Question: I've searched online for this, to no avail. In a dispute where attorneys are involved on one or both sides, what is an attorney signalling, in terms of legal strategy (i.e. beyond the literal meaning of "unsubstantiated"), in using the phrase "no reason to believe", particularly in the face of overwhelming substantiating evidence, as in the following example:

> 
> "We have no reason to believe that the allegations presented here are true."
> 
> 
>

Answer: 
That phrase does not signal anything strategic beyond the obvious: an intent to dispute the allegations.

Although the existence of the suggests that there is probably *some* reason to believe the allegations, the phrase is being used nearly literally.
If you use the phrase "I have no reason to believe ..." In the face of *any* evidence that should give you a reason to believe this is known in law, as in general life, as a "lie".

However, what is compelling evidence to you may not be compelling to someone else with whom you have a dispute (or indeed, an arbitrator). Never overlook the possibility that you could be dead wrong.

Of course, the specific quote given, *may* be a concession that *some* of the allegations are true: just not *all* of them.