Opinion ID: 2516086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: counsel as witnesses

Text: Next, we address the trial court's refusal to conduct a pretrial hearing to determine whether Prendergast and Oswald may be called as witnesses at trial. We begin our analysis by reciting the standards, set forth in Williams v. District Court, 700 P.2d 549 (Colo.1985), which guide trial courts' determinations about whether an attorney for one party may be called by an opposing attorney to testify at trial. We recognized, in Williams, that a preliminary showing is not ordinarily required to subpoena a witness to testify at trial. Id. at 554. Such is not the case, however, when the prosecution subpoenas the accused's attorney to give testimony adverse to his client in a pending criminal prosecution. Id. We expressed concern that a subpoena commanding opposing counsel to be a trial witness could be used as a tactic to force opposing counsel to withdraw. Id. at 554-55. Therefore, we held that a subpoena served upon an opponent's attorney can withstand a motion to quash only if the non-moving party demonstrates on the record that: (1) the opposing counsel's testimony will be adverse to her client; (2) the evidence sought will likely be admissible under the controlling rules of evidence; and (3) there is a compelling need for such evidence, which need cannot be satisfied by some other source. Id. at 555-56. We emphasized that the first requirement of adversity cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the moving party subpoenaed opposing counsel to testify at trial. The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating actual adversity. Id. at 555 n. 8. In a subsequent case, Taylor v. Grogan, 900 P.2d 60, 62 n. 5 (Colo.1995), we extended the Williams test to civil cases. Wesp argues that there is no precedent requiring a court to perform the Williams analysis before trial. On the other hand, the defendant argues that the reasoning of Williams requires the trial court always conduct a pretrial hearing. The defendant asserts that if the Williams analysis is not performed well before trial, then the subpoenaed attorney will be forced to withdraw from representation of her client irrespective of whether she will ultimately be required to testify under Williams. Such a result, defendant argues, is inconsistent with the concerns that spurred the development of the Williams factors in the first place. We reiterate the Williams court's concern that endorsing opposing counsel as a witness at trial could be a device for forcing a particular lawyer to terminate his representation of her client. Williams, 700 P.2d at 554. In at least some cases, this concern cannot be addressed unless the Williams analysis is performed well in advance of trial. There are times when application of the Williams test at trial, after the attorney has withdrawn, would work a marked injustice. Id. at 558 (stating that, when it was unclear that the attorney's testimony would be necessary under the third prong of the Williams test, to require [the attorney] to make himself available as a possible . . . witness for the prosecution would be tantamount to unnecessarily terminating the lawyer-client relationship . . . a result that offers no countervailing benefits to the administration of justice and could seriously disadvantage the petitioner). Therefore, in the typical case, absent exceptional circumstances, a trial court should apply the Williams test and render a decision about whether an attorney can be called as a witness pretrial. Following this procedure will, at least to some extent, frustrate the ability of one party to subpoena opposing counsel to testify as a trial tactic. In some cases, a trial court will be unable to render a pretrial decision about whether an attorney may be called to testify without conducting a pretrial hearing to determine whether a party satisfies her burden under Williams. Such is the case here. The facts of this case require the trial court to conduct a pretrial hearing to determine whether Wesp can satisfy her burden under Williams. Wesp's offer of proof describes the testimony to be elicited from Prendergast and Oswald in vague terms. It provides no explanation of how the anticipated testimony of the attorneys will be adverse to the interests of either of the Brewers' estates. Because it does not describe the testimony with any specificity, it also fails to demonstrate either that such testimony will be admissible or that it satisfies a compelling need that cannot be met from other sources. Thus, the documents submitted to us by the parties indicate that Wesp is merely speculating that Prendergast and Oswald have information which they may be called to testify about under Williams. Defense counsel should not be forced to withdraw on the basis of vague claims that they are material witnesses. See id. at 558 n. 10. We note that Wesp has described no special circumstances which would require application of the Williams test at trial. Therefore, we hold that a pretrial hearing must be conducted by the trial court to apply the Williams test and a pretrial decision must be reached about whether Prendergast and Oswald may be called to testify at trial.