Truth Optional: When Lying Is Just “Zealous Advocacy”
- Sharisse Stephenson
- Dec 15
- 2 min read
In everyday life, the rules are simple.
If you say something that’s factually untrue — and you know it’s untrue — that’s a lie.
But in the courtroom?
Different rules apply.
The Language Game
I’ve been representing myself pro se against a powerful institution. In that process, opposing counsel filed statements that were, by any ordinary definition, false. Not debatable. Not opinion. Factually untrue and provably so.
Out in the real world, we’d call that what it is: lying.
But inside the legal system, you’re not supposed to use that word.
Judges and lawyers will quickly correct you:
“Counsel misstated the facts.”
“The claim lacks evidentiary support.”
“The argument is not well-grounded.”
Never: “That’s a lie.”
Even when everyone in the room knows it is.
Sanctions in Theory, Silence in Practice
On paper, the rules are clear.
Rule 11 exists.
Professional responsibility rules require candor toward the tribunal.
Knowingly false filings are supposed to have consequences.
In practice?
Sanctions almost never happen.
Judges rarely pull the trigger. They’d rather:
move the case along,
keep things “on the merits,”
and avoid turning proceedings into a sanctions fight.
Efficiency wins. Accountability loses.
What That Really Means
It means truth is negotiable.
It means falsehoods can be rebranded as “zealous advocacy.”
It means institutions can spend millions pushing narratives they know aren’t true — with little risk that anyone will call it out plainly.
And it means this:
If you’re pro se,
if you’re disabled,
if you’re standing up to a corporation or state agency,
you’re expected to follow every rule of decorum and precision — while the other side plays truth optional.
The Double Standard
Out here in life, we know exactly what a lie is.
But in court, it becomes:
a “misstatement,”
a “lack of support,”
an “aggressive interpretation.”
Language softens accountability. Power insulates consequences.
And those without money, firms, or institutional backing are left trying to defend reality itself.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just legal semantics.
It’s about who the system protects and who it exhausts.
When falsehoods face no consequences, the process itself becomes another tool of retaliation — one more way to wear down the injured while shielding the powerful.
Truth shouldn’t depend on who’s paying the hourly rate.
And justice shouldn’t require pretending we don’t know what a lie looks like.
Comments