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: 
Caveat: I am not a lawyer. It seems to me that the attorney using the phrase, "We have no reason to believe that the allegations presented here are true," is not only saying that the allegations are not true, but that all the evidence supporting the allegations are not true. Of course one has to allow for the possibility that the attorney using the phrase "no reason to believe," may have been doing so more as a hackneyed phrase, trying to give his position emphasis, rather than as part of a statement of logic in which reasons [i.e., evidence] support conclusions [i.e., allegations]. JMHO
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.