ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------IV

LEGAL ARGUMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ACCORDING TO R.P.C 3.7(A)(3) BECAUSE OF

THE SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP CREATED BY THE WRONGFUL ACTS

OF DEFENDANTS AND BECAUSE DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM

THEIR WRONG DOING. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

Defendants should not benefit from their wrong doing........................................................... 3

MOVANT CANNOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF NECESSARY TO DISQUALIFY

RADU AS THE ATTORNEY FOR HIS OWNED AND OPERATED COMPANY. ------------4

Defendants didn’t meet the burden to show that the attorney is a necessary witness........... 10

THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE RADU AS A PRO SE ATTORNEY

REPRESENTING HIS OWN COMPANY IS EXCEPTED FROM ATTORNEY-WITNESS

DISQUALIFICATION RULE.------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

A PRO SE ATTORNEY IS EXCEPTED FROM THE ATTORNEY-WITNESS RULE ( R.P.C 3.7) AND CAN BE 

BOTH AND ADVOCATE AND WITNESS.------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

A PRO SE ATTORNEY CAN ADVOCATE AND TESTIFY FOR HIMSELF AND ANOTHER CLOSELY 

RELATED PARTY.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15

Radu has the right to represent himself in Federal Courts..................................................... 16

Radu will not testiffy as an attorney for Synclabs because he has the right testify as a pro se 

litigant not as an attorney....................................................................................................... 17

This motion cannot serve the stated purpose to eliminate the attorney-witness situation this 

motion would only deny the day in court for the Plaintiff COMPANY. ............................. 17

A lawyer has the right to make the proper decision in representing clients.......................... 18

An attorney witness should not be disqualified from pre trial proceedings.......................... 19

THE FEDERAL BENCH CAN DISTINGUISH THE DUAL ROLE PLAYED BY AN ADVOCATE-WITNESS 

WICH ELIMINATES THE REASON AND THE NEED TO DISQUALIFY THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS.------ 20

The motion to disqualify counsel is disfavored due to the devastating consequences for 

oponent and strategical advantage for proponent. ................................................................. 20

If the court would find for Defednant sufficient time should be provided before disqualifying 

the Plaintiff COMPANY. ...................................................................................................... 22

Case 2:11-cv-03671-WHW-MCA Document 32 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 381
iii

CASES

Bailey!v.!Gibbons, 2011!WL!4056202!(D.N.J.!Sep!12,!2011)BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 21

BSW!Development!Group!v.!!City!of Dayton,!1995!WL!1671908,!(S.D.Ohio,!September!13,!1995!)BBBBBBBBBBBBBB 16

Carlyle!Towers!Condo.!Ass'n!v.!Crossland!Sav.,!944!F.Supp.!341 (D.N.J.,!1996). BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB v,20

Electronic!Laboratory!Supply!Co.,!Inc.!v.!Motorola,!Inc., 1990!WL!96202 (E.D.Pa.,!July!03,!1990!).BBBBBBBBBBBBBB 19

Garza!v.!McKelvey, 1991!U.S.!Dist.!LEXIS!311 (D.N.J.!Jan.!2,!1991)BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 8

In!re!Cendant!Corp.!Securities!Litigation,!124!F.Supp.2d!235!(D.N.J., 2000)BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 4

In!re!Estate!of!Walsh ,840!N.Y.S.2d!906!(N.Y.Sur.,2007) BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB10,!16

Laboratory!Supply!Co.,!Inc.!v.!Motorola,!Inc., 1990!WL!96202!(E.D.Pa.,!July!03,!1990)BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 14

Main!Events!Prods.,!LLC!v.!Lacy, 220!F.Supp.2d!353!(D.N.J.,!2002). BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 12,19!

Oswell!v.!Morgan!Stanley!Dean!Witter &!Co.,!Inc., 2007!WL!2446529 (D.N.J.,2007) BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 21

Wellington!Place!Condominium!Ass'n!v.!Carty,!2011!WL!2566105!(N.J.Super.A.D.,!2011). BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 1

STATUTES

28!U.S.C.!§!1654BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 9,!16

ADVISORY!OPINIONS

Advisory!Comm.!On!Prof'l!Ethics!Op. 243,"95!N.J.L.J."1145!(1972),BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 18

Advisory!Comm. On!Prof'l!Ethics!Op.!343,!99!N.J.L.J.!665!(1976) BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB8,!10,!15

Advisory!Comm.!On!Prof'l!Ethics!Op.!353,!99!N.J.L.J."862 (1976)BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 12

Advisory!Comm.!On!Prof'l!Ethics!Op. 527,"113!N.J.L.J."384"(1984) BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 18

Advisory!Comm. On!Prof'l!Ethics!Op. 617,!122!N.J.L.J."1226 (1988) BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 13

REGULATIONS

R.P.C.!1.7 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB passim

R.P.C.!1.8 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB passim

R.P.C.!3.7 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB passim

Case 2:11-cv-03671-WHW-MCA Document 32 Filed 05/03/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 382