Barrister lied in court

H0wdy

Hello

I ended up representing myself in a family (district)court matter after my own legal reps completely botched the settlement agreement, this resulted in the settlement being re-entered - in order to secure costs the other sides Barrister mislead the court by claiming that certain matters in the settlement were still outstanding even though the time stipulation to complete the matters had not expired, but on one specific point they outright lied to the court, the lie only came to light when I received my file several months later from my previous legal reps

As a result of the barrister misleading the court and telling the lie costs were awarded against me, I was under the (now obviously naive) assumption that courts require evidence but it appears, at least in family court, whoever is the best liar wins the case

Are Barristers allowed to lie to the court? As I understand it an appeal has to be lodged within a few weeks of the original hearing so are there any options now? Can this be brought to the attention of the court, should I make a complaint to the LRSA etc?

mickdw

I think representing yourself was your main mistake. You left it wide open, were seemingly uninformed of the state of play without your files and are now surprised that a barrister chewed you up and spit you out.

Being unrepresented has also resulted in you not having your info in time and being possibly too late to do anything further.

H0wdy

What is the point of your answer? Clearly I am aware of all that, where are you going next - to the cancer ward to tell the patients that they shouldn't have smoked?

I am asking for help and this is your response - that says a lot about the type of person you are

eagle eye

You can ask to mention it in that courtroom at any time. The judge can allow it or say no.

source

Did the barrister lie, or did they take instruction from their client and take it at face value? There's a big difference.

323

https://boards.ie/discussion/2058199450/barrister-lied-in-court

Can't say i'm surprised. Got stitched by a retired barrister and a guard who both outright lied in, under oath, in court, long time ago. When raised with my own barrister, what about telling the truth? perjury? Basically said "truth has nothing to do with it, you've learned a valuable lesson"

Darc19

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117629139#Comment_117629139

Your attitude probably is more to blame than the other barrister.

Peregrinus

What lie, exactly, was told by the barrister? Be specific.

Miaireland

Is the Barrister actually lying or is taking instruction from their Client in good fate without knowing it is false? Legally there is a huge difference.

It a bit like a Defence Solicitor, they will never ask a Client outright of they are guilty or not so not to lie when defending their client. They may know from the evidence but if their client hasn't told them, then they can act in good faith.

interesting situation...

Everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon lambasting OP (I'm erring on the side of it being justified, but that's another matter)...

So the main points seem to be, a solicitor/barrister may lie in court under the pretence of good faith with their client (they are just going on what they say)..

So if OP has valid proof they lied, even if the matter is currently closed, can they open it up again and present this new evidence?

Would I be correct in assuming this would need to be done under a new civil case?

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117631478#Comment_117631478

Is it a lie to tell someone something you believe to be the truth? Or rather, have no reason to believe is false?

Lie implies knowledge on the part of the speaker that what they are saying is untrue. So if a barrister is told that X happened then he can make those submissions. That's not a lie, the barrister is merely relaying to the court what he has been told.

Also, and this is no slight on the OP, the actual litigants to a case rarely see the nuance in statements. They quite often see statements they disagree with as lies. It's why there's a neutral arbiter in between to decide where the truth lies, insofar as it can ever really be ascertained.

TheChizler

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117632922#Comment_117632922

Interesting how evidence relayed by your representitive can be accepted by the court but if a witness were to pass on something they had been told it would usually be regarded as hearsay (right?). Are the barrister and their client treated the same when it comes to giving evidence?

H0wdy

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117630991#Comment_117630991

The barrister claimed that some of the proceeds from the family house sale were still outstanding, this was completely false - the entirety of the house sale proceeds had been transferred to my ex-wifes solicitor shortly after the settlement had been signed, my ex-wifes solicitor jointly carried out the conveyancing so knew the figure was correct and had never queried it and has not queried it since the hearing

While that may not sound like much it was enough together with the other misleading statements to make it look like I was the one being difficult when in fact my ex and her solicitor, prior to the hearing, had sent me a letter which I think any reasonable person would consider as nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to extort money above what had been agreed in the terms of the settlement using the implied threat of court as the lever, the solicitor marked the document with-holding prejudice and the judge refused to look at it

maestroamado

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117634583#Comment_117634583

THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN IRELAND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTEGRITY.

So normal day at the office....

H0wdy

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117629178#Comment_117629178

No it wasn't information from their client, it would have been information from the solicitor who would have known that it was false, please see my earlier response describing the lie

Peregrinus

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117634648#Comment_117634648

To maintain that the barrister lied you need to show that the barrister knew it was false.

H0wdy

If the justice system of a society operates on the basis of cheating and dishonesty then that will just encourage the rest of that society to act in a selfish and dishonest fashion

StringerBell

If the barrister knowingly lied, and you have proof of this then you can seek to have the barrister disbarred at the very least, if the lie played a pivotal role in the deciding of the case you can seek to re-litigate the case or bring forward a challenge to the legitimacy of it citing the evidence and also the outcome of your action against the barrister.

The burden of proof will be on you, if you don't have concrete evidence you are wasting your time. People may have a dim view of the legal profession obviously but it is far better to have someone representing you who knows what they are doing, if your not happy with your representation dismiss them and find new representation. In any matter where you are required to have a barrister it is generally unwise to represent yourself, obviously you know that now.

Claw Hammer

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117632988#Comment_117632988

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117632988#Comment_117632988

An advocate can't give evidence. Only a witness can.

Claw Hammer

If a barrister misleads a court deliberately is misconduct. If they do it unintentionally they are obliged to rectify it as soon as they discover the true position otherwise it is misconduct.

FishOnABike

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117645741#Comment_117645741

And if they are astute enough to not look too closely into something which a reasonable person would easily see is questionable or inconsistent?

Claw Hammer

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117645818#Comment_117645818

Their duty is to assist the court in arriving at the truth. They are not the mouthpiece of their client.

323

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117630991#Comment_117630991

"Retired" barrister, representing himself. Can still hear him. Claimed I reversed out from a parking slot in a car park and he " was struck so violently I had to use my cane to prevent myself falling over" and drove off.

Thing is, I had not actually been in said car park. Early morning, stopped on the roadside outside to make a phone call, before mobiles (early 90's).

Barrister my employer hired explained, Unfortunately, I was a perfect candidate, for an all too common scam at the time. Young guy on his own, shiny company vehicle with logos on the side, safe bet to be insured, I was screwed from the start. No witnesses, his word against mine and he knew the judge, traffic charge (leaving the scene of an accident) dropped, insurance settles/pays up. No harm done.

FishOnABike

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117647463#Comment_117647463

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Peregrinus

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117645818#Comment_117645818

The "lie" alleged in this case - that sale proceeds under a contract remained outstanding - was not something that, on the face if it, was questionable or inconsistent.

If an advocate does receive instructions that are, on the face of them, questionable or inconsistent, far from being "astute enough not to look too closely" into them, he will usually be astute enough to query them. If what he is told looks questionable to him, then it will equally look questionable when repeated to a judge or jury, and he will point this out to his client. This is a situation in which your duty to the court and your duty to your client coincide.

Mad_maxx

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117634583#Comment_117634583

Can you appeal ?

Court can be dreadfully unfair and it's a harsh eye opener

Claw Hammer

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117649276#Comment_117649276

Not in the case of an advocate in court.

ani_mal

there is no justice in the courts, it is only law and in order to use it you need to learn how to read it.

They use specially constructed language where they dispute meaning of the words.

youtube David-Wynn: Miller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hge24Nq4LOI that is one of the films.

FishOnABike

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117649276#Comment_117649276

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117651173#Comment_117651173

If that were the case a single advocate would be paid for the court and there would be no need for separate advocates for an applicant and respondent.

In theory theory is fine but in practice it's practice that matters.

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117634583#Comment_117634583

I don't mean to point out the obvious, but when the barrister said that about the proceeds of the sale, why didn't you correct the Judge when you had the chance to? Why didn't you bring the necessary bank statements etc with you? At the very least you could have asked for an adjournment to get the papers together for the Court. I appreciate it's easy to be wise after the event but this thread is a good example of why you hire a professional to the do the job.

Look at the situation from the Judge's point of view, they have no idea who to believe, you had a chance to present the bank statements to the Court but you didn't. Your problem isn't just that the barrister mislead the Court, it's that you didn't take your chance to correct the Court with evidence that you could have brought with you.

As an aside, it's bizarre a barrister would lie about something you could have so easily disproved, it would have ruined his client's credibility, imo.

H0wdy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117653815#Comment_117653815

I did not have the evidence at the time, it did not come to light until I received my file months later - my previous solicitor and the respondents solicitor had jointly carried out conveyance on the property so my ex-wifes side would have been in no doubt that the proceeds had been paid in full

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117867600#Comment_117867600

but you knew it wasn't true. Why didn't you speak up?

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869001#Comment_117869001

You can't just speak out of turn in court. Unless you are sworn in as a witness and responding to a question from your own or the other side's barrister you are liable to be found in contempt if you just speak up.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869056#Comment_117869056

I am aware of that. But you do get an opportunity to speak. I imagine that would be a good time to mention that the other sides barrister has given incorrect information to the court.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869060#Comment_117869060

That would depend on whether the 'fact' you wish to challenge is claimed before you take the stand or not and whether you have any opportunity to consult with your legal team about it.

Tactical manoeuvers can be used to prevent a person  from being able to consult with their legal team to contest a falsehood raised in the course of a hearing.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869145#Comment_117869145

you will always get a chance to challenge statements made by the other. It is not "one side goes, then the other says their bit and that is the end of it". There is back and forth.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869156#Comment_117869156

Not if you have been prevented from advising your legal team that something claimed needs to be challenged.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869216#Comment_117869216

nobody is prevented from doing that. I've been involved in a civil trial, if something as blatantly untrue as that was mentioned I would have been able to get my solicitors attention and inform them. Also, the OP was representing themselves. there was nothing stopping them from speaking up. Pro Se litigants get a lot of leeway from judges.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869618#Comment_117869618

You are not going to be able to have a full blown conversation with your solicitor and instruct them properly when sitting in court while your case is being heard. They are either assisting counsel or taking notes on the proceedings. The court won't entertain lengthy background conversations either.

Our legal system can easily be played to tatically prevent a litigant from consulting with their legal team between two scheduled hearing days. I've seen it done.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869721#Comment_117869721

wait, now you are saying that you can be prevented from talking to your legal team between sittings? Fishonabike? more like christ on a bike.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869056#Comment_117869056

The OP's legal representative is entitled to bring matters to the attention of the court at regular intervals.

Guess who represented the OP?

As the old saying goes, "he who represents himself in court has a fool for a client".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869618#Comment_117869618

Likewise, I've been in several civil trials, and more than once I had to get information to our legal reps when the hearing was in full flow.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869726#Comment_117869726

Yes. I've seen a principal litigant prevented from consulting with their legal team for a number of weeks between sittings in a case.

It's a tactic than can most likely only be used once for any particular witness in a case, but applied to the right person at the right time it can significantly disadvantage a litigant.

One has to remember it's a legal system, not a justice system.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869799#Comment_117869799

Yes. I've seen a principal litigant prevented from consulting with their legal team for a number of weeks between sittings in a case.

please explain how. I would love to hear this. Even a prisoner on remand can access their legal team.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869843#Comment_117869843

Quite simple. A person cannot consult their legal team while they are on the stand.

I've seen an instance where a litigant was called and sworn in immediately before a case was adjourned for the day to the next sitting a few weeks later, for no apparent purpose other than to prevent them being able to consult with or instruct their legal team between sittings.

awsah

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869966#Comment_117869966

That situation does not apply here as OP was not called as a witness so it's unrelated

If the OP was present in court when that was mentioned all he had to do was flag his solicitor and let them know, it happens all the time, judges allow it all the time. If they didn't then there would be appeal after appeal. I've had courts rise to allow for talks between clients and solicitors when points arise in court that were not previously discussed.

OP I would say now might be a good time to speak to a family law solicitor. See if they can make an application to extend time for appeal (I know nothing of family law so not sure if this is possible) you can also make an application for the DAR - the digital recording of the hearing where the barrister tells the lie to the judge. You could use this to ground your application for appeal.

Going after a barrister is extremely difficult as they take instructions from solicitors who take instructions from clients. It sounds more like he was given wrong information from solicitor than he lied as the lie would have been easily disputed by you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869966#Comment_117869966

This is not true. A person cannot consult with their legal team while they are subject to cross-examination. But there's nothing to prevent them talking during examination in chief. So the example you described, being sworn in and then immediately adjourned, is almost impossible. They would have had to be on the stand already being examined by their own legal representatives who, knowing what time it was and the rules of court, would have insisted the court adjourn the matter before the cross-examination began precisely to avoid the situation you described.

Absent some insane confluence of events, what you have described is not possible.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117883888#Comment_117883888

You are correct, I think the person had just completed being examined by their own legal representatives at the end of a long day.

However either their legal representatives failed to ask / insist on adjourning at that point and the other side's legal representatives asked / insisted on commencing cross-examination and was allowed by the court only to then immediately request and be granted an adjournment until the next sitting several weeks later thereby leaving the person unable to consult with or instruct their legal team for a number of weeks in what was a still evolving matter.

Whether it is a poor reflection on the person's legal representatives that the person was put at such a disadvantage or it is common for such tactical manouevering to take place I don't know.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869966#Comment_117869966

You've just completely changed your story. You said you saw them sworn in and then immediately adjourned. Now you're saying the examination in chief ended at the end of a long day. If you want to make out that there are some fishy tactics going on for some unknown reason then go ahead, but none of this sounds like it actually happened.

feelings

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869156#Comment_117869156

This is simply not true. I was in the same position some time ago and was never given the opportunity to refute any of the lies told by the other sides barrister. There is no doubt in my mind that the barrister deliberately misled the court with lies and theatrics. I will be making a complaint to the LSRA as soon as the case is over. If I get the chance, I'll raise the matter in my final hearing also.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117884441#Comment_117884441

I don't believe I have completely changed my story.

The original claim that I had seen a litigant prevented from consulting with or instructing their legal team for a number of weeks between scheduled sitting days in a case due to the fact that they were technically on the stand for the time between sittings remains unchanged.

That I lacked the detailed legal knowledge to make the distinction on the relevance of examination in chief and cross examination does not detract from the fact that the other side would appear to have started cross examination for no other aparent purpose than to immediately seek an adjournment in order to prevent the litigant having access to their legal team for a number of weeks.

The extra technical information you provided does however make me wonder if the litigant was poorly served by their legal team in not managing the hearing in a way to avoid their client being put at such a disadvantage.