advocacy
Should &#39;lie&#39; ever be used in a legal context?
<p><sub>Source: <a href="https://store.lexisnexis.ca/en/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction/ontario-10/ontario-small-claims-court-a-practical-guide-skusku-cad-00935/details" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Ontario Small Claims Court - A Practical Guide</em></a> (2011). p. 190 Bottom.</sub></p>
<blockquote>
<h3>(d) Inflammatory Pleading</h3>
<p><strong>§9.15</strong> A plaintiff or defendant in his pleading may make scandalous or in-
flammatory references to the opponent. For instance, it does happen that
either party will castigate his opponent as a &quot;bare-faced liar&quot;. The motions
judge will strike out the offending reference.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The quote above concerns Ontario law, but I intend my following question to concern advocacy in general (and not limited to a jurisdiction).</p>
<p>Adding 'bare-faced' to 'liar' does appear too affecting, bombastic, and pointlessly insulting, threatening. But when is it not an inflammatory pleading for a litigant to plead 'lying' or allege the other party as a 'liar'? Or should a litigant never use the morpheme <a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/lie" rel="nofollow noreferrer">'lie'</a> in a legal context? I ask not about judges because they have less to lose.</p>

<p>The word "lie" is to be avoided in formal legal writing as a matter of style. Judges don't like it. "Misrepresentation" or "Fraudulent misrepresentation" which mean basically the same thing, are the usual substitutes. </p>

<p>Obviously, this doesn't apply when one is quoting something that someone else said for a relevant legal reason. For example, you could say in a pleading or motion: "On December 1, 2016, after we left the meeting, the defendant turned to me and said, "I lied to you.""</p>

<p>I don't think there is any explicit reason to not use the word 'lie'. It may sound somewhat unprofessional, but It is all about the context. I think the text is just using the language as an example of harsh words that may be exchanged between opposite parties. They could have replaced 'bare-faced liar' with 'scumbag', and the passage would retain its meaning. It is really just a warning against either party making inflammatory statements.  </p>
