Opinion ID: 704006
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Lawyer as Witness

Text: 187 The district court also recognized a second conflict of interest, Andrews's advocate/witness conflict. The district court and the majority treat this conflict separately from the media rights conflict. In a situation where a lawyer can provide favorable testimony material to his client's case, his failure to withdraw and testify may or may not stem from an actual conflict--i.e., from a divergence of interests between the lawyer and his client. If the failure to withdraw is caused, for example, by a desire to stay in the case for the fee involved, a conflict of interest may exist. As one commentator has suggested, when a lawyer has a duty to withdraw and testify in favor of his client, but does not do so, [s]uch a decision would raise serious questions about either the lawyer's competence or about the effect of a conflict of interest. Wolfram, supra, Sec. 7.5.2, at 381 (emphasis added). According to this commentator: 188 The conflict is between the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the client, which urges the lawyer to give the needed testimony, and the lawyer's economic instincts, which may lead the lawyer to remain in the case as advocate in order to continue earning a fee that otherwise would have to be abandoned. 189 Id. (emphasis added). In my view, while Andrews's role as both an advocate and a potential witness may well have violated the applicable ethical rules, 7 its significance for this case lies not in its possible status as an independent conflict, but rather in its relationship to the media rights conflict. That is, as the district court recognized but did not explicitly resolve, the question remaining in this case is whether the media rights contract is what caused Andrews to remain in the case as counsel. 8 190