Opinion ID: 1993805
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: mcguane is likely to be a necessary witness

Text: The general rule in rule 3.7 states that [a] lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.... Beller contends that the court erred in disqualifying McGuane because Mount Michael failed to establish that McGuane would be a necessary witness. Mount Michael, as the party moving to disqualify opposing counsel, bears the burden of establishing that McGuane's testimony will be necessary. [6] A court cannot order disqualification simply upon the moving party's representation that the lawyer it seeks to disqualify is a necessary witness; the key is the evidence showing that the lawyer is a necessary witness. [7] A party seeking to call opposing counsel can prove that counsel is a necessary witness by showing that (1) the proposed testimony is material and relevant to the determination of the issues being litigated and (2) the evidence is unobtainable elsewhere. [8] Here, Mount Michael has met both prongs. First, McGuane's proposed testimony is material and relevant to the issues being litigated. At issue are the defendants' alleged tortious acts and Beller's resulting emotional distress. Mount Michael has shown that not only was McGuane present for events that help form the basis of Beller's complaint, but he also had the opportunity to observe how the defendants' alleged actions affected Beller's emotional state. McGuane's testimony would be material and relevant for determining the claims alleged in Beller's complaint. Therefore, Mount Michael has met the first prong. Next, Mount Michael cannot obtain McGuane's proposed testimony elsewhere. McGuane witnessed relevant interactions between Beller and the defendants. He also observed Beller's emotional state during relevant periods. We recognize that he was not the only witness to these events: Beller's sons observed the altercation with Gregg; police officers were present at the school during Beller's disagreement with Ridder; and, according to McGuane, Beller's sons and everyone else near her has witnessed her emotional distress. Nevertheless, we determine that these other witnesses are unable to provide the same evidence McGuane could provide. Significant to our decision is McGuane's active participation in relevant altercations between the parties. During the argument between Beller and Gregg, McGuane asked Gregg to leave and later blocked Gregg's car so she could not leave the driveway to follow Beller. When Ridder refused Beller permission to see her son, McGuane involved himself by calling the police. These incidents are relevant to the claims in Beller's complaint. Because of McGuane's active participation and his apparent close personal relationship with Beller, McGuane had a unique perspective of the operational facts. Other witnesses cannot duplicate this perspective. Therefore, Mount Michael has met the second prong. Because Mount Michael has met both prongs of the above test, it has proved that McGuane is likely to be a necessary witness. Thus, the general rule in rule 3.7 provides that he should not act as Beller's advocate at trial.