To clear a few things up:
You have attorney/client privilege even if technically you never hire the attorney. If you come in to see me and we discuss your case and you later decide to hire someone else, everything you said to me is still privileged.
So when Hannity says he has a privilege and he was never Cohen’s client, that is certainly possible.
I don’t believe a word of it, of course.
Here’s a nice picture of Hannity posing with Cohen, a man he hardly knows, and giving a thumbs up approval to him for no reason whatsoever
I mean, come on. Why would Cohen be trying so hard to keep his third client secret? And why would he name Hannity if he didn’t consider him a client — which meant he had paid him? And don’t we all think some of the files the FBI had would clearly show that?
Since Cohen is known as a “fixer” (think of Robert Duvall’s lawyer in “The Godfather” if that helps), my biggest concern now is wondering what in the world he was supposed to “fix” for Hannity?
Strap yourselves in; it’s going to be a fun ride.
ventrellaquest.com 
I think it likely Hannity never paid—because some other outfit was covering the costs.
Considering Hannity’s radio and TV shows are basically paid for by PACs, not traditional sponsors. Those are just bonus money slots for the two respective networks. (Hence sponsor boycotts never end Hannity or Limbaugh’s shows).
Hannity, Limbaugh, and many others from the genre of right-wing talk—are funded by the PACs who have a script they want broadcasted.
Why wouldn’t they also cover legal expenses for their mouthpieces. Like the FOP provides lawyers for police officers. But FOP lawyers would say they have an FOP lodge as their client. And an FOP lawyer likely would com from a better law school than, Cohen.
LikeLike