Prominent litigation lawyer David Greene has told a tribunal he did not lie on oath when describing his recent contacts with a former client.

Former Law Society president Greene denied being dishonest in a witness statement put before a county court in 2012, in which he stated he had ‘not been in contact with him for some time’. The client in question was David Davies, who has brought his own disciplinary proceedings against Greene which are being heard by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal this week.

Greene, senior partner at London firm Edwin Coe, was asked whether it was correct that he had emailed Davies and wrote letters on his behalf during the period in which he claimed the two had not been in contact.

Greene said the statement put before the court referred to ‘substantive’ contact relating specifically to a damages claim pursued by Davies, and that his assertion had been a ‘reflection of the broad truth’.

Giving evidence in cross-examination, Greene said: ‘I don’t lie to the courts, I have no reason to lie. I am an officer of the court. [The statement] is not a lie, it is a reflection of my belief at the time and my understanding is that nothing substantive was happening in relation to the damages claim in that period.’

The dispute between Edwin Coe and Davies was in relation to £7,000 in unpaid fees, the tribunal heard. District Judge Stewart ruled in Edwin Coe’s favour and, in 2016, the same judge rejected Davies’ application to set aside the earlier judgment based on the allegation that Greene misled the court.

Ben Hubble KC, representing Greene, said the claims that his client intended to mislead the court were ‘completely fanciful’ and ‘at all times [he] was giving evidence to the best of his recollection’.

Davies, who also gave evidence to the tribunal, said it was ‘implausible if not impossible’ that Greene could not have known about the contact they had during the relevant period.

Davies added: ‘It baffles me why a prominent solicitor would lie under oath for a sum of that nature. It baffles me he would go to this trouble and do this but he did so with supreme confidence – he believed that regardless of how implausible and ridiculous his comments were, the judge would rule in his favour.’

The prosecution is unusual in that it has been brought by an individual rather than by the SRA. The case was previously struck out by the SDT in 2019 but that decision was overturned by the High Court and a full hearing ordered.

The hearing continues.