Unclean hands

A legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants and must be proved by the defendant.

A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.

Unclean hands defense under California law

California has long recognized the maxim that “No one can take advantage of his own wrong.” (Civ. Code. § 3517.) Put another way, “[h]e who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” (See Wilson v. S.L. Rey, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal. App.4th 234, 244; Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal. App.4th 970, 978.)

The underpinnings of the doctrine/defense of unclean hands was explained in Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd v. Superior Court, supra, at p9. 978-79: The unclean hands doctrine protests judicial integrity and promotes justice. It protects judicial integrity because allowing a plaintiff with unclean hands to recover in an action creates doubts as to the justice provided by the judicial system. Thus, precluding recovery to the unclean plaintiff protects the courts, rather than the opposing parties’ interest. [Citation omitted.] The doctrine promotes justice by making a plaintiff answer for its own misconduct in the action. It prevents “a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression.” [Citation omitted.] [At p.p. 978-970.]

Example: Hank Hardnose sues Grace Goodenough for breach of contract for failure to pay the full amount for construction of an addition to her house which she admits. The court denies any relief to Hardnose when Goodenough proves that Hardnose had shown her faked estimates from subcontractors to justify his original bid to Goodenough.