NEW YORK — Wednesday’s court hearing about the documents seized by the FBI from President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, was largely focused on another lawyer, Michael Avenatti, who represents actress Stormy Daniels and has become one of cable news’ most ubiquitous faces in the process.

Cohen’s team accused Avenatti of staging a legal “drive-by shooting” against Cohen. And Avenatti implied he has information that the raid unearthed, what he described as “disturbing” tapes of a conversation between Cohen and Daniels’s former lawyer.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is suing both Trump and Cohen to get out of a confidentiality agreement that prevents her from discussing her encounter with the president in 2006. Cohen has admitted giving Daniels a $130,000 payment in exchange for her silence, though he denies she had a sexual liaison with Trump. Daniels is separately suing Cohen for defamation because he accused her of lying about the alleged affair. Trump and his lawyers have given conflicting accounts of whether the president was aware of Cohen’s deal with Daniels.

On April 26, Avenatti filed a motion to allow Daniels to intervene in Cohen’s case. The motion, which was opposed by Cohen’s team, is under consideration by Judge Kimba Wood in U.S. district court in Manhattan. The proceedings are at the stage of determining which documents seized by the FBI from Cohen’s office and residences will be made available to prosecutors. The FBI raid was part of a criminal investigation into Cohen’s business dealings and payments he made to Daniels and at least one other woman, who also claimed to have had a relationship with Trump.

Wood has appointed a special master to work with Cohen’s attorneys and prosecutors to determine which documents are privileged. In his request to allow Daniels to intervene, Avenatti argued that the raid may have included documents that could be subject to her attorney-client privilege. And attorneys for both Trump and Cohen have also that argued some of the seized materials may be privileged.

But Wednesday’s hearing revolved, in part, around Avenatti himself, including his financial dealings and the nearly 200 television appearances he has made since taking on Daniels’s case. Wood warned him that if he does formally enter the case, “you would have to stop doing some of the things you’ve been doing.”

Specifically, she said that Avenatti, who has routinely criticized Trump and Cohen on Twitter and television, would have to refrain from issuing “opinions on Mr. Cohen’s guilt.” Wood also said Avenatti could not disclose the contents of nonpublic documents. She suggested that she either wanted Avenatti to behave as a participating attorney in the case while Daniels’s application to intervene is held in abeyance or to remove himself.

“I don’t want you to exist in some kind of limbo where you are able to denigrate Mr. Cohen and potentially contaminate the jury pool,” said Wood.

The judge also warned Avenatti that he would not be able to continue his “publicity tour” if he formally participated in the case.

“I say ‘publicity tour’ not in a derogatory sense. You’re entitled to publicity, I can’t stop you. Unless you’re participating in a matter before me,” said Wood.

Avenatti said he was willing to have Daniels’s motion to intervene held in abeyance. But he also brought up the issue of “disturbing” tapes he said were made by Cohen to make the case that Daniels’s application would need to be dealt with “sooner or later.”

According to Avenatti, he became aware of the recordings when a “member of the press” called him last week to ask about a taped conversation between Cohen and Daniels’s former attorney, Keith Davidson. Avenatti said the unnamed reporter told him this conversation included references to Daniels. He expressed concerns that the tape was made in the first place and that the press was made aware of it, suggesting this could have been a violation of Daniels’s attorney-client privilege.