Can pleading not guilty be considered perjury?

Laphroaig52

It's something I've often wondered about.

If you are charged with a serious crime you swear to tell the truth and doing otherwise means your have committed perjury.

So, if someone pleads not guilty and claims (for example) mistaken identity and that they were somewhere else when the crime happened.

Let's say the prosecution submits compelling evidence against the defendant which the judge and jury accept and a guilty verdict is returned.

As well as being found guilty of the original crime, doesn't it follow that the defendant also lied in court and is thus also guilty of perjury?

What about witnesses that are called as alibis to state that the defendant was elsewhere when it happened. Doesn't the guilty verdict imply that they also perjured themselves?

Pro Hoc Vice

Flyer28 wrote: »

It's something I've often wondered about.

If you are charged with a serious crime you swear to tell the truth and doing otherwise means your have committed perjury.

So, if someone pleads not guilty and claims (for example) mistaken identity and that they were somewhere else when the crime happened.

Let's say the prosecution submits compelling evidence against the defendant which the judge and jury accept and a guilty verdict is returned.

As well as being found guilty of the original crime, doesn't it follow that the defendant also lied in court and is thus also guilty of perjury?

What about witnesses that are called as alibis to state that the defendant was elsewhere when it happened. Doesn't the guilty verdict imply that they also perjured themselves?

A plea is not given under oath. An accused has the right not to give evidence, but once he does and is under oath then if telling lies he is committing perjury.

A guilty verdict does not in its self show that perjury was committed. A jury may believe a person thinks they are telling the truth but is mistaken.

Zambia

Ah no, not guilty just means you are not pleading guilty.

As vice says if you are under oath and say.

I was not at dunnes stores Cavan on the 24th jan 2015.

But the prosecution proves this is not true, then you have committed perjury.


The right to silence means you don't have to perjure yourself

Victor

A person may also accept (most of) the facts of the case, but still claim to be not guilty, e.g. there may be a legal argument that exonerates them, e.g. they may claim defences of self defence, necessity, diminished responsibility, etc.

Peregrinus

As others have pointed out, a not guilty plea (and, for that matter a guilty plea) is not given under oath. Consequently even if you plead not guilty while firmly believing in your own guilt, or plead guilty knowing that you are in fact innocent, there is no question of a perjury charge.

To put it another way, a "not guilty" plea is not evidence, or even an allegation of fact. It's a procedural step - essentially it's the defence saying "We are not admitting this charge. We require the state to put evidence before the court to prove the charge."

NUTLEY BOY

The fact that a defendant is convicted does not automatically establish that he lied or is a liar.

Perjury is a different issue.

A conviction, at it's simplest, means that the prosecution established it's case to the required standard.

littlemac1980

I'd go so far as to suggest that even if some circumstances arose where a person were to repeatedly state under oath (while being cross-examined for instance) that they are innocent of the crime with which they are charged, then even if they had committed the crime, and knew themselves that they did, they would still not be committing perjury because until the Court or Jury have decided the issue of guilt the person is presumed innocent, which in effect means they are legally not guilty.

Peregrinus

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I'd go so far as to suggest that even if some circumstances arose where a person were to repeatedly state under oath (while being cross-examined for instance) that they are innocent of the crime with which they are charged, then even if they had committed the crime, and knew themselves that they did, they would still not be committing perjury because until the Court or Jury have decided the issue of guilt the person is presumed innocent, which in effect means they are legally not guilty.

Nobody is asked in evidence whether they are "guilty" ; that's a question for the jury to decide. But if a defendant gives evidence and is cross-examined, he could well be asked whether he did this or that act which forms part of the offence. ("Did you break the window and enter the house? Did you hit the householder? Did you take the jewels?") If he answers untruthfully, that's perjury.

And the presumption of innocence doesn't mean that you are, factually, not guilty until convicted. It just means that the state will treat you as not guilty until the prosecution proves your guilt to the satisfaction of the court. Once convicted, though, you are guilty, and can be regarded as having been guilty ever since you committed the offence.

drkpower

Doesn't this beg the question why more of those convicted of the index offence are not charged with perjury?

I may be wrong but isn't it extremely rare? Given that perjury is s more serious offence than many index offences, you would have thought that there might be an appetite to prosecute more? Particularly if a guilty finding on the index offence is effectively by definition a finding of perjury ( assuming the accused gives evidence denying some relevant factual matter)?

Is there a kind of acceptance by the dpp of the fact that defendants are 'allowed' to do whatever it takes to defend themselves including lie and prosecuting them for perjury just isn't on? Or are these types of prosecutions more common than it appears?

Peregrinus

drkpower wrote: »

Doesn't this beg the question why more of those convicted of the index offence are not charged with perjury?

I may be wrong but isn't it extremely rare? Given that perjury is s more serious offence than many index offences, you would have thought that there might be an appetite to prosecute more? Particularly if a guilty finding on the index offence is effectively by definition a finding of perjury ( assuming the accused gives evidence denying some relevant factual matter)?

Is there a kind of acceptance by the dpp of the fact that defendants are 'allowed' to do whatever it takes to defend themselves including lie and prosecuting them for perjury just isn't on? Or are these types of prosecutions more common than it appears?

Well, of course, not all defendants give evidence.

But many do, and if they are cross-examined they may well give evidence which is false.

But to convict them of perjury you have to prove that it was false, which effectively involves re-trying the entire matter. The fact that they were convicted of the crime doesn't prove that the detailed evidence they gave was false. If the convicted person denied in evidence that he, e.g., entered a particular premises on a particular night, you can't prove that he entered it simply by pointing to the fact that he was convicted of burglary at the premises; you have to call witnesses who will give evidence that he entered the premises on that particular night. And the jury at the second trial have to see those witnesses; they are being asked to convict on the basis that they believe their evidence rather than his; the question isn't closed simply because an earlier jury believed it.

So, basically, you get to fight the entire trial, or much of it, a second time. Which will seriously piss off all the witnesses and cost the state a good deal of money.

And, even if you are willing to do all that, to secure a conviction for perjury you not only have to prove that the evidence given was false, but that the person who gave it knew it was false (e.g. he was not simply confused in his recollection) which is not a question that was canvassed at the first trial. This isn't necessarily impossible, but also isn't necessarily trivially easy.

The bottom line is that when somebody has been convicted and sentenced for a particular crime, there is little official interest in convicting him a second time for being less than co-operative in the first trial. Perjury prosecutions more often happen where somebody has successfully perverted the course of justice through perjury (e.g. Geoffrey Archer) or where they have perjured themselves to help someone else.

littlemac1980

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nobody is asked in evidence whether they are "guilty" ; that's a question for the jury to decide. But if a defendant gives evidence and is cross-examined, he could well be asked whether he did this or that act which forms part of the offence. ("Did you break the window and enter the house? Did you hit the householder? Did you take the jewels?") If he answers untruthfully, that's perjury.

And the presumption of innocence doesn't mean that you are, factually, not guilty until convicted. It just means that the state will treat you as not guilty until the prosecution proves your guilt to the satisfaction of the court. Once convicted, though, you are guilty, and can be regarded as having been guilty ever since you committed the offence.

Oh I meant that there's nothing stopping an accused exclaiming repeatedly that they are innocent (not in answer to a direct question re guilt because as you rightly say - that question would never be asked) e.g. Q - "Did you kill X?" Ans. "I'm innocent" + until the prosecution have proven their case it's technically a truthful answer.

Ken.

A person could be in court till after they die. Did you do X? No. Found guilty, trial for perjury. Did you lie? No. Found guilty, another trial for perjury for lying in the perjury trial. Rinse and repeat till doomsday.

plodder

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bottom line is that when somebody has been convicted and sentenced for a particular crime, there is little official interest in convicting him a second time for being less than co-operative in the first trial. Perjury prosecutions more often happen where somebody has successfully perverted the course of justice through perjury (e.g. Geoffrey Archer) or where they have perjured themselves to help someone else.

It also raises the issue of a lawyer's role in it all. My understanding is that suborning perjury (ie a lawyer facilitating it) is an offence in some jurisdictions. But, I'm not sure whether it is here. In the US i understand a trial lawyer won't allow a defendant to take the stand, if he thinks they're going to lie. How do you stop lawyers and defendants from cooking up false stories, without an offence like that to discourage it?

234

plodder wrote: »

It also raises the issue of a lawyer's role in it all. My understanding is that suborning perjury (ie a lawyer facilitating it) is an offence in some jurisdictions. But, I'm not sure whether it is here. In the US i understand a trial lawyer won't allow a defendant to take the stand, if he thinks they're going to lie. How do you stop lawyers and defendants from cooking up false stories, without an offence like that to discourage it?

Well at for the lawyer there are quite strict ethical obligations which prevent them facilitating lying to the court. And you can bet that if a defendant who decided to lie was caught in the act he would lose no time throwing his lawyer under the bus by telling the court that he was advised to lie, if that was in fact the case. So these are ethical obligations that really can bite if lawyers don't follow them.

littlemac1980

234 wrote: »

Well at for the lawyer there are quite strict ethical obligations which prevent them facilitating lying to the court. And you can bet that if a defendant who decided to lie was caught in the act he would lose no time throwing his lawyer under the bus by telling the court that he was advised to lie, if that was in fact the case. So these are ethical obligations that really can bite if lawyers don't follow them.

I presume in practice however, that for the most part it's quite simple to avoid such a situation.

If you find yourself representing a person accused of a crime, and that person has admitted to you that they carried out the particular criminal act, then really the only thing to do is to advise that person not to give evidence.

If they follow your advice then you are still at liberty (and obliged in fact) to attack the prosecution evidence where possible/necessary.

But what happens if in such a situation that your client ignores your advice, decides to give evidence, and during cross-examination makes statements you know are false. Are you obliged to notify the Court that you can no longer act for that person, and if so, how do you do that without overtly implying that you know the evidence given is false.

plodder

234 wrote: »

Well at for the lawyer there are quite strict ethical obligations which prevent them facilitating lying to the court. And you can bet that if a defendant who decided to lie was caught in the act he would lose no time throwing his lawyer under the bus by telling the court that he was advised to lie, if that was in fact the case. So these are ethical obligations that really can bite if lawyers don't follow them.

Does attorney client privilege not weaken the bite though? How could you use advice like that against a lawyer, if it's privileged communication to begin with? [edit]Ok, I see the flaw in that logic already. The privilege is for the benefit of the client, not the lawyer ..

littlemac1980

plodder wrote: »

Does attorney client privilege not weaken the bite though? How could you use advice like that against a lawyer, if it's privileged communication to begin with?

As far as I'm aware privilege wouldn't arise.

littlemac1980

plodder wrote: »

Does attorney client privilege not weaken the bite though? How could you use advice like that against a lawyer, if it's privileged communication to begin with? [edit]Ok, I see the flaw in that logic already. The privilege is for the benefit of the client, not the lawyer ..

Yep precisely, although as regards the duty between the solicitor and client, there is a duty of confidentiality owed by the solicitor to the client, but not vice versa. It wouldn't be considered privilege though which is a seperate concept related to disclosure during a particular case etc. so that while certain details arising from discussions between the solicitor and the client, and advice given as a result, are privileged in the context of a criminal trial (or civil) for which that advice was given, if after that matter was determined, there was a question or complaint raised about the advice given (e.g. and action for professional negligence) then the earlier statements/advice etc. which were privileged in the context of the earlier case, would no longer be privileged in the context of a later case wherein those statements formed part of the material evidence.

234

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I presume in practice however, that for the most part it's quite simple to avoid such a situation.

If you find yourself representing a person accused of a crime, and that person has admitted to you that they carried out the particular criminal act, then really the only thing to do is to advise that person not to give evidence.

If they follow your advice then you are still at liberty (and obliged in fact) to attack the prosecution evidence where possible/necessary.

But what happens if in such a situation that your client ignores your advice, decides to give evidence, and during cross-examination makes statements you know are false. Are you obliged to notify the Court that you can no longer act for that person, and if so, how do you do that without overtly implying that you know the evidence given is false.

Well who is going to elicit this evidence? If counsel knows the truth and that the accused intends to lie in chief then he just won't ask. He will either have to withdraw or tell the client that he can't examine him.

littlemac1980

234 wrote: »

Well who is going to elicit this evidence? If counsel knows the truth and that the accused intends to lie in chief then he just won't ask. He will either have to withdraw or tell the client that he can't examine him.

Yeah but it would be possible that he wouldn't ask in chief, but I'd say its certain that the relevant question would be asked in cross.

drkpower

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bottom line is that when somebody has been convicted and sentenced for a particular crime, there is little official interest in convicting him a second time for being less than co-operative in the first trial. Perjury prosecutions more often happen where somebody has successfully perverted the course of justice through perjury (e.g. Geoffrey Archer) or where they have perjured themselves to help someone else.

Cheers, that makes sense. One can see that even if there was a very good prospect of a successful subsequent perjury conviction, the cost benefit analysis would not come out in favour of retrying them.

I was thinking of scenarios where for instance a notorious criminal (who has proven difficult to prosecute for more serious offences) was successfully prosecuted for an offence that carries with it a relatively minor punishment. In that scenario, one might see how the official interest in getting him for perjury might be increased. Yet you very rarely (ever?) see perjury prosecutions being brought.

Of course, I get that a conviction for perjury does not automatically follow from a conviction for the index offence, but presumably it is evidentially easier given that, if you like, the ground work has already been done.

234

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Yeah but it would be possible that he wouldn't ask in chief, but I'd say its certain that the relevant question would be asked in cross.

Hm, I can't see anybody allowing their client to not deal in chief with something which they know will arise in cross, especially if it will be something which he intends to lie about.

Same would apply in any event, if counsel knows that his client intends to lie, whether in chief or in cross, then he has to advise him not to. If the client persists and maintains that he will, then he would have to withdraw.

I suppose the issue would be if it happened unexpectedly, where the client began to lie in the witness box without any notice. Then I think counsel would be limited to testing the prosecution case thereafter. He couldn't put his client's case in his closing speech or his examination of other defence witnesses.

I'm not 100% on that though. A criminal practitioner might be able to weigh in and clear this up.

Claw Hammer

A "not guilty" simply calls on the prosecution to prove their case. In most drink driving cases the defendant does not give evidence. At the close of the prosecution case there is an application for a dismissal on the basis that there is a defect in the prosecution case in that some essential elemenyt of proof is missing. Typically this would be because the arrest was unlawful and therefore the evidence gathered after that ( the sample) can't be admitted or else the procedure for gathering the evidence wasn't followed and so isn't admissible. In hat case there is no admissible evidence upon which to convict.
A lawyer cannot act for a defendant who wants to mislead the court. The lawyer can put the prosecution on proof but he cannot set up defences he knows are untrue eg. It wasn't me driving , I was in scotland at the time.
Perjury has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and it can be difficult to prove and there is often little appetite for it. In civil case the judges hid the perjurer or the party he is giving evidence for with costs In criminal cases it results in a higher sentence.

South Law

Agree with that.
As a solicitor when training I worked on a lot of road traffic cases in district court. Mind numbing stuff. They all generally follow the same routine and outcome. Sounds like you want to plea NOT GUILTY. first and foremost spend money on a solicitor if drink driving as your outcome can vary but if guilty you face a mandatory ban, unless just over under new rules. If insurance is not in place your ban will run in tandem usually. Do you want plead not guilty? Were you driving or sitting in a parked car? What sample did you give? How long between summons and offence. These and other variables all matter

Uno my Uno.

littlemac1980 wrote: »

But what happens if in such a situation that your client ignores your advice, decides to give evidence, and during cross-examination makes statements you know are false. Are you obliged to notify the Court that you can no longer act for that person, and if so, how do you do that without overtly implying that you know the evidence given is false.

As stated a Lawyer cannot allow his client to mislead the court, eg by allowing him to take the stand to give evidence that the Lawyer knows to be untrue. Furthermore if a Client was to perjure himself in court and his Lawyer knew the evidence offered was untrue the Lawyer is obliged to recuse himself immediately. There is a specific way of so doing (which escapes my memory at the moment) which doesn't say that the client has committed perjury but lets everyone know that he has.

South Law

I think someone has been watching too much SUITS or similar. If indeed we are talking about a simple summary charge in the district then there is no state barrister cross examining. The local garda super will ask questions if I put a client under oath. I would avoid putting them up if I suspected they be took apart.If ssomething I was unaware of became apparently over cross examination it is too late and I would say nothing as next person to talk is the judge in ruling. I can't cover up deceit but clients do not always tell the truth. And if it is a grey area we turn blind eyes. Summary district court charges are relatively petty and a drink driving charge is not a criminal offence so no criminal record made from it. A client can lie under oath on stand but a judge will just prefer contrary evidence if believes lying with no PERJURY charge necessarily formed. Stop watching all the tv drama

Pro Hoc Vice

South Law wrote: »

I think someone has been watching too much SUITS or similar. If indeed we are talking about a simple summary charge in the district then there is no state barrister cross examining. The local garda super will ask questions if I put a client under oath. I would avoid putting them up if I suspected they be took apart.If ssomething I was unaware of became apparently over cross examination it is too late and I would say nothing as next person to talk is the judge in ruling. I can't cover up deceit but clients do not always tell the truth. And if it is a grey area we turn blind eyes. Summary district court charges are relatively petty and a drink driving charge is not a criminal offence so no criminal record made from it. A client can lie under oath on stand but a judge will just prefer contrary evidence if believes lying with no PERJURY charge necessarily formed. Stop watching all the tv drama

a drink driving charge is of a criminal nature and will leave a person with a criminal record yes it's a motor offence but it is a criminal offence.

234

South Law wrote: »

I think someone has been watching too much SUITS or similar. If indeed we are talking about a simple summary charge in the district then there is no state barrister cross examining. The local garda super will ask questions if I put a client under oath. I would avoid putting them up if I suspected they be took apart.If ssomething I was unaware of became apparently over cross examination it is too late and I would say nothing as next person to talk is the judge in ruling. I can't cover up deceit but clients do not always tell the truth. And if it is a grey area we turn blind eyes. Summary district court charges are relatively petty and a drink driving charge is not a criminal offence so no criminal record made from it. A client can lie under oath on stand but a judge will just prefer contrary evidence if believes lying with no PERJURY charge necessarily formed. Stop watching all the tv drama

If you are going to try and criticise others, and masquerade as a lawyer, at least do your research.

So much wrong with this post it's slightly hilarious that you criticise others for watching too much TV.

First, you clearly aren't a lawyer. Secondly, all charges are criminal offences. Thirdly, yes a drunk driving conviction will appear on a criminal record. Fourthly, judges don't make charging decisions.

Finally, are you secretly this guy?: http://www.legalcheek.com/2014/09/9-reasons-why-lord-harley-of-counsel-has-the-best-linkedin-cv-of-any-lawyer-ever/

South Law

Must have imagyouned my 3 years at uni and 2 years as a trainee. Perhaps it was a vivid dream.
Just pinched myself
No ... it happened ... oh well
Anyways
First all convictions are NOT criminal ones.
Second it I was saying a judge will decide if your testimony is credible in the district court on a summary charge eg road traffic
God knows why you feel the need to respond in such a negative way. Maybe its a personality defect but I not interested in getting dragged into whatever game is going on
These days I work in tax law I add. Hope that doesn't draw more mire upon myself

conorh91

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

if a Client was to perjure himself in court and his Lawyer knew the evidence offered was untrue the Lawyer is obliged to recuse himself immediately. There is a specific way of so doing (which escapes my memory at the moment) which doesn't say that the client has committed perjury but lets everyone know that he has.

Are you sure about this? The Bar's Code of Conduct only covers confessions and the ban on affirmative defence, which is a little more straightforward. In cases where the Accused foolishly refuses to engage a new legal team, the defence just proceeds with impotence.

But I don't know that there is a duty to basically pick up your papers and walk out if the Accused commits perjury during the course of the trial. If he has dropped a clanger, perhaps it is wise to ask him if he is mistaken, or pursue an alternative line and suddenly drop the alibi mid-speech. I very much doubt whether there is an obligation to withdraw, but I might be completely wrong.

That said, I am aware it might be professionally wise to withdraw mid-trial, if the Accused's willful actions are damaging Counsel's professional standing. But is there a duty to withdraw?

Uno my Uno.

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you sure about this? The Bar's Code of Conduct only covers confessions and the ban on affirmative defence, which is a little more straightforward. In cases where the Accused foolishly refuses to engage a new legal team, the defence just proceeds with impotence.

But I don't know that there is a duty to basically pick up your papers and walk out if the Accused commits perjury during the course of the trial. If he has dropped a clanger, perhaps it is wise to ask him if he is mistaken, or pursue an alternative line and suddenly drop the alibi mid-speech. I very much doubt whether there is an obligation to withdraw, but I might be completely wrong.

That said, I am aware it might be professionally wise to withdraw mid-trial, if the Accused's willful actions are damaging Counsel's professional standing. But is there a duty to withdraw?

I can't speak for those at the bar but on the other side of the desk, if you are aware that your client is wilfully misleading the court you cannot continue to act for them. You are ethically obliged to make the court aware of that straight away. I dare say that it happens rarely enough and that criminal practitioners and judges have away of dealing with it in a non dramatic fashion. That's my understanding of it, I'm not a criminal practitioner so in fairness I'm open to correction.

hullaballoo

South Law wrote: »

Must have imagyouned my 3 years at uni and 2 years as a trainee. Perhaps it was a vivid dream.
Just pinched myself
No ... it happened ... oh well

Pinch yourself again.

First all convictions are NOT criminal ones.

Yes, they are.

Second it I was saying a judge will decide if your testimony is credible in the district court on a summary charge eg road traffic

What about dangerous driving causing death? Summary? Judge decided? Road traffic? I'm confused.

South Law

That is an indictable charge and district has no jurisdiction on a charge of that magnitude generally.I was referring to giving testimony in district court on a drink driving charge. Aka original question.
Dangerous driving causing death you have right to a jury if plea not guilty. Sentence powers a lot more than district have. Distinction between a criminal conviction and drink driving conviction is if you a background check for criminal convictions then road traffic won't show up
Ask the police vetting office why this is maybe

234

South Law wrote: »

That is an indictable charge and district has no jurisdiction on a charge of that magnitude generally.I was referring to giving testimony in district court on a drink driving charge. Aka original question.
Dangerous driving causing death you have right to a jury if plea not guilty. Sentence powers a lot more than district have. Distinction between a criminal conviction and drink driving conviction is if you a background check for criminal convictions then road traffic won't show up
Ask the police vetting office why this is maybe

Finally we get to the root of this. All convictions are criminal. However, there is an administrative filter applied for getting purposes. Similarly some employers or visa issuing authorities don't require disclosure of some road traffic convictions. however, lets be absolutely clear, in Ireland, there is no such thing as a non-criminal offence.

conorh91

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I can't speak for those at the bar but on the other side of the desk, if you are aware that your client is wilfully misleading the court you cannot continue to act for them.

Ah I see; there probably is a disparity between solicitors' and barristers' respective duties in cases of perjury, in light of the solicitor's enhanced obligations to the Court.

Pro Hoc Vice

South Law wrote: »

That is an indictable charge and district has no jurisdiction on a charge of that magnitude generally.I was referring to giving testimony in district court on a drink driving charge. Aka original question.
Dangerous driving causing death you have right to a jury if plea not guilty. Sentence powers a lot more than district have. Distinction between a criminal conviction and drink driving conviction is if you a background check for criminal convictions then road traffic won't show up
Ask the police vetting office why this is maybe

Road traffic will turn up. Also as a person who reads pulse reports of previous convictions I can assure you and anyone else that all convictions no matter how minor show up on a persons record including the most mundane of road traffic convictions.

http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/Garda%20Vetting%20Procedures%20-Aministration%20Filter%20revised.pdf

littlemac1980

conorh91 wrote: »

Ah I see; there probably is a disparity between solicitors' and barristers' respective duties in cases of perjury, in light of the solicitor's enhanced obligations to the Court.

Yep there definitely is.

As far as I recall a solicitor is an officer of the court, and has a duty not to mislead the court in any way.

A barrister is not an officer of the court as far as I'm aware, and is perhaps best described as an agent of the client.

littlemac1980

While we can go round and round in circles with hypothetical situations that are or aren't likely to occur, I expect the reality of the situation is that of the solicitors here, someone's client is at some stage going to drop a clanger in the stand and blantantly lie about some fact.

The question is in those circumstances, what can be done.

I know in blackhall this was discussed with some of the tutors at one stage, but I don't remember there being a general consensus of what was the appropriate response.

I think I recall someone suggested that at the earliest opportunity that the solicitor was required to notify the other side that there was possibly false evidence given (without alerting the judge) and notify the client that you could no longer act for them and then it was for the other party to decide how to proceed, but now thinking about that - could that really be the correct thing to do?