And people say philosophy is a useless major. Lawyers are in general not allowed to lie.
A skilled lawyer comes up with an interpretation of facts that supports their clients best interests.
This is where it becomes a philosophical matter.
I’m general by definition to lie is to make an untrue statement or to create a false or misleading impression- but generally we consider it a lie when there is intent. Most would not say it is a “lie” if you ask a student what year the Magna Carta was signed and they said “1102AD” because they believed that to be true. One might say that was a mistake or a guess, but it would be both misleading and untrue- meeting both primary definitions of a lie.
So what is a lie? Well- regardless, the facts available to a lawyer in court are generally the same facts available to everyone else.
These are what is known as established facts- so in essence everyone has agreed they are true. The defendant says they were at this place at this time, witnesses say they saw them at X place at Y time, their cell phone records show one thing etc. the lawyer can’t simply make up facts- that is why evidence is required, any fact submitted generally needs to be backed by evidence of some sort to have weight.
And then so much is subjective. Many crimes or civil matters deal in intent- did a person mean to cause harm or deceive etc?
From one persons perspective, something can be clearly intentional and from another’s it could be an accident.
The person who did it may or may not even know, but let’s say that they do know- if we simply ask them, they would generally be incentivized to say the thing that causes them the least harm- so to lie. If they tell their lawyer one thing and the lawyer has no reason to investigate that further- they likely won’t right?
But regardless of side of the court or table, each lawyer mainly tells a truth as they see the facts and then a judge or jury or arbitrator etc. decides which truth is the singular truth they will rule on.
Truth is often a matter of perspective.
A skilled lawyer comes up with an interpretation of facts that supports their clients best interests.
This is where it becomes a philosophical matter.
I’m general by definition to lie is to make an untrue statement or to create a false or misleading impression- but generally we consider it a lie when there is intent. Most would not say it is a “lie” if you ask a student what year the Magna Carta was signed and they said “1102AD” because they believed that to be true. One might say that was a mistake or a guess, but it would be both misleading and untrue- meeting both primary definitions of a lie.
These are what is known as established facts- so in essence everyone has agreed they are true. The defendant says they were at this place at this time, witnesses say they saw them at X place at Y time, their cell phone records show one thing etc. the lawyer can’t simply make up facts- that is why evidence is required, any fact submitted generally needs to be backed by evidence of some sort to have weight.
From one persons perspective, something can be clearly intentional and from another’s it could be an accident.
The person who did it may or may not even know, but let’s say that they do know- if we simply ask them, they would generally be incentivized to say the thing that causes them the least harm- so to lie. If they tell their lawyer one thing and the lawyer has no reason to investigate that further- they likely won’t right?
But regardless of side of the court or table, each lawyer mainly tells a truth as they see the facts and then a judge or jury or arbitrator etc. decides which truth is the singular truth they will rule on.
Truth is often a matter of perspective.