Client Perjury
Author | David Layton; Michel Proulx |
Pages | 329-373 |
329
CHAPTER 7
CLIENT PERJURY
A. INTRODUCTION
What should a defence lawyer do on learning that a client intends to
give false testimony or has already lied on the stand? The proper re-
sponse to anticipated or completed client perjury is a hotly debated
issue in crim inal law ethics. Almost every commentator who address es
the ethical aspects of criminal law practice devotes special attention to
the thorny problem of client perjury. The topic has become a paradig-
matic scenario for examining defence counsel’s sometimes conflicting
duties, on the one hand of loyalty to the client and on the other to
maintain the integrity of the truth-seeking function of the criminal
justice system. The impact of the perjury issue on broader questions of
ethics has been substantial, as have been the repercussions for those
who take challenging positions. In the United States, a provocative
conference address on the topic by Professor Monroe Freedman in 1966
led several appellate court judges, including soon-to-be-Chief-Justice-of-
the-Supreme-Court Warren Burger, to seek Freedman’s disbarment and
academic dismissal.1 Freedman’s controversial writings on client per-
jury constituted an import ant impetus for the American Bar Association
1 The judges’ attempt was fort unately unsuccessfu l: see Monroe Freedman, “Get-
ting Honest about Cl ient Perjury” (2008) 21 Geo J Leg Ethics 133 at 133–34 and
136–39.
ETHICS AND CRIMINAL LAW330
to launch a reconsideration of its model code and eventually, in 1983, to
adopt the replacement model rules.2
The client-perjury problem can often be seen as a particular in-
stance of defence counsel’s difficulty in representing the client who is
irresistibly known to be guilty.3 This is because the perjury issue will
frequently arise where the client admits guilt but nonetheless insists
on testifyi ng falsely at trial in the hope of securing an acquittal. Yet the
spectre of client perjury can loom even where counsel is in no position
to conclude that the client is guilty. The client may contend that false
testimony is crucial to bolster an otherwise valid defence.4 The issue of
client perjury is also discrete because it implicates the accused’s consti-
tutional right to testify on his own behalf. Ultimately, the unique and
labyrinthine range of possible responses to anticipated or completed
client perjury warrants an in-depth examination of the topic.
B. COMPETING PRINCIPLES
The principles bearing on the resolution of any client-perjury problem
are by now largely familiar. Defence counsel owes the client a duty of
loyalty, which includes obligations to keep secret all confidential infor-
mation and to act as a competent and resolute advocate for the client’s
cause. A lawyer faced with anticipated or completed client perjury
quickly recognizes the pull of the duty of loyalty. A response that ex-
plicitly or implicitly reveals the planned or already executed falsehood
by definition serves to expose client secrets and, in many instances, to
undermine the client’s defence. Loyalty militates against rushing into
action that will harm the client.
There are also closely associated constitutional principles that pre-
vent counsel from improperly interfering with the client’s defence. If
defence counsel acts unreasonably to cause unfairness at the trial or
compromise the reliability of the verdict, the right to the effective as-
sistance of counsel is in fringed.5 The unjustified release of information
2 See John M Burkoff, Criminal De fense Ethics 2d: Law and Liability, 2008 –9 ed (St
Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters/ West, 2008) at § 5:16 [199–200].
3 See Chapter 1.
4 See, for example, Nixv Whiteside, 475 US 157 (1986) [Nix], in which the ac cused
told counsel th at he believed the victim had b een carrying a g un and insisted
that he had ki lled in self-defence. The accused w anted to help along this de-
fence by falsely t estifying th at he had seen a flash of metal in the v ictim’s hand.
5 See Chapter 3, Section K(1). For instance, inadeq uate advice regarding the r ight
Client Perjury331
received from the client by counsel may also violate the client’s consti-
tutional right to the protection of solicitor-client privilege, and perhaps
too the principle against self-incr imination.6 Furthermore, coun sel must
be cognizant of the client’s constitutional rights to control the conduct
of the defence,7 to call evidence in defending against the charge,8 and
in particular to testify in his own defence.9 In sum, interventions that
keep the client from the stand or otherwise impede his free choice
to testify risk undermining fundamental principles of justice to the
client’s severe detriment and attracting censure from the courts.
The power of these constitutional principles i s undeniable, shaping
every client-lawyer relationship and counsel’s attendant ethical obliga-
tions. Yet a lawyer’s allegiance to the client’s cause i s not without limits,
and the same can be sa id for an accused’s constitutional right s. A central
objective of the adversarial cr iminal justice system is the se arch for truth.
Granted, the principle against self-incrimination serves to temper the
system’s truth-finding function. But this principle operates to require
only that the Crown prove its case without any compulsion of the ac-
cused and does not encompass the r ight to fabricate evidence in a crim-
inal proceeding. It is also questionable whether the right of an accused
to testify includes a licence to knowingly present false testimony.10
This is not to say that a court would refuse to allow an accused
to testify on the basis that her proposed testimony was false. It is the
lawyer’s knowing involvement in ass isting the client to commit perjury
that is unacceptable. Doing so almost certainly makes counsel a party
to the criminal offences of perjury and attempting to obst ruct justice,11
and represents unacceptable complicity in an attempt to subvert the
truth-finding process. The prohibition against counsel knowingly mis-
leading the court represents a justifiable limit on the duty of loyalty to
the client12 and concomitantly imposes restrictions on those constitu-
tional rights that relate to the client’s legal representation, such as the
(Sask CA) [Moore].
6 See Chapter 4, Sect ion F.
7 See Rv Swain (1991), 63 CCC (3d) 481 at 505–7 [paras 33–36] (SCC) [Swain].
8 See Rv Se aboyer (1991), 66 CCC (3d) 321 at 389 [para 34] (SCC); Rv Murphy,
9 See Rv Br igham (1992), 79 CCC (3d) 365 at 380–83 and 390 –91 (Que CA)
[Brigham]; Rv Smith (1997), 120 CCC (3d) 500 at paras 14–15 and 26 (Ont CA);
Rv Dunbar, 2003 BCCA 667 at para 126, leave to app eal to SCC refused, [2004]
SCCA No 30; Qiu, above note 5 at par a 15.
10See Se ction F(4)(b), below in th is chapter.
11Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s s 131 and 139 respect ively.
12See Chapter 1, Sect ion E.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
