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
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.