How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jo C. Your Own Question
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 71050
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

Can I sue a lawyer I'm quite sure knew his client was lying

Customer Question

Can I sue a lawyer I'm quite sure knew his client was lying in a civil case. Not only did he know he was lying the lawyer passed onto the Court evidence that he knew was Fake/Fraud/being made to order by his client. The civil case was thrown out. His Client has since been found guilty of Perjury and Fraud in a subsequent Criminal case based on the evidence given in the previous collapsed Civil Case.
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
How do you know that the lawyer himself was lying?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
There is much evidence in the Civil case that shows the evidence was being made to order. As the civil case went on it was challenged at every point in the case... essentially their evidence never existed in a so called civil case against me (i.e. a dodgy builder who was paid fully every penny he asked for. He eventually was thrown off the job, mainly for laziness, theft, over charging and pocketing the money meant for buying building materials. The evidence was essentially so-called invoices printed on the convict's PC after he was thrown off the job, stating that I owed him £25K in 12 unpaid/part paid bills from the previous 10 months. ....... so -- The Lawyer wrote the many statements placed at Court (admitted by the lawyer) and in it he said that the vast majority of evidence was seen by the Lawyer at their first meeting. It was subsequently proved many times by letter, and mistakes they made, plus a Court appointed IT expert that the files actually were created many months and as much as nearly two years after their first meeting. Essentially the lawyer was writing the statement and when accused in Court of deliberately misleading the Court he gave sworn evidence that he had no idea that his client was anything but above board. However it is totally inconceivable that he did not know that there was virtually no evidence at their first meeting nor any time soon/ many months afterwards and it miraculously kept appearing as the three year case progressed... I believe that he knew all along his client was bent and there's a case to argue that he was either involved or turned a blind eye.... until his clients money ran out.... in fact 7 days after the lawyers applied to the Court to come off the case for unpaid bills the lawyer left the firm.... was he sacked or did he jump??
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Ok. But what is the specific evidence that the lawyer knew?We can all believe our clients to be lying all the time but that is different to knowing that they are?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
The fact is the Lawyer must have known. There could have only been perhaps a dozen pieces of paper at the very most at their first meeting. There was later perhaps 400 later documents/supporting evidence that the lawyer filed at Court "the vast majority of which was presented at our first meeting". It was later proven that over 480 of these documents were created after that date... by a factor of 6 months to 2 years. The Lawyer must have known the documents did not exist... because they simply did not and he could not have seen them. The lawyer was warned by the Civil judge that his first responsibility was to the Court not his Client. If the lawyer knew his client was creating evidence to order then he should have left the case much earlier...perhaps at the point where he was writing his client's statement and his client was effectively stating that the said lawyer saw the so-called evidence when he absolutely did not - giving an effect of credence and providence/originality to files that were in fact fakes. Why would a lawyer allow his client to effectively implicate him in an obvious fraud? The lawyer could never have seen the documents - they never existed.... by the hundreds,,,, we are not talking about one or two documents we are talking about 500. There are also documents (correspondence between the lawyer and client) in the case that suggest they never had a whole series of spreadsheets/documents and were asking there client for them, as they had not yet seen them... 18 months into the case...
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
To be wholly honest, this would seem to just be a lawyer putting his instructions. They are allowed to do that.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
People have to have due process and that involves a solicitor to put their case. If their case is rejected they have to take the consequences.There is no reason a lawyer cannot put an unlikely case.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
If his client told him there were other documents then he is entitled to refer to them.Unless he said in court that he himself had seen them and he had not there is no wrongdoing arising from that alone.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Can I clarify anything for you?Jo
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Surely this is a case of the lawyer knowing the documents were fakes and allowing his own name to be used as providence to documents that were being challenged. He knew the documents were 1 Fakes and 2 never existed and 3 he never saw them a the said first meeting. He should have informed his client/and or the Court that he had not seen them and that he could not support a statement that he knew was a lie and could not support the Court being misled by using the lawyers name as providence. One more item - they came off the case on the basis of unpaid bills by their client. Their client later produced evidence that they were paid at that time. They showed accounts that purportedly were unpaid. They had actually received payment during this time. I believe they used the non payment as an option to get out of a losing case and one they were deeply involved/incriminated in. This was effectively lying to the judge to come off the case. They were caught red handed and used the easy option out... non payment... and they had supported too many lies that had been proven as knowingly supporting fraud and were passing hundreds of documents they knew were fakes
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
No, I cannot agree with that.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
At least not on this evidence.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
How about the fact that their firms name was found embedded in the back of the files passed to the Court as originals.... The first second a file is created Metadata is embedded by a combination of the PC and Microsoft and this is extremely difficult to 1 Fake and 2 remove without a great deal of skill and knowledge. The electronic files on the day it was created had the firms name embedded in the back. In other words the day they were created either they created it or their client created it for them six months+ later....
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
None of that would make any difference. He is entitled to put his client's instructions.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
He has no duty to assess the merits of his client's instructions and withdraw if he finds it lacking.