In 2009 the Kentucky Supreme Court substantially revised the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct.
Articles in this index written before 2009 citing Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct must be checked for any changes to the rule cited.

Lying – Untruthful Negotiations

Download

It is generally accepted that ethical negotiations permit a certain amount of puffing – this includes statements concerning future facts, opinions, quality, value, authenticity, and intentions on settling a claim. Where to draw the line between puffing and lying is the hard part of ethical negotiations. What is clear is that deliberate lying is unethical and can constitute fraud. A lawyer in a Maryland case was referred to bar authorities by a judge for blatantly lying in a written settlement offer. The lawyer represented 25 clients in a Fair Credit Reporting Act action against a bank. It was alleged that a bank employee was secretly giving credit reports to an unidentified person. In the settlement offer the lawyer asked for $75,000 per claimant and wrote that he had made confidential arrangements to obtain the name of the person responsible for getting the credit reports from the bank. He would give the bank this name as part of the settlement. During a later deposition the lawyer admitted that he had no confidential arrangements for finding out whom this person was and that this statement was a lie that he included in the letter for the purpose of settlement bluster. In referring the case to disciplinary authorities the trial judge was clear he believed the lawyer’s statement was one of material fact and not settlement bluster. He offered negotiating lawyers this useful analytical outline for staying within the rules:

  • What is the statement or omission in dispute?
  • Is it untrue or deceptively incomplete in any significant respect?
  • Reasonably viewed, is it important to the subject being negotiated?
  • At the time it was made, did the attorney know or should have known under the circumstances that the statement was untrue?

Source: Ausherman v. Bank of America Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 435 (2002)), ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual On Professional Conduct Current Reports, Vol. 18, No.18, page 524 (8/28/02).

 


323 West Main Street, Suite 600 | Louisville, Kentucky 40202 | Phone: 502-568-6100 | Fax: 502-568-6103

Disclaimer: The contents of this Web site are intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. It is not the intent of this Web site to establish an attorney’s standard of due care for a particular situation. Rather, it is our intent to advise our policyholders to act in a manner which may be well above the standard of due care in order to avoid claims having merit, as well as those without merit. In the event any statement on the Web site differs from a statement in an issued policy the policy will control.

SITE BY SCARNEGIE INTERACTIVE, LLC