Contract fraud

[Covah]

What is the name of your state? California

Hello. If a client hires a lawyer to write a contract and supplies misleading information, making the contract fraudulent, and the victim of the fraud informs the lawyer who wrote the contract that the client has supplied misleading information, will the lawyer become an an accessory to fraud by enforcing the contract if ordered to do so by the original client?

Thanks!

[moburkes]

Originally Posted by Covah

What is the name of your state? California

Hello. If a client hires a lawyer to write a contract and supplies misleading information, making the contract fraudulent, and the victim of the fraud informs the lawyer who wrote the contract that the client has supplied misleading information, will the lawyer become an an accessory to fraud by enforcing the contract if ordered to do so by the original client?

Thanks!

Did the other party to the contract READ it before they signed it?

[las365]

A couple of things:

Clients don't "order" lawyers to do things (normally, anyway).

Based on the very vague scenario you have described, why would the lawyer have any reason to assume that you are telling the truth and his client is not? You would have to give a lot more information for anyone to make a guess whether the contract is no good or the lawyer is liable for anything.

Wouldn't a fraudulent contract be one that is forged or something? I think the OP means that he was induced by fraud into signing a contract, but does that make the conract fraudulent? Not to quibble over terminology, but this kind of thing is interesting to me. [/nerd]

[Covah]

Thank you for your responses.

1."Did the other party to the contract READ it before they signed it?" The forged document is forged whether anyone has read it or not. The question is if a contract based on a forgery is legally enforceable.

2. The client has supplied the lawyer with a forged document on which to write the contract. The lawyer has no way of knowing if the document is forged. When the forgery is brought to the lawyer's attention, does the lawyer becomes an accessory if he enforces the contract?

3. "Clients don't 'order' lawyers to do things" except to pay the lawyer to supply legal services, such as enforcing a contract.

4. "he was induced by fraud into signing a contract" Precisely.

5. "why would the lawyer have any reason to assume that you are telling the truth and his client is not?" The lawyer needn't assume anything. The document can be easily established as a forgery.

Again, thanks to all for your responses.

[moburkes]

This makes no sense.

[Covah]

Here is an example which the reader may find provocative-

You and I sign a lease for your office space. After moving in, I discover that the floorplan, included in the lease to define the property being leased, is forged. You have changed the dimensions to oversize the office, and overcharge me, by 10%. These dimensions can be shown to be false by anyone with a tape measure. I bring this to your attention (by email so I have a copy) and you reply (by email so I have a copy) to piss off. So I say I am not going to pay anymore because the lease is bogus. But I will still occupy the space because YOU signed the lease as well and I feel like holding you to it. If you hire counsel I will inform them that the lease is based on forged documents and if counsel pursues the matter I will accuse counsel, to the state bar association, of being an accessory after the fact of fraud, and no lawyer will jeopardize his practice by playing along with a con.

Nonperformance of the lease is an issue as well. I could argue that I am paying for an office space of say 3,300 square feet and you are delivering an office space of 3,000 hence you are not delivering the service I have contracted for and are therefore in breach of contract.

One could accuse me of failing to exhibit due diligence by not checking the dimensions but does that excuse the lessor from including forged documents in the lease? Of making false statements in the proposal, i.e. enticement or "misrepresentation for the purpose of fraud"? Maybe I DID measure the space and discovered the fraud and intended all along to play the fraud back on you.

Thanks again!

[BoredAtty]

Originally Posted by Covah

If you hire counsel I will inform them that the lease is based on forged documents and if counsel pursues the matter I will accuse counsel, to the state bar association, of being an accessory after the fact of fraud, and no lawyer will jeopardize his practice by playing along with a con.

No lawyer would be intimidated by that silly threat.

Nonperformance of the lease is an issue as well. I could argue that I am paying for an office space of say 3,300 square feet and you are delivering an office space of 3,000 hence you are not delivering the service I have contracted for and are therefore in breach of contract.

Yes, that's a legitimate argument.

One could accuse me of failing to exhibit due diligence by not checking the dimensions but does that excuse the lessor from including forged documents in the lease?

Possibly.

Of making false statements in the proposal, i.e. enticement or "misrepresentation for the purpose of fraud"? Maybe I DID measure the space and discovered the fraud and intended all along to play the fraud back on you.

If you measured the space yourself, the landlord could argue that you ratified the discrepancy.

[Covah]

I am still wondering about "due diligence". Does not the lessor have due diligence responsibility in the accuracy of the documents prepared for the lease? Whose due diligence comes first? It seems blaming due diligence on the victim would be the first excuse of any fraudster.

Also "accessory after the fact" is a real legal situation. All lawyers must accept the information supplied by the client. When informed a client is using the lawyer's services to commit fraud, wouldn't the lawyer be concerned? I would not of course "threaten" to report the lawyer to the bar association- I would actually do so. But first the lawyer needs to know the client is lying.

What about good faith/bad faith? If I showed the OP lied on the proposal, lied in the lease, and refuse to cooperate in remedying, how would that affect the court? I can prove the OP negotiated in bad faith and I in good.

Thanks!

[moburkes]

No, you have no case. If the square footage was incorrect, then it was a mistake. Unless you rented the unit without seeing the size with your own eyes, you have no case. If you saw the size of the unit, and then rented the unit, then you agreed to what your eyes saw.

[Covah]

Thank you, moburkes, for your response ."If the square footage was incorrect, then it was a mistake." It is not a mistake. It is a forgery. The numbers on the original floorplan have been changed to misrepresent the size. I understand I failed to confirm dimensions on the floorplan. I was negotiating "in good faith" and the forged floorplan demonstrates "bad faith" on the part of the lessor.

If anyone, not just in this case, were to offer a contract which contained demonstrably false information intended to deceive, and successfully deceived the victim, how can such a contract carry the force of law? How can the existing legal framework enforce a contract of any kind which is based on a forgery?

Anyone committing an act of fraud can accuse the vicitm of failing to perform due diligence. Does this mean that forgery, fraud, intent to deceive, misrepresentation, etc. are not crimes?

[BoredAtty]

Originally Posted by Covah

I am still wondering about "due diligence". Does not the lessor have due diligence responsibility in the accuracy of the documents prepared for the lease? Whose due diligence comes first?

What about good faith/bad faith? If I showed the OP lied on the proposal, lied in the lease, and refuse to cooperate in remedying, how would that affect the court?

If the difference in square footage is insignificant and/or you visually inspected the premises before signing the lease, you probably don't have a case even if you can show that the landlord lied. That may change if the difference in square footage is significant and/or you didn't inspect the premises.

Originally Posted by Covah

Also "accessory after the fact" is a real legal situation. All lawyers must accept the information supplied by the client. When informed a client is using the lawyer's services to commit fraud, wouldn't the lawyer be concerned? I would not of course "threaten" to report the lawyer to the bar association- I would actually do so. But first the lawyer needs to know the client is lying.

The lawyer would not be an accessory for representing his client regardless of whether the landlord lied to you about the square footage.

First, to be an accessory to a crime, generally the principal (in this case the landlord) must have already been convicted. Call the prosecutor's office (or police) and see how fast they tell you there was no crime -- it's a civil matter. Second, even if the landlord was convicted of a crime, the lawyer would not be an accessory after the fact unless he hindered prosecution in some way. Suing you on behalf of the landlord for breach of the lease does not hinder prosecution of any crime, nor would defending the landlord against your claims of fraud (ever heard of "defense attorneys"?).

If you make that argument in court you'll likely be laughed at, and then told that you should have hired an attorney to analyze the legal issues for you.

[Covah]

Thank you for your advice. It is interesting to me to see how the law works to support fraud. So I can pay an attorney to prepare a deliberately misleading contact based on forged documents, and offer that bogus contract in a proposal. If you discover the fraud, you decline the proposal and I wait for another mark. Once I entice a victim to sign the contract I am able to use legal means to enforce the contract even when the original forgery is discovered.

Furthermore my attorney is unconcerned with the fact I have supplied him with a forged document since "accessory after the fact", "conspiracy to commit fraud", and "aiding and abetting" are just jokes because the state bar association does not concern itself with lawers who assist clients in defrauding the public.

[moburkes]

You're 100% correct. You've got all the answers. You've got great case. Good luck. Now, good bye.

[HomeGuru]

good job....

[BoredAtty]

Originally Posted by Covah

So I can pay an attorney to prepare a deliberately misleading contact based on forged documents, and offer that bogus contract in a proposal. If you discover the fraud, you decline the proposal and I wait for another mark. Once I entice a victim to sign the contract I am able to use legal means to enforce the contract even when the original forgery is discovered.

That broad statement does not reflect what I wrote.

Generally speaking, if there is a substantial discrepancy between the terms of a contract and what is delivered, then you can sue for breach of contract.

If you are defrauded out of money or property, then you can also ask the police/prosecutor to charge the other party with a crime (theft by deception, for example).

The fact is, however, that discrepancies which are not substantial may not afford you the opportunity to rescind the contract -- particularly when you've had a chance to inspect what you are receiving. And if a civil court won't even provide relief, the prosecutor's office certainly won't charge the other party.

Originally Posted by Covah

Furthermore my attorney is unconcerned with the fact I have supplied him with a forged document since "accessory after the fact", "conspiracy to commit fraud", and "aiding and abetting" are just jokes because the state bar association does not concern itself with lawers who assist clients in defrauding the public.

No, the attorney and bar are unconcerned with baseless accusations made by a person who does not understand what "accessory after the fact," "conspiracy to commit fraud," and "aiding and abetting" means or when they apply -- that is, unless the attorney wants to sue for defamation...he'll probably be concerned with the accusations at that point.