Aboutwhy sjkplawyerspracticesInsightsCase StudyNewsLocations
Civil Litigation

Fraud Upon the Court

You believe the other side won a judgment by fabricating a document or arranging false testimony, and you want the court to undo it. Fraud upon the court is the term people reach for, but courts reserve it for a narrow and serious kind of misconduct.

Reviewed

01 GUIDE

Fraud Upon the Court: what usually happens

What courts treat as fraud on the court

Courts use the term for misconduct aimed at the judicial process itself, such as fabricated evidence, bribery, or an officer of the court taking part in a deception. Ordinary perjury by a witness, or a party hiding a fact, is often treated as regular fraud; in federal court that carries a firmer deadline, while New York asks that the motion come within a reasonable time. In federal court, fraud on the court can support reopening a judgment without the usual deadline, which is one reason the standard is strict. New York courts have also recognized the power to impose serious sanctions, including dismissal, when a party knowingly tries to corrupt the fact-finding process, and they expect clear and convincing proof. The distinction between these categories often decides whether a request can be heard at all.

Assembling the proof

A motion based on fraud upon the court needs evidence, not suspicion. Gather the document or testimony you believe was false, along with the material that shows it was false, such as metadata, original records, or testimony from other sources. Identify when you discovered the problem, because timing matters even where the deadline is flexible. Avoid accusing opposing counsel or a witness in public or in emails, since unsupported accusations can damage your credibility with the court. Technical analysis of documents, such as forensic review of signatures or files, may be needed and should be arranged through counsel.

Choosing the right motion

In a first conversation we review the judgment, the record, and the new evidence you have. We look at whether the conduct fits fraud on the court or a more ordinary basis for relief, and which one is still available given the timing. We also consider whether a narrower remedy, such as a sanctions motion or a request to reopen discovery, would better fit the facts. If the misconduct may also be criminal, we discuss whether and how that should be raised. A well-chosen request is more likely to get a serious hearing than a broad accusation.

02 ATTORNEYS

Who you would be working with

Attorneys at our New York and Washington, D.C. offices handle matters like this one.

05 HOW WE WORK

Client-centered service across jurisdictions

Global Coordination & Expertise

We deliver coordinated and effective legal services to our clients, utilizing our extensive legal resources and experienced attorneys in our well-integrated global network. Through our Washington D.C. and New York offices, together with our alliance

Multilingual & Cross-Border Communication

Our attorneys are experienced in both domestic and international matters and, with fluency in various languages, provide clear and consistent communication at every stage of your legal process.

Client-Centered Approach

Client service lies at the heart of our operations. From the initial consultation, we prioritize understanding your situation, listening to your goals, and providing regular updates and strategies tailored to your individual case.

Multidisciplinary & Efficient Solutions

Our multidisciplinary approach and established processes enable us to address cross-border challenges with efficiency.

06 OFFICES

Where we meet clients

Consultations are available in person or remotely.

New York

285 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10007
(855) 529-7557

Washington, D.C.

Suite 985, 1717 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
(855) 529-7557

Los Angeles

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 820, Los Angeles, CA 90067
(424) 561-7557

Attorney Advertising. This page is general information about fraud upon the court and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes depend on the facts of each matter, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laws differ by state and change over time.