Just how do you guarantee that? I am not a lawyer and have never claimed to be one, but I have had a lot of dealings with them over the years which continue to this day. So I have picked up knowledge as a client. I defer to expert advice on all matters, the law being a primary example, so as a client I listen. I don't tell a lawyer how to handle a case. I give him as much as I can to help him do what I pay him to do.

I do not believe any lawyer would tell a bare-faced lie. They might use deliberately obscure language, or be economical with the truth and miss things that might incriminate, but lie, never. So when the solicitor of the alleged victim of the Edwards Sunfest made his statement I believe he would have chosen his words very carefully to ensure that nothing that was said could later be shown to be untrue, to the best of his knowledge at the time.

“Be economical with the truth” so just little fibs then, or as the oxford dictionary would term it, ‘ LIE’. It’s not the size that determines if something is a lie either. It is or it isn’t!

Untrue. Or as any dictionary would term it, a lie!

Being "economical with the truth" is not to lie. It's excluding aspects of a story that may prejudice. It's answering direct questions honestly, but not adding anything else. It's not "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"!

It's like the child who is asked by his mother, "did you hit your sister 4 times like she says you did", and he says no. Knowing he hit her 3 times. Lawyers being clever, or even devious, doesn't make them liers.

I was once involved in a case where the Judge instructed the two opposing barristers to get together during the lunch break, sort out a settlement and give it to him on the resumption. My barrister apologised and said she couldn't spend time with us at lunch and went off to find her opposite number. He had though disappeared! On resumption the Judge called them to address him and asked whether they had successfully negotiated a settlement. The opposing barrister immediately stepped forward and meekly said "Unfortunately not My Lord". He knew he would get a better deal from the Judge! His words were true though.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (23 Jul 2023 11.17am)

Not any dictionary.

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

Who has suggested they don't? I am sure they do as much as any other group in their private life.

What they would not do is tell deliberate untruths when making prepared statements or under oath in court. Should they do so in a way which could subsequently be proven they would likely be debarred.

Not all from the UK, but the same principles apply:-

[Link]

[Link]

You are confused.

What I actually said was that the statement made was untrue, aka "a lie". Not about dictionary definitions of "economical with the truth"! I don't think even you would try to argue that an untruth could not equally be described as a lie.

Nevertheless, let's examine those links.

The last isn't a dictionary and the 5th doesn't open.

2 of them contain this explanation, on where its use in modern times started, quotes the author and must therefore be the most accurate:-

"The expression comes from a statement given in evidence by Sir Robert Armstrong, British cabinet secretary, in the ‘Spycatcher’ trial (1986), conducted to prevent publication of a book by a former MI5 employee, ‘It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.’".

Kindly note "not a lie". There in black and white.

That others wish to interpret it differently is for them to defend. If that's what Mr Armstrong said he meant by it, he should know. It was his term.

Some dictionaries, and sources of reference agree. Wiki's reference to the use of irony by those who suggest it equals lying is particularly relevant:-

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]