Ming

te Order Form — (rev. 42/90)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Name of Assigned Judge} HOLDERMAN Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Than Assigned Judge
Case Number 01 CV 8945 Date April 11, 2003
Case : . .
Title George Garcia vs. City of Chicago, et al.

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd-party plaintiff,

MOTION: and (b) state briefly the nature of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) Filed motion of [use listing in "MOTION" box above]

(2) Brief in support of motion due

(3) Answer brief to motion due Reply to answer briel due

(4) Ruling on set for at

Hearing

(5) Status hearing [neta im continued to Cl set for Cl re-set for at

) peotriat cont. [_[nela_ [_Jeontinvedto [setter [_lee-settor at

(7) raat L]sertor [_Lee-sertor at

(8) im Bench Trial Cl Jury Trial Cl Hearing _ held and continued to at

(9) This case is dismissed without with prejudice and without costs [_]by agreement [_]pursuant to

[ence 44 daiture to serve) O General Rule 21 (want of prosecution) [Jace ara [__Jence «nara

(10) [Other docket entry]

Defendant City of Chicago’s Motion Regarding Defense Counsel as Trial
is denied.
admonished to review and comply with the Code of Professional Conduct of
this District particularly Local Rule 83.53.7 quoted on the back of this

Ddhoraer on tne reverse of

W.

fo}
(11)

itness (Dkt. No. 176

Tal

{For further detail seo

Paragraph II)

order attached to__ the original minute order form.]

All counsel are

De

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. Iu
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notitied counse! by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate Judge.

courtroom
deputy’s

oT

POD Loci sip

number of
notices

APR 1

date Document #

4 2003

docketed

| UM)

socketing
dpty. initials

APR 1 1 2003

date mailed
notice

230

Date/time received in
contral Clerk's Office

Initiats

Imailing
dpty. initials

YI



(Reserved for use by the Court)

ORDER

01 CV 8945

Code of Professional Conduct of the Northern District of

Illinois states in pertinent part:

LR83.53.7 Lawyer as Witness

(a) A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial or
evidentiary proceeding if the lawyer knows or reasonably should
know that the lawyer may be called as a witness therein on behalf
of the client, except that the lawyer may do so and may testify:

(1) if the testimony will relate to an uncontested matter;

(2) if the testimony will relate to a matter of formality and
the lawyer reasonably believes that no substantial evidence will be
offered in opposition to the testimony;

(3) if the testimony will relate to the nature and value of
legal services rendered in the case by the lawyer or the firm to
the client; or

(4) as to any other matter, if refusal to act as an advocate
would work a substantial hardship on the client.

(b) If a lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the
lawyer may be called as a witness other than on behalf of the
client, the lawyer may act as an advocate in a trial or evidentiary
proceeding unless the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that
the lawyer’s testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client.

(c) Except as prohibited by LR83.51.7 or LR83.51.9, a lawyer
may act as advocate in a trial or evidentiary proceeding in which
another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm may be called as a witness, and
nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit a lawyer barred
from acting as advocate in a trial or evidentiary proceedings from
handling other phases of the litigation.

2. US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 640.833