What are the repercussions for the plaintiff in a lawsuit who lies in their complaint? What relief is there for the defendant?

By Catherine Beale

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires all lawyers to take basic steps to confirm that their client actually has a real lawsuit -- i.e., that they did not make the whole thing up.

If a plaintiff lies, the defendant has options. 

Often, this points to Rule 11.  Defendant writes a letter to plaintiff, explains that the complaint violates Rule 11 (for "frivolous litigation"), and threatens to file a motion with the court if the plaintiff doesn't do something about it, which is usually (a) withdraw the complaint or (b) remove the defendant's name from the caption or revise to defendant's satisfaction.

If the plaintiff's lawyer is sufficiently nervous, the required corrections are made.  There is a 21-day "safe harbor" period for the lawyer to think about it and investigate the charge.  But if the corrections are not made, the defendant files the Rule 11 motion and the judge evaluates the case, then decides on what if any sanctions will be issued.

Being accused of "frivolous litigation" -- the kind that wastes time over nothing -- is very serious.   Blogger Bruce Nye, author of California's Remedy For Frivolous Litigation, talks an interesting blue streak about Rule 11.

There are other ways to handle this situation.  State sanctions for instance -- one option.  Another is a motion to strike, where the judge actually allows the movant to remove the objectionable language himself under  Rule 24(a).

Earlier this month, superlawyer/Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz filed a Motion for Limited Intervention with the Florida federal court. 

Prof. Dershowitz says the attorneys on the case failed in their duty to conduct due diligence before they filed their lawsuit, which accuses him btw along with Prince Andrew of carnal rendezvouses involving ex-con/billionaire/sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's harem of underage girls including the used-to-be-underage plaintiff Jane Doe.  Dershowitz says that Miss Doe's legal team

proffers various salacious allegations as quotable tabloid fodder. Specifically naming Prof. Dershowitz, and identifying him as Mr. Epstein’s counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel allege that Jane Doe #3 was “required” to have sexual relations with Prof. Dershowitz “on numerous occasions while she was a minor,” and, in addition, that Prof. Dershowitz was “an eyewitness to the sexual abuse of many other minors.”

When this story originally broke, the Royal Palace was reportedly aghast but responded with its usual reserve.  Prof. Dershowitz on the other hand got on CNN and declared:

"The real villains are the lawyers, Paul Cassell, a former federal judge, and Brad Epstein, who filed this without doing any checking.  If they had just checked the manifest, if they had just checked with me, if they had just checked with the witnesses, they would know not to fire this stinkball in court."

CNN's interview:  Alan Dershowitz denies underage sex - CNN Video

Prof. Dershowitz insists he has "never met" the woman who filed the lawsuit, whom he called a "prostitute" with no credibility.  Of the lawyers who threw his name into the complaint, he said, "I am seeking their disbarment."

So...

What are the repercussions for a plaintiff who lies in a complaint?

What relief is there for the defendant?

That's the repercussions for a plaintiff who lies in a complaint and the relief for the defendant -- if that defendant is Alan Dershowitz.