Is it legal for a lawyer to lie in a warning letter?

Legal General Legal Matters
1

Someone I know received a letter threatening prosecution and among the careful language (“We think …” and “You could be …”), there is one bald lie about a procedure that seems crafted to mislead .

I would think all the careful language is there because the lawyer knows that “You could be” probably really means “You probably aren’t” and “We think” probably means “We doubt”. So what about it?

According to Taiwan’s laws, is lying to the adversary OK? Or is there no law on this, but on a practical basis lawyers lie all the time?

2

What difference does it make? Do you really want to waste time, money and energy suing a lawyer for sending a threatening letter? Besides, “you may be…” also means “you may not be.” I suggest the recipient concern him/herself with more important things than the attorney’s grammar – such as whether he/she is about to be sued and, if so, how to resolve the dispute and/or defend the lawsuit.

3

I think it would be a good thing to know whether it’s legal/illegal, accepted/frowned upon for a lawyer to lie to his/her client’s adversary.

I’m not saying anyone is planning to sue the lawyer for lying or misleading.

4

Want my opinion? Lawyers lie all the time. But the recipient of the letter is probably at fault. . . and is lying too. But Taiwan’s judges are incompetent. And lawsuits are almost always an enormous pain in the ass: time consuming, expensive, and emotionally draining. The whole situation sucks and it’s best to come clean, work out a reasonable compromise with the opposing party, get it over with, forget about the lawyer’s tactics, and move on.

Feel free to give more specific info if you want a more specific response.

5

OK. So that’s one person saying “Lawyers lie all the time.” I suppose that means MT thinks it’s OK because it’s done.

To clarify, I don’t think to say “You may be in violation of such and such statute,” can be considered a lie. The “you may be” leaves it open.

A bald lie is “No smoking is permitted at any time in any public buildings,” when the writer knows that there are exceptions.

Anyone else want to weigh in on whether it’s acceptable/legal in Taiwan for a lawyer to lie in a warning letter?

6

I think you would have a difficult time proving that the lawyer lied. He would need to have intended to misrepresent some fact for his statement to be a lie. He could claim that the misrepresentation was unintentional, a mistake.

Typically, attorneys use somewhat ambiguous language, and I find this true especially in Taiwan. It is more common, however, for attorneys to simply state that their clients will enthusiastically use any and all legal actions available in order to obtain relief.

7

:astonished: :astonished: :astonished: :astonished:

say it AIN’T so!!!

Do liberal ones lie more than conservative ones? Or do they all lie mostly about work and not about other subjects, say, like politics?
:laughing:

Lawyers lie!!

hardeharharhar :bravo:

8

I think you would have a difficult time proving that the lawyer lied. He would need to have intended to misrepresent some fact for his statement to be a lie. He could claim that the misrepresentation was unintentional, a mistake.

Typically, attorneys use somewhat ambiguous language, and I find this true especially in Taiwan. It is more common, however, for attorneys to simply state that their clients will enthusiastically use any and all legal actions available in order to obtain relief.[/quote]

The question isn’t “can you prove a lawyer has lied.” It is, “If a lawyer were to be caught in a lie, would there be consequences?” My friend is highly unlikely to try to have the lawyer in question disbarred, but is interested in whether lawyers in Taiwan have any professional scruples about lying.

9

I know someone who was trying to get severance pay from the company he was fired from, and the company got a lawyer involved. It was because of the blatant ‘bluffing’ by the lawyer in his communications that my friend got the confidence to sue, and he won.

I guess lawyers are used to frighten people away from suing or doing whatever it is the client was worried they might do, and perhaps that’s what your lawyer is doing.

Or maybe he’s really smart and trying to make you think he has nothing, so that you sue and they win.

Or, maybe he knows you might think that, and they really do have nothing!

Hope that helps. :smiley:

10

Well, not all lawyers are scarey. But, litigators are sometimes referred to as “hired guns” or “gun slingers”.

11

[quote=“Tigerman”]I think you would have a difficult time proving that the lawyer lied. He would need to have intended to misrepresent some fact for his statement to be a lie. He could claim that the misrepresentation was unintentional, a mistake.

Typically, attorneys use somewhat ambiguous language, and I find this true especially in Taiwan. It is more common, however, for attorneys to simply state that their clients will enthusiastically use any and all legal actions available in order to obtain relief.[/quote]

Yes, I understood the question. OK, if you could prove that an attorney lied in a warning letter, the attorney might be criminally liable under Taiwan law for the offenses of fraud or harrassment.

12

Tigerman, thanks for stepping in with a more careful response.

My response was a little flippant because I have enough experience in legal disputes to recognize what a royal pain in the ass they are and to know that settling disputes quickly and moving on is almost always advisable rather than believing litigation is an easy road to riches or choosing to escalate legal disputes. It’s often wise, even when one has been wronged, insulted, harmed and/or ones legal rights have been violated, to say “well that sucks,” and just forget about it.

If someone receives a threatening letter from a lawyer, presumably he/she has a serious dispute going with the other party or that other party wouldn’d have gone to the trouble of hiring counsel to send the letter. Best to work on resolving that dispute and not get caught up in the details of what exactly the lawyer said.

But, that preface aside, lawyers in most jurisdictions have codes of professional ethics that they are supposed to live up to. Those codes are promulgated and enforced by the local Bar Association, so the penalties for violation are usually discipline or disbarrment. Making intentional mistatements of fact and making threats without basis is probably illegal under most such codes of ethics, however I agree with Tigerman 100% that it’s not always so clear that the lawyer lied. After all it’s not always 100% clear that you do have this right or don’t have that right. Lawyers are able to represent two opposing sides in a dispute because the answer is NOT certain until the judge makes a ruling. Even then, that ruling may be overturned on appeal. So long as the lawyer has some plausible grounds for making an argument, that’s not lying and there’s nothing wrong with it. If the lawyer says you may be found liable for X and you believe he’s wrong, he’s not lying, he’s just stating his client’s position. If you disagree, fine, ignore his demand letter.

I guess my response was flippant because from your preliminary description it didn’t sound like the lawyer did anything wrong – didn’t make any blatantly false statements of fact or any inappropriate threatening language – and I felt your response was on the wrong track. The lawyer’s only acting for his client. The dispute is with the client. BUT, I haven’t seen the lawyer’s letter. If he clearly is making intentionally false statements of fact or threatening illegal actions then that’s wrong and I don’t condone it at all.

Feel free to be more specific – quote specific language from the letter – and we’ll be happy to provide further free legal counsel.

13

Or I suppose if you’ve got the letter and can prove the lie, you can send a letter back to the lawyer pointing out his lie, the fact that his lie is an offence, that you know it’s an offence and that you’re going to SUE his slimy lying arse for his trouble. And that you’re also sending his and your letters to his client so that they can see what an incompetent prick they’ve hired.
That’s what I’d be inclined to do.

14

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, MT - and for your comments, Tigerman. In the initial post, I was trying to discriminate between the careful language and the blatently false assertion in the warning letter. Somehow, that set you off on the wrong track at first.

It’s possible the lawyer doesn’t know his assertion is false. That would mean he is sloppy. Or he made the false assertion on purpose, which would suggest a deliberate lie. If there are expectations in Taiwan that a lawyer will try to be as accurate as possible in a warning letter, then I think the former is more likely. If on the other hand, lying were considered just one more tool in the lawyer’s toolkit, then deliberate lying would be the norm.

The purpose of the question is more about gaining an insight into intention than about how to follow up. IMHO, the person being accused should be trying to work something out before it comes to litigation - whether the lawyer is lying or not. At the same time, the lawyer may well be rattled if confronted by the lie … if as you say lawyers here face consequences if caught in a lie.

15

Lawyers, landlords and Koreans. What are ya gonna do with 'em?

16

All three are excellent choices for marriage.

17

To find the answers to your question follow these helpful steps:
Step one read this thread
[Forumosa - Taiwan's largest and most active Taiwan-oriented global online community in English … highlight=](First of its kind: Legal Ethics in Chinese
Step two buy this extremely informative and lively book
美國法律倫理
The author is one of Taiwan’s leading authorities on legal ethics, which is an easy thing to be because there are so few who have even heard of the concept of legal ethics in Taiwan.

Step Three:
Keep in mind the important distinction, which Mother T., and some of the other folks pointed out, the distinction between:
Having a law
And
Enforcing a law.

No enforcement is dangerously close to no law. And in fact that is the situation we have in Taiwan. Enforcement (ha ha) of legal ethics is left to the county bar associations. That is the same as having a stupid mean stinking dog that bites people. Your solution to that is to put a leash on the stupid mean stinking dog and then----rather than holding the leash yourself, you put the leash in the fucking dogs mouth and tell him be good and do not bite people. The stupid mean stinking dog in this touching metaphor is the Taiwanese bar.

Self regulation does not work in Taiwan.

Be that as it may the black letter law answer is this. There are three sources for the law regulating Taiwanese attorneys. As somebody pointed out, attorneys are subject to the normal criminal law which makes things like fraud a crime.

As to the black letter law professional regulation, that comes from two sources. There is the Attorney Act (or Lawyer Law, whatever you want to name it) and the individual county bar associations also have their bylaws which are supposed to regulate the legal ethics of their members.

As to the Lawyer Law (Chinglish as in the original)
Article 28 An attorney shall not engage in fraudulent or beguiling acts towards their client, the court, prosecution agencies or judicial police.

Brian note: I always laugh at the beguiling choice of words. I see in my mind eye some hot local female attorney pulling up her skirt or leaning over to give the cleavage shot and beguiling the court, prosecution and judicial police. In any event back to the law.

Article 30 An attorney shall not, in his name or the name of another, post or publish notices amounting to deception or threats.

But none of this matters as Taiwans bench is quite fearful of the bar. And I mean what I said; judges fear high profile attorneys and fear the wrath of the larger bar associations, such as the Taipei Bar Association.

And that is what allows cunts, like the attorney represent the County Hag, to pull fucking stunts like blowing into court on the Country Hag’s case a half hour (30+ minutes) late and just waving off the judges scolding with a “oh, I do as I please I am the president’s friend”. And calling the judge “a parrot” in open court on the record when the judge told him to sit down and shut up.

It was all quite touching and really reflected the high place the rule of law and legal professionalism has in Taiwan. In a demented way Taiwanese attorneys have a lot in common with the old WWF professional wrestlers like Hulk Hogan and the Masked Interns. I am so glad I stopped caring about five or six years ago. Now Taiwanese legal reform is just a kind of low brow comedy for me. Which is fine, I do not have a t.v. so the courthouse is my t.v.

Dr. Legal Ethics

18

Drunk Layer Busted by Judge Tries to talk His way Out of It and is not successful.

19

Thanks much for the black-and-white explanation, Brian. It’s good to know the legal basis.

The issue of enforcement is germane, of course.

I know it’s scandalous, but I probably wouldn’t wear a motorcycle helmet if the law (regulation?) weren’t being enforced (I was one of thousands fined on the first night of enforcement in Taipei back in '97 or '98). Based on what Brian is saying, lawyers in Taipei don’t expect to be disciplined for such a minor infraction as lying in a warning letter - however I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them try to be ambiguous out of a heightened sense of ethics (say as a throwback from law school in California). It’s like how some Wulai residents actually wear motorcycle helmets …

20

True.

Most Taiwan lawyers did NOT go to school abroad. That’s part of the problem. Their legal training sucks. Most of them are unable to carefully assess the facts, research the law, and draft a careful document accurately describing the same. Cha bu duo is the norm. While precision is essential in legal documents in the West, vague generalities unsupported by facts and law tend to be the norm here. So, it may be that your offending party was not intentionally trying to misstate the facts – he may have been merely meeting the local standard of “eh, close enough, whatever.”

Incidentally, lawyers aren’t trained to be ambiguous in the US. On the contrary, they’re trained to be precise. They’re also trained to carefully analyze the facts and law and search for plausible arguments in favor of their client. As noted before, lawyers are able to represent both sides because one can usually find some plausible arguments on both sides. So, while the recipient of a legal demand letter may often disagree with the points being made, usually it’s not that the lawyer is lying or trying to be ambiguous; usually its that he is arguing the other side of the case and you disagree with his position, but it may be up to the judge to determine who’s right (unless the parties have the wisdom and maturity to settle the matter).