Updated at 4:04 p.m.

New York legal experts say there's little doubt an office that oversees attorney discipline will investigate President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, after he appeared to admit to professional misconduct in paying off porn star Stormy Daniels.

Cohen brokered a nondisclosure deal to conceal an alleged Trump-Daniels affair in October 2016 and said in early March that he used $130,000 "from my home equity line" to pay Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

Clarifying a key point that could lead to discipline, Cohen’s attorney, David Schwartz, said this week that Cohen negotiated and paid Daniels without Trump’s knowledge — something experts say constitutes serious misconduct that could threaten his ability to practice law.

“The president was not aware of the agreement. At least Michael Cohen never told him about the agreement,” Schwartz told CNN on Wednesday. He told NBC on Thursday Trump “100 percent” did not reimburse Cohen.

If the accounts are true, Cohen may have violated client consultation and financial guidelines in New York's Rules of Professional Conduct. If Cohen is lying, that would violate a broad prohibition on attorney dishonesty.

Cohen, a graduate of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, was admitted to the New York bar in 1992 and has no record of public discipline for misconduct, according to online records. But experts say the Daniels matter could change that.

“I cannot predict what the result will be as the precise facts are not known, but based on public reports, my view is that at least some discipline is likely,” said Dan Abrams, a New York City-based attorney who specializes in legal malpractice and business litigation.

“Mr. Cohen is apparently admitting to paying a lot of money to settle a matter which could have ended in litigation without his client's consent or knowledge,” Abrams said, outlining a legal Catch-22 for Cohen: Either he broke rules by negotiating without Trump’s knowledge and using his own money, or he broke another rule by lying about it.

If Cohen paid off Daniels without Trump’s consent, Abrams said, “this violates New York's Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(e) which prohibits an attorney from providing his client financial assistance in connection with contemplated litigation, with exceptions which do not apply here. If Trump did not know about the payments, it would probably violate Rule 1.2, which prohibits an attorney from settling a matter without client consent, and probably Rule 1.4, which requires the attorney to communicate with clients as reasonably necessary under the circumstances.”

“On the other hand, if Trump is the source of the money for Cohen's payments, then Cohen is lying about it, which would violate Rule 8.4, which covers dishonesty,” he added.

“Based on the information so far publicly known, there appear to be several areas of possible misconduct,” agreed James Milles, who teaches legal ethics at the University of Buffalo School of Law.

“If, as Cohen has claimed, he paid the $130,000 settlement to Ms. Daniels out of his own funds rather than transmitting the money from his client Trump, he probably violated [Rule 1.8(e)]. While it may seem like a trivial violation, attorney misconduct with respect to clients' finances is taken extremely seriously as an abuse of trust, and is one [of the] types of misconduct most likely to result in disbarment,” Milles said.

Albany Law School professor Vincent Bonventre added: “If he advanced funds on behalf of his client, Trump, or made a monetary gift to him, that is also ethical misconduct. The only exception would be for actual litigation expenses, and only if the funds were repaid. If he paid Stormy Daniels on behalf of his client — i.e., an advance or loan or gift — that would be disciplinable ethical misconduct.”

And if that’s not the case, Bonventre said Cohen could face punishment "if he lied or in any way misrepresented what he did in representing Trump or handling the Stormy Daniels matter. And it would not matter if the lies or misrepresentations were in response to an official inquiry or to the press or to anyone else. Lying, deception, misrepresentation is disciplinable ethical misconduct for lawyers no matter the context.”

Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law, urges caution, however, saying the facts remain murky.

Cohen “may have authority from his client to do this, either in this instance or generally,” Gillers said. “So far, nothing that has come to light warrants a conclusion that Cohen has violated the rules governing lawyers, and certainly not a rule that would merit disbarment. He may have or not. We can’t yet know with the level of confidence I think is necessary to level that charge.”

New York defense attorney Ronald Minkoff, who represents attorneys accused of professional misconduct, said he anticipates tension over how to proceed, given the political nature of the case.

“This is going to be a political football of the first order,” Minkoff said.

Minkoff said it’s possible a probe of Cohen would be slow-walked as Cohen and Daniels square off in court over the NDA and allegations of defamation.

“The only way I see disbarment is if it went criminal,” Minkoff said, “if someone prosecuted him for what would be an illegal campaign contribution.”

Details about the disciplinary process aren’t made public unless an attorney is censured, suspended, or disbarred. But anyone can make a complaint to the First Judicial Department in New York City. The office also can initiate reviews on its own, which attorneys familiar with the process say is likely given the high-profile nature of the case.

If Cohen is investigated, a disciplinary prosecutor will ask him to respond to allegations within 20 days. A 21-member committee of volunteer attorneys meets monthly and would vote on whether to bring charges or issue a lesser form of non-public discipline, such as an admonition. If Cohen has a record of past non-public admonitions, some experts believe that could weigh against him.

If the committee votes for charges, a referee would moderate a trial-like hearing and submit the record to a five-member panel of judges on the First Judicial Department appeals court, which could dismiss the case, with no public record, or issue a censure, suspension, or disbarment.

The disciplinary process can take months or, if the court is involved, more than a year. Generally, attorneys who refuse to cooperate receive an interim suspension and ultimately disbarment.

If Cohen is convicted of a felony relating to an allegation that the payoff was an illegal campaign contribution, that also would result in near-automatic disbarment. (Some experts view the Daniels payoff as analogous to $1 million in donations funneled by former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., to a mistress to keep her quiet. Edwards was indicted, but a jury deadlocked on most charges.)

Cohen did not respond to requests for comment, nor did Schwartz, his attorney. Michael Avenatti, an attorney for Daniels, declined to comment.

To Cohen’s critics, the legal community would be better off without him.

“Attorneys across the country are mystified by Cohen’s conduct,” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “Cohen has a notorious reputation. His style of practice is repellent to most attorneys.”

Long a key deputy to Trump, Cohen built a reputation as a “fixer” who bullies others on his client’s behalf, said Turley, who once employed Daniels’ attorney, Avenatti, as a research assistant.

“Cohen’s attorney, David Schwartz, has repeatedly said that Cohen’s relationship with Donald Trump is hard to describe. He says it’s a mix of a friend, a fixer, and a lawyer. That’s not a defense; that’s an allegation under the ethics code. You’re not allowed to maintain ambiguous relationships as an attorney where you leave yourself and others guessing as to what role you’re playing,” Turley said. “The reason for that bright-line rule is more than evident in this case.”

Turley believes a disciplinary investigation in New York will probe whether Cohen misrepresented his client’s position to an opposing attorney, failed to confer with his client, or improperly mixed personal funds in representing a client. Some of his conduct may allegedly constitute fraud, Turley said. Courts generally give at most a suspension, even for serious attorney misconduct, he said.

“It’s too early to say what the worst case scenario for Cohen might be -- the situation is getting worse by the day," he added.

Turley said he's astonished by how poorly Cohen — who recently dined with Trump at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida — has served Trump's interests against Daniels.

“You couldn’t have handled this matter worse for a client like Donald Trump. It’s breathtaking how bad this agreement was for handling this type of situation,” Turley said, adding: “You could literally teach an entire law school class in contracts based on this agreement. It would be a lesson of what not to do with a contract. It would take an entire term to work through all the errors with students.”

Turley said being a bad lawyer is one of the less-likely avenues to discipline for Cohen, but faults the nondisclosure deal for being “riddled with errors and self[-]defeating provisions,” including a use of pseudonyms that “made himself and his client look comical” and an arbitration clause that does not clearly state that the matter could be resolved without Trump’s involvement.

“He didn’t even attempt to remove boilerplate language dealing with paternity. If paternity was not an issue, that’s the last thing you want in an agreement with a former porn star,” Turley said.

Bennett Gershman, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and an expert on legal misconduct who teaches at Pace University’s law school, said he doubts the political nature of the case will insulate Cohen.

Gershman notes that Trump’s mentor Roy Cohn, a divisive attorney involved in congressional investigation of alleged communists in the 1950s, was disbarred in 1986 for “dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.”

“Trump’s earlier famous lawyer Roy Cohn was disbarred. He probably was one of the most reviled lawyers to ever practice,” Gershman said. “Trump has had some questionable attorneys over the years.”

