Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01333/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01333-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT McADAM,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-1333-BTM-MDD

ORDER

v.

STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1

through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Federal courts have authority to address attorney conduct in litigation,

and to that end may look, e.g., to the standards of professional conduct in

the state where the court sits. See, e.g., In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 645 n.

6 (1985); United States v. Seltzer, 227 F.3d 36, 40–42 (2d Cir. 2000);

Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12-cv-6608, 2014 WL

2968528 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2014 (slip op.). In California, Rule of

Professional Conduct 5-210 governs the obligations of a member of the bar

who knows or should know they will be called as a witness before a jury: 

A member shall not act as an advocate before a jury which will

hear testimony from the member unless:

(A) The testimony relates to an uncontested matter; or

(B) The testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services

rendered in the case; or

(C) The member has the informed, written consent of the client. If

the member represents the People or a governmental entity, the

consent shall be obtained from the head of the office or a

designee of the head of the office by which the member is

employed and shall be consistent with principles of recusal.

1 12-cv-1333 BTM-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-01333-BTM-MDD Document 127 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 5-210 (2014). See also id. R. 1-100(A)

(“Ethics opinions and rules and standards promulgated by other jurisdictions

and bar associations may also be considered.”); Kennedy v. Eldridge, 201

Cal. App. 4th 1197, 1204 (2011) (applying the broader Model Rule 3.7 of the

Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association). 

Here, Annette Clark, Plaintiff’s counsel, has been named as a trial

witness by Defendant. The Court accordingly ORDERS Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s

counsel to file, within thirty days of the entry of this Order, a brief

explanation of how Ms. Clark may testify and act as trial counsel consistent

with Rule 5-210. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 22, 2014 ____________________________

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 12-cv-1333 BTM-MDD

Case 3:12-cv-01333-BTM-MDD Document 127 Filed 07/22/14 Page 2 of 2