Lie

The processionist should not commit the sin of self-incriminating that: “There is no need to focus on what is weakest in the case.” This attitude makes sense in self-development, but not in the courts. I deal most with what is the weakest. In Mec. Hambury’s excellent guide “Managing Lawyers’ Working Time”, I read not to deal with everything in the letter that undermines our case and NOT TO PRE-eminent the arguments of the opponent.

I agree with that, but half way. You can not write about what weak and do not warn (but rather you can not). But you certainly can’t stop thinking about it and have a solution ready. I give an example: “The lessee did not provide a bank guarantee for the duration of the guarantee securing the rent”. He already had this guarantee issued and signed by the bank, but drove it to the landlord a day too late. My Team said, “this is the weakest point, and we have no arguments for that.” Then I suggested, “How do we know that providing a guarantee is a debt that is repaye, not a debt that is receiving.” And that’s how we presented it. Some courts have recognised this.

The disastrous consequences of self-incrimation are explained by M. Scott Peck in the book “The Road Less Frequently Traversed”. Only once did I have the impression that the author was lying to himself when reading the book. These were J. Beck’s “Memories.”