Did Cosby's Lawyer blow the Attorney-Client Privilege?

Monique Pressley, a Public Defender Service alum, among other distinguished credentials, is one of Bill Cosby's new lawyers.  In an appearance on CNN, she explained that, on the one hand, "I'm not going to reveal client confidences. I'm counsel for Mr. Cosby and anything that he says to me is said in confidence."  But in the next breath she explained: "when his attorneys speak we are speaking for him. So when we speak and say that he denies all of the allegations and accusations then that is the statement of Bill Cosby."  I wonder if she might have blown the attorney-client privilege with that sort of statement. 

Many courts hold that "[t]he attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications that are intended to be disclosed to third parties or that in fact are so disclosed. It has been held that the disclosure of any meaningful part of a purportedly privileged communication waives the privilege as to the whole."  United States v. Rockwell Int'l, 897 F.2d 1255, 1265 (3d Cir. 1990).  If a statement "was intended for public relations purposes rather than legal purposes" it "is not privileged." Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 200 F.R.D. 661, 677 (D. Kan. 2001).  I have no doubt that an attorney legal review of client information to be sent to a public relations firm could well be privileged.  But if, as apparently happened here, a client engages attorneys to directly perform public relations rather than legal functions--or in any event to be a media representative--the client's statements to them are not privileged.  So, Ms. Pressley, do tell--what else did Mr. Cosby say?

UPDATE:  Thanks for the comments.   I agree with BDG and others that a lawyer trying a case speaking to the press, even about client testimony, would not operate as a waiver.  What I consider critical is that Ms. Pressley was apparently performing "public relations rather than legal functions," which I believe to be true based on the following. 

As of July 27, the two cases in ED Pa on PACER involving a William H. Cosby Jr., Green v. Cosby, 2:15-mc-00144-JP and Constand v. Cosby, 2:05-cv-01099-ER, reflect neither a notice of appearance nor a motion for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Pressley.  Green v. Cosby is related to two D. Mass. cases.  Ms. Pressley does not appear on the counsel list for either case.  She is not listed as counsel in Huth v. Cosby in the California Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.  Cosby's lawyers filed a major motion on July 21 in Constand v. Cosby; Ms. Pressley's name was not on it.   

Based on her non-involvement in the actual litigation of the cases, I take her precisely at her word when she was quoted as saying: "'My primary focus is to try to ensure that the reporting by the media is paying attention to the facts' in Cosby's latest legal filings, Pressley told USA Today this week."  That is, her job is to shape the media coverage, not to deal with the litigation as such.  Accordingly, there is strong authority that her work is not privileged:

Case law makes clear that “[a] media campaign is not a litigation strategy.” Haugh v. Schroder Inv. Mgmt. N. Am. Inc., 2003 WL 21998674, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2003) (“Some attorneys may feel it is desirable at times to conduct a media campaign, but that does not transform their coordination of a campaign into legal advice.”). Thus, to the extent BGR was performing public relations functions, its participation in attorney-client communications resulted in a waiver—even if those functions were related to the various litigations in which Egiazaryan was embroiled.

Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 290 F.R.D. 421, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

his efforts have been concentrated heavily in media and public relations, lobbying, and political activism. But communications, even between lawyer and client, are not privileged unless they are made for the purpose of rendering legal advice or, to use another formulation, unless they relate to the rendition of “professional legal services.”

In re Chevron Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 141, 165 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd sub nom. Lago Agrio Plaintiffs v. Chevron Corp., 409 F. App'x 393 (2d Cir. 2010).

JPMA asserts the privilege with respect to advice regarding lobbying, public relations, dealing with the media, and other non-privileged matters. Advice on these topics is not privileged, even if the advice comes from an attorney.

In re Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liab. Litig., No. 08-1967-MD-W-ODS, 2011 WL 1136440, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 25, 2011).  As Mark Lamont Hill, Morehouse Professor of African American Studies, explained, she was hired to create credibility as a spokesperson.  Talking to the press about a case might well be a J.D.-preferred position, but certainly one does not have to be admitted to the bar to do it.  I mean, she's a minister, too, but her managing a media campaign is not covered by the clergy privilege.

Her hiring is ironic, because Ms. Pressley's twitter feed  contains an exchange which seems to support the victims.  On July 12, perhaps before she became involved in the case, she responded to a tweet asking: "If you could say one encouraging thing to a bullied victim, what would it be?" She answered: "Silence is not your friend.  Seek a safe space and speak up NOW.  There is strength in numbers."  I quite agree; I have not heard a theory on how the dozens of women could be lying.