What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

I didn't think you could sue a lawyer for libel if it's part of representing a client.  On the other hand, I didn't think a lawyer was allowed bring a case to court if the lawyer knows that it is without merit or simply a lie.

There's absolute immunity for things said in court, or in pleadings.  But outside the courthouse a lawyer is treated like anyone else.

so even if you know what your saying is bullshit in court there's no repercussions?

disbarment, contempt of court, special costs being awarded against the lawyer personally - there are a lot of tools to control such things. 

[Barrister]

I didn't think you could sue a lawyer for libel if it's part of representing a client.  On the other hand, I didn't think a lawyer was allowed bring a case to court if the lawyer knows that it is without merit or simply a lie.

There's absolute immunity for things said in court, or in pleadings.  But outside the courthouse a lawyer is treated like anyone else.

so even if you know what your saying is bullshit in court there's no repercussions?

There can be repercussions, but you'd have to prove the lawyer knew it was bullshit.

Apparently some defence lawyers will refuse to ask their client for their version of what happened because that will then limit what they can argue in court.  For example if the client says yes he shot someone but claims it was self-defence, the lawyer can not argue in court that someone else did the shooting

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I know a criminal barrister who once met a client for about five minutes (it was quite a minor crime) and they confessed to everything which is the nightmare scenario because it really limits your defence

Basically I think he said that he could still poke holes in the prosecution's case and point out issues with the investigation, but he couldn't do anything that would suggest someone else did the crime.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know about in the US but you have duties to the court here and also professional obligations around not bringing the profession into disrepute. So my understanding is you could be disbarred and subject to regulatory proceedings etc.

Yes that is correct - there are different levels of sanction depending on conduct.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's absolute immunity for things said in court, or in pleadings.  But outside the courthouse a lawyer is treated like anyone else.

In the US defamation law is all state law so there are 50 different rules that can apply.

n New York State, the civil rights law allows lawyers and parties to make public statements outside of court that are a "fair and true" report of the judicial proceeding.  So a lawyer could put inane and crazy stuff into a pleading or motion and then repeat the substance of that in a press conference and still be covered by immunity.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah - I know a criminal barrister who once met a client for about five minutes (it was quite a minor crime) and they confessed to everything which is the nightmare scenario because it really limits your defence

Basically I think he said that he could still poke holes in the prosecution's case and point out issues with the investigation, but he couldn't do anything that would suggest someone else did the crime.

More to the point, a lawyer cannot permit a witness to give evidence which the lawyer knows is untrue.   If a witness begins to give intentionally false evidence the lawyer, in this jurisdiction, has an ethical obligation to seek a brief adjournment - talk to their client about correcting the false evidence, and if the client refuses, withdraw from the case without explanation - although everyone will know what happened.

[crazy canuck]

There's absolute immunity for things said in court, or in pleadings.  But outside the courthouse a lawyer is treated like anyone else.

In the US defamation law is all state law so there are 50 different rules that can apply.

n New York State, the civil rights law allows lawyers and parties to make public statements outside of court that are a "fair and true" report of the judicial proceeding.  So a lawyer could put inane and crazy stuff into a pleading or motion and then repeat the substance of that in a press conference and still be covered by immunity.

Same here, this isn't BB's area of practice...

A lawyer is perfectly able to say "the position of my client is...] and basically repeat what is in the pleadings or the affidavits filed in court.  However, similar to your law, the lawyer cannot state it to be a fact.

[HVC]

Thanks Languish lawyers, that makes more sense.

[Barrister]

There's absolute immunity for things said in court, or in pleadings.  But outside the courthouse a lawyer is treated like anyone else.

In the US defamation law is all state law so there are 50 different rules that can apply.

n New York State, the civil rights law allows lawyers and parties to make public statements outside of court that are a "fair and true" report of the judicial proceeding.  So a lawyer could put inane and crazy stuff into a pleading or motion and then repeat the substance of that in a press conference and still be covered by immunity.

Sure, but that goes for anyone else.  Media routinely reports on things that are said in court, or filed in pleadings.

[Sheilbh]

Sure, but that goes for anyone else.  Media routinely reports on things that are said in court, or filed in pleadings.

Yeah - and reporting on court hearings is covered by qualified privilege here, a bit like Parliamentary proceedings.

[viper37]

I didn't think you could sue a lawyer for libel if it's part of representing a client.  On the other hand, I didn't think a lawyer was allowed bring a case to court if the lawyer knows that it is without merit or simply a lie.

There's absolute immunity for things said in court, or in pleadings.  But outside the courthouse a lawyer is treated like anyone else.

so even if you know what your saying is bullshit in court there's no repercussions?

disbarment, contempt of court, special costs being awarded against the lawyer personally - there are a lot of tools to control such things.

But it's a rare event.  As BB said, lawyers usually know not to ask too many questions.  The search for truth is not in the lawyer's mandate nor in the justice system, unfortunately.

[viper37]

A lawyer is perfectly able to say "the position of my client is...] and basically repeat what is in the pleadings or the affidavits filed in court.  However, similar to your law, the lawyer cannot state it to be a fact.

"My client says he woke up during the night, and that woman was on top of him, giving herself pleasure; he felt violated but he let her continue without objection.  He also says the same thing happenned with the other 300 women sueing him."

Yeah, great line of defense.  And there are judges who will still accept it.

[Admiral Yi]

That's happened to me before, kind of.

[crazy canuck]

Sure, but that goes for anyone else.  Media routinely reports on things that are said in court, or filed in pleadings.

Yeah - and reporting on court hearings is covered by qualified privilege here, a bit like Parliamentary proceedings.

BB has once again mistepped.

In Canada there is a specific defence to defamation which is open to only the media - BB read the Torstar case from the late 2000s.

Everyone else would have to rely on truth or qualified privilege as a defence to a claim for defamation.

[crazy canuck]

A lawyer is perfectly able to say "the position of my client is...] and basically repeat what is in the pleadings or the affidavits filed in court.  However, similar to your law, the lawyer cannot state it to be a fact.

"My client says he woke up during the night, and that woman was on top of him, giving herself pleasure; he felt violated but he let her continue without objection.  He also says the same thing happenned with the other 300 women sueing him."

Yeah, great line of defense.  And there are judges who will still accept it.

Did you mean to respond to my post?