Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

This isn't a comment on the particular story but is rather about the notion that lawyers must not mislead. I agree the rule general rule is as Richard has stated but I think there is also a fairly significant wrinkle which comes in way by parties' freedom to present their own case as it suits them.

My understanding is that in the ordinary case (not fraud, injunctions etc) the lawyer's duties are:
(a) candour in matters of law and
(b) not positively to mislead on matters of fact (which covers continuing to act for a client who has misled and will not come clean).

I am not sure I would say this means you cannot mislead - or encourage the court to make its own mistakes as long as it's done by selective presentation of fact rather than actual misstatement. Nor is a party usually required to point it out if the court comes to the desired conclusion by means of reasoning it would not share.

It is a point which arose pretty starkly too because the "fact" the court had got wrong, mistaking innuendo for fact was that that the claim against was a fraud claim and thus made assumptions about us, them and the evidence which were at some remove from the truth.

The unfairness seems exactly that of an unfounded fraud claim (as regulators and the like all piled in, making the same mistake as the court). The distinction seems a technicality - and one which in other circumstances court would not have much time for - ie this was permitted because they said it by a nudge and a wink and not directly.

It's easier to say to say this must be wrong than it is to pinpoint where it says so:

while clearly wrong if it had been fraud but it wasn't: it was at least objectively clear and not fraud
If selective presentation of facts is different from innuendo it is not easy to say why, how or where the line is drawn;
The duty to point out errors are pretty limited are parties aren't usually obliged to do so when the result is what they wanted the reasoning seems wrong - unless it is as untruth stated by the party which caused the error.

Your details

Cancel