Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I would like to divide the answer into two theses.
To express an opinion identical to the position of the client, then this is required by law. In this case, this is a defense tactic and strategy initiated by the client. So it can't be a lie. The courts in their sentences also indicate that the court has taken a critical approach to the lawyer's opinion, because other circumstances have been objectively established and the lawyer's opinion is the defense's position.
A lie is, moreover, a lie with a capital letter, any assurances that do not correspond to the provisions of the law. For example, the penalty for a crime is from 10 years and the lawyer promises a suspended sentence. Or it promises to close the case outside the legal framework.
It is for such lies that you need to be severely punished. And to avoid such situations, it is necessary to coordinate the position in writing between the lawyer and the principal.
Do lawyers have the right to lie? �
If we look at the Anglo-Saxon legal system, it is forbidden to deliberately lie there. This is a serious offense. Even B. Clinton was almost impeached not for sexual relations “on the side, but for lying” under oath. In principle, the Russian system seeks to reproduce these same principles.�
This issue was discussed in more detail at the Scientific and Practical Round Table
“CAN JUDICIAL REPRESENTATIVES OR PARTIES TO A CIVIL DISPUTE LIE TO THE COURT ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE DISPUTE?”
Here is the link:�m-logos.ru
Briefly: In Russian law, there is a paradoxical situation — participants in the process can make any statements about the facts of the dispute and do not bear any responsibility for their accuracy. Because of this, the process turns into a “contest of lies”, in which the dispute is not about questions of law (which norm to apply, etc.), but about questions of fact (whether the contract was signed, etc.).
Sergey Budylin said that the situation in the English and American trials is completely different. There is a special procedure for disclosure of evidence, during which the parties must disclose both favorable and unfavorable information to each other in advance. There are strict sanctions for lying. The speaker gave an illustrative American case. There was a dispute between a federal agency and a corporation that polluted the environment. The agency charged the corporation the cost of cleaning operations. The agency was represented by a witness who was the coordinator of these works. He said he had a special degree. Representatives of the corporation proved that he did not have a diploma and the witness lied under oath. Based on this, the judge simply dismissed the claim. The appeal recognized that, in principle, the court has the right to dismiss the claim because of the plaintiff's lies, but this measure should be used proportionally, and sent the case for a new hearing.
According to Artem Karapetov, Anglo-Saxon mechanisms in Russia are unrealizable. Certain penalties for lying already exist (for example, reallocation of court costs). But this sanction does not work — the courts collect too small amounts. In theory, administrative, criminal and disciplinary liability (for lawyers) can also be used to solve the problem. In any case, without public legal responsibility, it is impossible to change the attitude of the courts to the lies of the parties.
From the point of view of the law – the lawyer is obliged to represent the position of the client , which he chose. If the client insists that he is innocent, the lawyer is legally obliged to follow this particular line of defense and express this particular position in court. A lawyer's knowledge of his client's guilt is irrelevant here.
Formally, this is not even a lie – the lawyer only translates the client's position, putting it in due process, and protects the client from violation of his rights by other participants in the process.