Parties to a lawsuit (usually with the assistance of their attorneys) are under a duty to answer everythingtruthfully, but that doesn’t mean that it’s always easy to get a “straight” answer out of someone.
This is one of those areas that distinguishes attorneys — recognizing the difference between a party giving an affirmative yes or no answer, and half-measures such as “I think” or “I believe that is correct.” A good attorney will not accept half-measures for answers and make further (hopefully many) inquiries to get to the truth.
While this might seem like something trivial, half-measures and “couched” answers can actually chip away at even the best of cases. One way to avoid these problems and “keep everyone honest,” so to speak, is Supreme Court Rule 201(k). This rule allows an attorney that notices an incomplete or evasive answer to confront the other attorney and seek clarification to any lingering questions. If this fails, then a party may bring a motion before the Judge and let the Court decide if the question was adequately answered. The reasoning behind this rule is that everything in even the simplest cases can be won or lost in the smallest of details.
You can contact us here 24/7/365 (and we really mean that as we will answer our phone) if you have any questions and to learn how we may be able to help you analyze your particular situation–and help to ensure you are getting truthful answers. Most importantly, you will find that we listen, take your phone calls and e-mails (and even text messages!). We would be honored to help you with your matters – large or small.
Berenz Law Network
Latest posts by Berenz Law Network (see all)
- After the Crash, Write It Down: Why an Injury Diary Helps - April 9, 2026
