Every Second Time a Lawyer Speaks, They Say Something Untrue — And the Court Rarely Checks

(A real case study from the ACT Magistrates Court, anonymised.)

There is an uncomfortable reality in family-violence litigation:

Lawyers routinely say things that are false, exaggerated, or unsupported —

and courts almost never stop them.

If you’re shocked by that statement, you haven’t sat through enough hearings.

If you’ve been a respondent, you already know it in your bones.

This isn’t a rant against lawyers as people.

It’s an observation about how the system structurally operates.

And the transcripts from recent ACT FVO matters illustrate it perfectly.

1. Lawyers Repeat Whatever Their Client Told Them — Even If It’s Fiction

In one hearing, the applicant’s lawyer confidently told the Magistrate:

“There is a complex and extensive criminal investigation underway against the respondent.”

But when questioned:

• they could not name the officer

• could not identify the police unit

• could not give a case number

• could not give a date of complaint

• and knew nothing about the content of the alleged “investigation”

And then the hard evidence surfaced:

A police email confirming that no investigation existed at all.

Yet that statement (true or not, substantiated or not) was delivered as fact — without hesitation.

Why?

Because lawyers often repeat whatever their client tells them.

They don’t verify it.

They don’t test it.

They’re not investigators.

They’re advocates.

And as long as they frame it as “instructions from my client,” they’re protected.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

2. Lawyers Also Say Things That Are Purely Invented

Sometimes they don’t even rely on client instructions — they simply create a narrative on the spot.

In one of your hearings, the lawyer said:

“There may be a conflict emerging regarding the applicant’s material.”

No date.

No document.

No explanation.

No evidence.

The Magistrate asked:

• “Do you have a date when that material was provided?”

— No.

• “Do we know what the material was?”

— No.

• “Why was nothing filed?”

— No idea.

It was smoke — nothing more.

But unless you stand up and correct the record immediately, the Court will accept the statement and move on.

That’s how the system works.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

3. Courts Rarely Ask for Proof

Example:

At numerous mentions, the applicant’s lawyer insisted there were “five days of evidence-in-chief interviews” with the police.

Impressive claim.

Also completely unverified at the time.

When pressed:

• They could not produce the interviews.

• They could not confirm they even existed.

• They could not explain why nothing had been filed.

• They could not explain contradictory police evidence.

• They could not explain why the timeline was missing.

And the court accepted the explanation as “their position”, without requiring proof.

This is normal.

Not ideal — but normal.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

4. Lawyers Know They Can Get Away With It

They know that:

• Magistrates manage tight lists

• There are 30+ matters per day

• It’s a no-cost jurisdiction

• Judges prefer to “keep things moving”

• No one has time to stop and interrogate every statement

So lawyers routinely make claims that are:

• false

• exaggerated

• unsupported

• or strategically vague

Because it works.

Unless the respondent stands up — calmly, precisely, with evidence — the falsehood enters the bloodstream of the case.

If you don’t correct it, it becomes “accepted fact”.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

5. Why This Matters: Falsehoods Shape Outcomes

In family-violence cases, lies can:

• extend interim orders

• cause adjournments

• trigger police referrals

• destroy reputations

• affect financial proceedings

• shape the narrative before any evidence is heard

When your ex’s lawyer says something untrue, they’re not just “making submissions”.

Those words build the scaffolding around your case.

If you don’t dismantle it, it becomes the structure you must climb to prove your innocence.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

6. What the Transcripts Show (Anonymised Examples)

False Claim #1

“The respondent said _______________.”

→ Keep your transcripts of past hearings on your laptop: Check for key words — refute the other parties allegations/statements if they are not accurate. You won't win any friends among the Magistrates, but you will create doubt about the truth of the other party or their lawyer. And you'll slow down any future random allegations.

False Claim #2

“The applicant provided a timeline.”

→ Lawyer later admits: No timeline ever filed.

False Claim #3

“The police have 16 hours of evidence.”

→ Could not produce a single page.

False Claim #4

“The subpoenas were overly broad.”

→ police later admitted they still hadn’t produced required materials, including body-worn camera.

False Claim #5

“There were discussions to vacate the hearing.”

→ Court: no application filed, deadline missed.

False Claim #6

“My client has been overwhelmed by multiple proceedings.”

→ Court records: no filings, no progress, no explanation.

This happens in courtrooms across Australia every day.

Not because lawyers are evil — but because the system rewards confident submissions, not accurate ones.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

7. The Golden Rule: Correct Everything — Immediately

When a lawyer says something untrue:

Stand up.

Correct it.

Cite the evidence.

Do not wait.

Do not assume the Magistrate will notice.

Your tone should be:

calm, factual, surgical.

The court won’t punish you for correcting a falsehood.

It will silently appreciate it.

And every time you do it, the other side’s credibility bleeds a little more.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

8. Self-Representation Is Often the Only Way to Prevent This

A represented party often sits silently while their lawyer:

• accepts false claims

• avoids correcting the other side

• doesn’t challenge the inaccuracies

• forgets key facts

• avoids confrontation

• “saves it for later” (which never comes)

A self-represented party, on the other hand:

• hears everything

• knows the facts intimately

• can immediately correct mistruths

• can challenge unsupported claims

• forces accuracy and accountability

Magistrates — quietly — appreciate this.

Not the aggressive self-reps.

Not the chaotic ones.

But the prepared, factual, respectful ones.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

9. The System Runs on Assertions — You Must Force Evidence

If you take one thing away from this article, let it be this:

In an FVO courtroom, truth is not automatic.

Accuracy is not a given.

You must actively defend it every minute.

When a lawyer asserts something, it becomes “true” unless you object.

When you object with evidence, it collapses instantly.

This is why transcripts are full of moments where the Magistrate said:

“Let’s hear from Mr Smith.”

(Because your corrections were the only facts in the room.)

Or when the Magistrate dismissed an entire FVO because the applicant’s lawyers repeatedly made claims with no evidence whatsoever, and you forced the issue.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

10. Final Thought: The Courtroom Isn’t a Place of Truth — It’s a Place of Testing

Lawyers don’t come to court to tell the truth.

They come to advocate. To advance a position.

The court isn’t there to find “what really happened”.

It’s there to assess:

• compliance

• evidence

• procedure

• credibility

• logic

• and burden of proof

If you don’t test what the other side says, the court won’t test it for you.

That is why so many falsehoods go unchallenged.

That is why so many bad cases limp forward for months.

And that is why the respondents who survive the process do so because they learn the secret:

Don’t let anything slide.

Make the other side prove every word.

When they can’t, the case collapses.

Exactly as yours did.