When the Truth Emerges: 36 Lawyers Shocked as Their Clients Unveil Jaw-Dropping Confessions

When the Truth Emerges: 36 Lawyers Shocked as Their Clients Unveil Jaw-Dropping Confessions

anon , gpointstudio Report

36 Lawyers Who Thought They Had A Winning Case, Until Their Client Finally Told The Truth In-house attorney here but I interned for a judge at our court of common pleas during law school. There was a case of a guy that asked two early 20 girls a ride from the mall to a gas station. He told them he would pay them cash for the trip.

During that trip, he sat in the back seat and had advised that he had a pellet gun that closely resembled a hand gun. He said he had only pulled it out to show the girls but never did anything further. That had been his testimony during all the proceedings. He willingly takes the stand and the prosecutor is questioning him about the gun and how he handled it. This dude willingly admits that he held it to the passengers temple threatening to shoot her with what she believed to be a real gun. He also corrected the prosecutor during questioning telling him that he never stated it wasn’t a real hand gun.

That jury verdict came about as fast as one could.

Tdavis002 , fxquadro Report

ADVERTISEMENT

So, what possesses a person to hire an expensive legal expert, look them directly in the eye, and then lie to their face? It might seem too dumb to comprehend, but according to legal experts, it’s an incredibly common and deeply human phenomenon. The decision to hide the truth from a lawyer almost never comes from a place of logic. Instead, it comes from a place of pure, unadulterated emotion.

ADVERTISEMENT

The first and most powerful reason is simple, cringeworthy embarrassment. As the lawyers at Mundahl Law point out, clients want their lawyer to be on their side, to see them as the “good guy.” It’s a deeply human impulse to hide the parts of the story we’re ashamed of, even from the one person who is legally bound not to judge us.

Another common reason is a form of magical thinking fueled by fear and denial. Some clients operate on the “if I don’t say it, it’s not real” principle, a strategy that works about as well as a toddler covering their eyes and thinking they’re invisible. Finally, there’s the client who thinks they’re a master strategist, carefully hiding “bad” facts to “help” the case, a move that is guaranteed to backfire big time.

ADVERTISEMENT

36 Lawyers Who Thought They Had A Winning Case, Until Their Client Finally Told The Truth Working on a file for a non-EU company participating in a public tender within the EU. To summarize in a nutshell: when a government agency needs to build something like a building or a bridge, they have to organise what is called a “tender procedure” to w**d out the charlatans, fraudsters and to enter into a contract with the most advantageous tenderer. Such a procedure is organised according to strict rules and a lot of things are public to ensure equal opportunities for every company, and to prevent bribery, collusion, fraud etc. Serious stuff.

One of the conditions to be eligible for such a tender is that your company and its directors have not been found guilty for certain crimes (eg breaking labour laws, money laundering, corruption) as you are assumed to be untrustworthy. If you had such an issue in the past, you can fess up and try to argue this risk has been eliminated thanks to a “self-cleaning” procedure (getting rid of the bad apples in your company, basically).

Our client assured us that they never had any such issues, were never convicted, yadda yadda. Just one of the many steps in a procurement procedure.

Years later, when the construction was well under way, it turned out they lied and directors in their home country had been found guilty for bribery of government officials.

The contracting authority got rightfully spooked and argued our client wilfully lied when tendering for the contract. The consequence is that… you were never eligible in the first place and retroactively the tender should be annulled to restart the procedure.

When asking our client W*F happened and why they didn’t tell us so we could have tried to argue the self-cleaning exemption, they said that they didn’t think it seemed relevant, it was widely known in newspapers (in the language of their home country…) so they assumed they didn’t have to tell the authorities, and besides, many CEOs in their home country get convicted of bribery and pardoned when the oppositon party gets reelected so what’s the big deal?

Literal millions of dollars and several years of thousands of people’s energy down the drain… Because they lied on a form…

Liquid_Squid1 , Drazen Zigic Report

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

36 Lawyers Who Thought They Had A Winning Case, Until Their Client Finally Told The Truth How about a tiny twist, with some lawyer on lawyer shenanigans?

Other lawyer filed a document with a pretty big mistake on it. Basically they confused 2 very similar motions and mixed them up. This mistake made it useless. (No evidence MSJ with traditional MSJ relief requested if anyone cares).

So I go out of my way to be a nice lawyer and let them know they made a mistake. They told me, in nice lawyer talk, to [darn] off. I go out of my way *again* to say, in nice lawyer talk, that if this stupid b******t motion goes to a hearing I will be quite cross and will f*****g ask for attorney’s fees. (In lawyer culture, this is considered a d**k move).

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Post Comment

WIN $500 OF SHOPPING!

    This will close in 0 seconds

    RSS
    Follow by Email