8 ms·

Any attorneys here that can discuss the nuances involved in knowingly lying to the court, which I believe carries penalties for the attorney? And why / whether

by d23 3y ago

Any attorneys here that can discuss the nuances involved in knowingly lying to the court, which I believe carries penalties for the attorney? And why / whether that would or wouldn’t apply here?

riskneutral 3y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not a thing. Lying to the court is a routine part of litigation, and there is no penalty or sanction for it - especially not against the lawyers themselves.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  In the US, attorneys are officers of the court. They are forbidden from lying to the court at all times. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not a thing. Lying to the court is a routine part of litigation, No, its not. > and there is no penalty or sanction for it Yes, there is. > - especially not against the lawyers themselves. There is a penalty especially against the lawyers. Heck, lawyers have been suspended from practice for lying to courts outside of their capacity as lawyers.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  I don't agree that outright lying is tolerated, but one thing I was very disappointed to learn after independently learning about most of the informal logical fallacies is that lawyers do not avoid them. In fact, they use them to win cases. This is tantamount to, but NOT equivalent to, "lying" in my book. Some of the most famous defenses in history, such as Cochran's "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH-VuP_5cA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH-VuP_5cA4 were fundamentally, fallacious appeals in nature. Hugely disappointing to me. Would love for a lawyer to chime in on this. If I could come up with any defense of this practice at all, I'd say that if you took my reasoning to its logical extreme, then the persuasive personality of an attorney themselves could be considered a fallacy, and that would be an unreasonable expectation to satisfy the elimination of. You could also argue that if 2 opposing lawyers are both permitted to make fallacious appeals that wouldn't be called out by judges or jury, then in theory they'd mostly cancel each other out. Maybe.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    NAL. But that's partly why the opposing counsel exists - to point these fallacies out to the jury. Make the other side look untrustworthy.
DoesntMatter22 3y ago
How would they know it to be factually incorrect?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sigmoid10 3y ago
Lying in court is not a crime. You need to be under oath to be able to commit perjury, e.g. by being a witness who is giving testimony which in turn will be used as evidence. Everyone else can lie as much as they want without fear of repercussions.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  In the US, attorneys are officers of the court. They are forbidden from lying to the court at all times. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
  - sigmoid10 3y ago
    Did noone here read the article? It says the defendants were the ones who were lying. The attorneys just tried to cast doubt on the evidence, which was at best exacerbated by the defendant's claims.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      The discussion evolved beyond the article.
johndhi 3y ago
I'm a lawyer. Lol at the other answers. It definitely carries penalties for the attorney. Each US state has passed 'rules of professional conduct' that govern rules that apply to barred attorneys. Lying to a tribunal, or lying to your client, is illegal and you can be disbarred and fined for it. Haven't read this case closely but it sounds to me like the attorneys said "it's possible these are deep fakes" and not "these are deepfakes." The former seems like a reasonable argument to make, but according to the judge, a flawed one.
- bombcar 3y ago
  From my understanding, (good) lawyers will throw every possible defense at the wall (within reason) because one might stick, and if you don't do it at the beginning, you can't call a whoopsiedoodles and go back and try again. This is why they always begin with a petition that the venue is wrong and the court doesn't have jurisdiction, if they want to argue that.
  - johndhi 3y ago
    That's generally true: you "waive" certain defenses if you don't state them, at certain points in the litigation process. That said, at the most important moments, typically lawyers will focus on the 3-or-so 'best' (in their view) defenses and focus on those. Then if you lose, you can appeal and say the judge didn't consider your 15th-best defense closely enough :)
- d23 3y ago
  Thank you for the informed response. The other answers were causing me pain.
- jdmichal 3y ago
  > Haven't read this case closely but it sounds to me like the attorneys said "it's possible these are deep fakes" and not "these are deepfakes." The former seems like a reasonable argument to make, but according to the judge, a flawed one. IANAL, but this sounds appropriate to me? Couldn't all forms evidence be hit with various types of "this might be fake" claims? So I think it's fair that the court assert that you must claim "this is fake", then be willing to battle it out with the opposing side. Otherwise it's not a defense, it's just empty words, isn't it?
lozenge 3y ago
Musk's lawyers didn't specifically claim that the videos actually are deepfakes. They refused to say either way. > Tesla could not admit or deny the authenticity of video and audio recordings purportedly containing statements by Mr. Musk https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/judge-slams-tesla-for-claiming-musk-quotes-captured-on-video-may-be-deepfakes/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/judge-slams-tesl...
banana_feather 3y ago
Dishonesty toward the tribunal is a violation of the rules of professional responsibility/conduct (model rules 3.3 and 8.4(d), the latter is what they disbarred Clinton for). Federal courts have rule 11, where an attorney can essentially call out the opposing counsel after some cure period and ask the court to impose sanctions on the attorney that's getting out of line. State courts have some equivalent. In practice, most lawyers don't lie to the court because their career is dependent on maintaining a working relationship with the courts in which they appear. Even within the same case, if the presiding judge has good reason to believe you're a liar, every subsequent motion or argument you make is going to be viewed with skepticism.

by d23 3y ago

Any attorneys here that can discuss the nuances involved in knowingly lying to the court, which I believe carries penalties for the attorney? And why / whether that would or wouldn’t apply here?

riskneutral 3y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not a thing. Lying to the court is a routine part of litigation, and there is no penalty or sanction for it - especially not against the lawyers themselves.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
In the US, attorneys are officers of the court. They are forbidden from lying to the court at all times. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not a thing. Lying to the court is a routine part of litigation, No, its not. > and there is no penalty or sanction for it Yes, there is. > - especially not against the lawyers themselves. There is a penalty especially against the lawyers. Heck, lawyers have been suspended from practice for lying to courts outside of their capacity as lawyers.
pmarreck 3y ago
I don't agree that outright lying is tolerated, but one thing I was very disappointed to learn after independently learning about most of the informal logical fallacies is that lawyers do not avoid them. In fact, they use them to win cases. This is tantamount to, but NOT equivalent to, "lying" in my book. Some of the most famous defenses in history, such as Cochran's "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH-VuP_5cA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH-VuP_5cA4 were fundamentally, fallacious appeals in nature. Hugely disappointing to me. Would love for a lawyer to chime in on this. If I could come up with any defense of this practice at all, I'd say that if you took my reasoning to its logical extreme, then the persuasive personality of an attorney themselves could be considered a fallacy, and that would be an unreasonable expectation to satisfy the elimination of. You could also argue that if 2 opposing lawyers are both permitted to make fallacious appeals that wouldn't be called out by judges or jury, then in theory they'd mostly cancel each other out. Maybe.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  NAL. But that's partly why the opposing counsel exists - to point these fallacies out to the jury. Make the other side look untrustworthy.

DoesntMatter22 3y ago

How would they know it to be factually incorrect?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sigmoid10 3y ago

Lying in court is not a crime. You need to be under oath to be able to commit perjury, e.g. by being a witness who is giving testimony which in turn will be used as evidence. Everyone else can lie as much as they want without fear of repercussions.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
In the US, attorneys are officers of the court. They are forbidden from lying to the court at all times. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
- sigmoid10 3y ago
  Did noone here read the article? It says the defendants were the ones who were lying. The attorneys just tried to cast doubt on the evidence, which was at best exacerbated by the defendant's claims.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    The discussion evolved beyond the article.

johndhi 3y ago

I'm a lawyer. Lol at the other answers. It definitely carries penalties for the attorney. Each US state has passed 'rules of professional conduct' that govern rules that apply to barred attorneys. Lying to a tribunal, or lying to your client, is illegal and you can be disbarred and fined for it. Haven't read this case closely but it sounds to me like the attorneys said "it's possible these are deep fakes" and not "these are deepfakes." The former seems like a reasonable argument to make, but according to the judge, a flawed one.

bombcar 3y ago
From my understanding, (good) lawyers will throw every possible defense at the wall (within reason) because one might stick, and if you don't do it at the beginning, you can't call a whoopsiedoodles and go back and try again. This is why they always begin with a petition that the venue is wrong and the court doesn't have jurisdiction, if they want to argue that.
- johndhi 3y ago
  That's generally true: you "waive" certain defenses if you don't state them, at certain points in the litigation process. That said, at the most important moments, typically lawyers will focus on the 3-or-so 'best' (in their view) defenses and focus on those. Then if you lose, you can appeal and say the judge didn't consider your 15th-best defense closely enough :)
d23 3y ago
Thank you for the informed response. The other answers were causing me pain.
jdmichal 3y ago
> Haven't read this case closely but it sounds to me like the attorneys said "it's possible these are deep fakes" and not "these are deepfakes." The former seems like a reasonable argument to make, but according to the judge, a flawed one. IANAL, but this sounds appropriate to me? Couldn't all forms evidence be hit with various types of "this might be fake" claims? So I think it's fair that the court assert that you must claim "this is fake", then be willing to battle it out with the opposing side. Otherwise it's not a defense, it's just empty words, isn't it?

lozenge 3y ago

Musk's lawyers didn't specifically claim that the videos actually are deepfakes. They refused to say either way. > Tesla could not admit or deny the authenticity of video and audio recordings purportedly containing statements by Mr. Musk https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/judge-slams-tesla-for-claiming-musk-quotes-captured-on-video-may-be-deepfakes/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/judge-slams-tesl...

banana_feather 3y ago

Dishonesty toward the tribunal is a violation of the rules of professional responsibility/conduct (model rules 3.3 and 8.4(d), the latter is what they disbarred Clinton for). Federal courts have rule 11, where an attorney can essentially call out the opposing counsel after some cure period and ask the court to impose sanctions on the attorney that's getting out of line. State courts have some equivalent. In practice, most lawyers don't lie to the court because their career is dependent on maintaining a working relationship with the courts in which they appear. Even within the same case, if the presiding judge has good reason to believe you're a liar, every subsequent motion or argument you make is going to be viewed with skepticism.