Solicitors not telling the truth

Victor

Barristers do it as well.

I'm wondering if the master's comment is true. While I'm sure many lawyers will correctly tell you what day it is (and even not charge for it ), when it comes to matters of substance, are lawyers overly willing to give their client's slanted version of the truth (the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth). No offence, but they are being paid to do a job and they are doing it.

My experience of criminal cases is limited (and saw one very embarrassed solicitor), but certainly in some civil matters, assertions by lawyers and the truth are two very different things.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1121/1224307907794.html

'Unjustified slur' angers Law Society
GENEVIEVE CARBERY

THE BODY representing solicitors has defended the profession after what it called an “unjustified slur” by the master of the High Court, Edmund Honohan.

The Law Society took issue with a remark by Mr Honohan in a judgment last week that of all those who swore affidavits, solicitors were the group “most frequently found to have only a nodding acquaintance with the truth”.

Society director general Ken Murphy described the remark as “an outrageous and utterly unjustified slur on the integrity of the entire solicitors’ profession”.

Mr Honohan’s remarks were made in a judgment attacking the fairness of “fast-track” court procedures allowing creditors to get final judgment orders without a full hearing against debtors unable to pay lawyers and with insufficient legal knowledge to mount an effective defence.

Peregrinus

Lawyers are not witnesses, and - at least in relation to the substance of a case - they don't tell the court what happened.

The lawyer's client may be - and often is - a witness, and the lawyer should not assist his client in giving evidence to the court which he, the lawyer, knows to be false.

But knows is the operative word here. A lawyer may be sceptical of the story his client tells, or he may suspect that his client is lying to him. But it is unprofessional to refuse to act for the client purely for that reason. The client is entitled to put his story before the court, and to have it accepted or rejected by a jury (or a judge, as the case may be). A lawyer may warn his client that his evidence is not credible, but the client insista that that is what happened, and that is what he wants to tell the court, then he has a right to do that, and the laywer should not obstruct or undermine his right to be judged by a court.

Milk & Honey

The Master was speaking about cases in which there are no witnesses heard. All of the evidence is on affidavit. Solicitors quite often swear affidavits in these cases to prove the contents of letters issued and to prove service of documents.

Peregrinus

Sure. And there may well be solicitors perjuring themselves about, e.g., whether or when a particular document was served. And I certainly wouldn't defend that.

But on the key issues of whether the defendant owes any money, and what payments he has made and when, the solicitor can give no relevant evidence. And he normally has no reason, and no duty, to prevent the bank saying whatever they want to say on that.

Milk & Honey

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. And there may well be solicitors perjuring themselves about, e.g., whether or when a particular document was served. And I certainly wouldn't defend that.

But on the key issues of whether the defendant owes any money, and what payments he has made and when, the solicitor can give no relevant evidence. And he normally has no reason, and no duty, to prevent the bank saying whatever they want to say on that.

The key issue in the fast track procedure is whether the defendant is aware of the case against him and has an opportunity to reply.

texidub

I presume the man who made these comments has been around enough solicitors to know what they are like.

All the pontificating in the world on boards won't change the perception people have of solicitors in this country. I can only hope that the system is reformed quickly and dramatically so that people won't laugh when integrity and solicitor are mentioned in the same sentence. Right now that juxtaposition is comical in the extreme.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

they don't tell the court what happened.

What of "My client was wronged*"? Very often what is really hyperbole is presented as truth. While a legally trained person might be able to see through it, an ordinary person might not.


* Insert details.

McCrack

texidub wrote: »

I presume the man who made these comments has been around enough solicitors to know what they are like.

All the pontificating in the world on boards won't change the perception people have of solicitors in this country. I can only hope that the system is reformed quickly and dramatically so that people won't laugh when integrity and solicitor are mentioned in the same sentence. Right now that juxtaposition is comical in the extreme.

Perception is perception and if you knew the man professionally you might have a different opinion.

Lawyers practising in the civil courts knows Ed Honohan's character to put these comments into context. I probably cant say anymore here.

MagicSean

"Judge my client has a bit of a history but has recently stopped drinking and is getting his life in order. He would like to be able to stay clear of prison as he has a young child. We would also ask for legal aid to be granted as his only source of income is €183 per week on social welfare."

Translation - Judge, although my client has 42 previous convictions he really doesn't want to go to jail. He no longer has any money to drink and hasn't touched a drop since early this morning. Half his dole goes to his ex-girlfriend and their child and the rest goes towards paying off his existing fines and warrants. Also he hasnt punches anyone in three days.

Solicitors aren't liars they are just great at decorating the truth.

johnnyskeleton

texidub wrote: »

I presume the man who made these comments has been around enough solicitors to know what they are like.

Ken Murphy is the head of the law society, so yeah, he knows enough about solicitors to defend the profession. As to which of the two of them is right, that's another story.

texidub wrote: »

All the pontificating in the world on boards won't change the perception people have of solicitors in this country. I can only hope that the system is reformed quickly and dramatically so that people won't laugh when integrity and solicitor are mentioned in the same sentence. Right now that juxtaposition is comical in the extreme.

What reforms exactly do you propose?

Avatargh

Victor wrote: »

Barristers do it as well.

This is all in the context of swearing affidavits. Barristers don't swear affidavits. So, no, barristers don't do "it" as well, given the specific context of what you're referring to.

FreudianSlippers

McCrack wrote: »

Perception is perception and if you knew the man professionally you might have a different opinion.

Lawyers practising in the civil courts knows Ed Honohan's character to put these comments into context. I probably cant say anymore here.

For every 1 thing he says that is maybe overboard he hits the nail on the head 50 times.

Victor

Avatargh wrote: »

This is all in the context of swearing affidavits. Barristers don't swear affidavits. So, no, barristers don't do "it" as well, given the specific context of what you're referring to.

If you read my post, you will see I was talking generally. I even have a judge to back me up in a specific context.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

Avatargh wrote: »

This is all in the context of swearing affidavits. Barristers don't swear affidavits. So, no, barristers don't do "it" as well, given the specific context of what you're referring to.

If you read my post, you will see I was talking generally. I even have a judge to back me up in a specific context.

If by judge you mean the Master of the High Court then no, you don't.