found to be a criminal act that would probably exempt those activities from attorney/client privilege for the purpose of Trump's lawsuit, but that wouldn't necessarily put an end to Trump's claims. If Cohen disclosed any additional information unrelated to the hush money payments that information is most likely still privileged. For instance, if your lawyer unlawfully bribes a witness for you that bribe is not privileged but everything else you talked to him about still is. If you get snitched on by your own lawyer and that lawyer tells the police anything in excess of that which is not privileged then you should strongly consider suing him.
Police often abuse their discretion by electing not to charge people with crimes they know they've committed if the perpetrator has already been named as a "victim" in criminal proceedings against you. This is even true when they admit committing crimes to the police. The logic given by police and prosecutors is typically explained as not wanting to discourage people from reporting crime out of fear that they will be charged with crimes they've committed as a result of making the report. A common example they use are prostitutes reporting sex crimes but I think a better example would be perpetrators of crimes snitching on themselves after snitching on the victim for making threats in response to their crimes. This can often lead to a race to the police station in cases involving mutual fights between snitches because they know that the first one to file a police report is often the only one capable of claiming victim status in the case. When you're not a snitch (like me) you can find yourself at a disadvantage for never going to the police and you might get pissed off when the police bother you. Even if the alleged crime is a person to person violent offense you can still sue the alleged "victim" in the case as long as the "victim" did something tortious to you. Often violent crimes are provoked by tortious conduct and often criminal conduct which the police are aware of but choose to whitewash for the purpose of protecting their "victim". For instance, if charged with a violent crime like assault after beating up someone who owed you a large legitimate debt you can still sue that person for the debt despite the assault charge. Likewise, if you commit a crime against someone and their overreaction puts you in the hospital you might be able to sue for that overreaction.
Whether you should sue your snitch or alleged "victim" depends on many factors which I don't have time to explain in detail. Basically, you have to weight the potential benefit of a lawsuit versus the potential liability of pissing off the judge in your criminal case and possibly making it easier to prosecute you due to saying the wrong things in the lawsuit. It also depends on your resources because odds are you can't afford to fund legal wars on multiple fronts the way Trump can. However, you can still sue your snitch pro se (as your own lawyer) even if you cannot afford one. That might be the way to go if you're stuck with court appointed counsel in your criminal case.
Court appointed criminal defense attorneys are not civil litigators. They are not qualified to advise you on the civil benefits of suing your snitch or alleged "victim" so you should always consult a civil attorney if possible instead of limiting your enquiries to just your criminal lawyer. Court appointed defense lawyers will most likely advise you not to file a lawsuit solely to avoid looking like a danger to witnesses or alleged "victims". In pretrial settings, especially if you've been held on an excessive bail you can't afford or denied pretrial release (common in no bail federal courts), you will likely be advised that suing anyone on the government's side will decrease the likelihood of you getting out even though the court cannot technically punish you for doing so unless the lawsuit itself is frivolous. Judges always have plenty of legitimate sounding reasons to give instead of their real illicit reasons for doing things. The government will convey a message to the court like, "your honor, he is in custody and still trying to harm the victim" and the court will find some reason other than the lawsuit itself to cite as the reason for keeping you in custody. Even if released you will still have to worry about the judge thinking about the lawsuit if you're convicted and there is a good chance the lawsuit will still be pending by the time your criminal case is decided, so you probably won't have a legal victory to point to when justifying your suit at sentencing.
WHEN TO SUE YOUR SNITCH
Suing your snitch works best as part of a larger offensive strategy like the one Trump is using. Trump's techniques sound like stuff out of books by Robert Greene like "The 48 Laws of Power" and "The 33 Strategies of War" both of which I read in custody many years ago. I don't recall which chapters specifically apply here but I know what he is doing is in there somewhere. Sometimes it is best to publicly attack the system itself and those in charge. That is especially true when you might be technically guilty of breaking a law but the prosecution appears motivated by some impermissible purpose like silencing speech or keeping someone from getting elected. Trump's strategy involves a full court press which makes it more difficult for the government to prosecute simply because they're having to defend themselves from his counter attacks in the press and in civil court instead of being able to limit their engagement with him to just criminal court. If done effectively, someone in Trump's position can put prosecutors on their heels. Allegations of obstruction and intimidation from prosecutors are usually good signs that the strategy is working. It means they're either on their heels or about to be, so they're trying to scare you into taking your foot off the gas before it is too late for them. This is when continuing on course and ratcheting things up becomes critical. If done correctly, the strategy can create a situation in which prosecuting you benefits primarily you even if you're convicted.
Trump's strategy only works if he is unwilling to back down at all for any reason. The second he dials things down is the second he agrees to fight the case on his own heels. Never engage the enemy on his own terrain on his own terms unless you have no other choice. If you can bait the enemy to engage you on your own terms or at least face him to fight outside of his element you have the advantage. The government knows this, so they will likely try to force your silence with pretrial release conditions. When that happens you must be prepared to keep things up from jail if necessary. In Trump's case, he has plenty of people ready and willing to help him continue his fight from jail should he need them. Most people are not so lucky. The strategy "strike the shepherd and the sheep shall scatter" works on most people, so even if you can convince people to agree to help you in the event of your arrest you'll most likely learn the hard way like I did that they won't honor their word the second the feds threaten to arrest them. You need good solid people on the outside dedicated to your cause so much that they'd rather be in jail than betray you. Trump has those resources, so he can do what he is doing. If you have the resources to fight the government in criminal court, online, in the media, and in civil court then you should strongly consider doing so.
Unfortunately, there are liabilities when taking the fight to enemy as a defendant. If convicted you might get more time, but you could get less if you expose unlawful wrongful conduct by a "victim" which provoked your offense (see USSG 5K2.10 victim conduct https://guidelines.ussc.gov/gl/%C2%A75K2.10). A civil lawsuit could help your defense if it produces evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the "victim", government, or snitches testifying against you. It could also hurt your defense by forcing you to testify under oath. Such suits are best if you're telling the truth and the government simply doesn't care. In such cases you can defend the act of suing people in your case on the grounds that it is necessary to get justice because justice matters.
This author is personally suing the named "victim" from my last case. In that case I pled guilty to one count of assaulting a federal officer for throwing food at a correctional officer during a cell extraction. That officer took me to an isolated disciplinary cell on the floor below, pinned me to a mattress, pulled my arm away from my body, and broke my left humerus in half. No federal detainee had ever been charged in federal court for such petty accusations in my district, so it was obvious they were hoping to cover their butts with a conviction. Throwing food at him after announcing my intention to post information about him on this site earlier on the floor above did not justify breaking my arm, so I am still suing him for battery. The federal government is aware of his behavior but because he is their dude they didn't charge him even after an expert witness report proved my side. I was sentenced to time served but the government refused to admit any wrongdoing on his part. When the government refuses to protect citizens by allowing those charged with enforcing the law to behave like that all you can legally do is sue and speak out.
Likewise, if I had my first case to defend over again I would have sued the named "victim" in that case for defamation because she posted content falsely accusing me of being convicted of heinous crimes I was never charged with. I would have filed it pro se over the objections of court appointed criminal lawyers who only cared about the outcome of the criminal case. Whenever you lack the money to hire your own counsel and try to fight the enemy on other fronts there will almost always be conflict with that counsel. The last time I was locked up I ran this website from jail, promoted it in the jail on a regular basis, and sent out articles to be posted criticizing my captors. Just doing that was enough to get co-counsel appointed to my case because of the extra work it created. A full court press will result in your defense attorney being constantly bombarded with an endless stream of new discovery. This can make it almost impossible for lawyers to keep up with your case while at the same time working with their other clients. They will sometimes go on strike or find excuses to withdraw from your case rather than defend you under such circumstances. You have to be willing to burn through court appointed lawyers until you find one capable of representing you as part of a larger strategy which prioritizes things more important to you than outcome of the criminal case.
In Trump's case, his top priority is his campaign not the case. That is why his defense must be conducted in the manner most likely to benefit the campaign even if it increases his criminal liability. He can afford to pay lawyers enough to make doing more work worth their while. My top priority was my business but like a lot of people busted in their 20s I couldn't afford a lawyer to defend a federal case because it would have cost me six figures. I directed my court appointed counsel to make my business their top priority and to conduct my defense in the manner most likely to benefit the business even if it meant enraging the judge. Their responses included screaming, sabotaging my efforts by passing recommendations to my people that they not follow my directions while passing the directions, and withdrawing from my case or forcing me to fire them for insubordination. They also tried unsuccessfully to have me declared mentally incompetent aid or assist in my defense. If you pursue a full court press while incarcerated with a court appointed lawyer you'll have to have people on the outside who won't listen to your lawyer. Talk to them about why any lawyer appointed won't recommend they do what needs to be done and get them to agree to ignore the lawyer. Otherwise they might be susceptible to you lawyer's claims that helping you fight back hurts your defense when in fact what is really hurting your defense is your lawyer not having time for other clients if you create an endless stream of new discovery.
If your snitch or alleged "victim" commits a tortious act against you consider suing them. It might be your only legal recourse other than speaking out when the government decides to charge only you with your crimes while granting others immunity for crimes committed against you.