Opinion ID: 1058794
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Calling Opposing Counsel as a Witness

Text: Barrett argues that the Bar did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he violated Rules 3.1 and 3.4(j) when he called opposing counsel, Martin Davis, as a witness in the divorce proceeding. These two Rules prohibit an attorney from asserting a position that is frivolous and from taking action designed merely to harass or maliciously injure another, respectively. Barrett maintains that he called Davis as a witness because he had a reasonable belief that Davis had a romantic relationship with Jill, Barrett's former wife, and therefore Davis' testimony regarding child rearing would be relevant to the custody issues in the proceeding. Prior to the hearing, Barrett sent a letter to Davis describing Barrett's perception of a romantic relationship. Davis did not respond to the letter. At trial, Barrett called Davis as a witness stating that he believed Davis had knowledge as to this matter that is outside of his attorney-client relationship. In response, Davis objected referring to rules that state an attorney cannot continue representation of a client if he is going to be a witness in an adversarial proceeding and claiming that he had no knowledge of matters at issue other than those acquired in the course of his representation of Jill, which were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Barrett then revealed his suspicion of a romantic relationship and stated that if Davis would state on the record that there was no romantic relationship, I have no reason to talk to him. Davis denied the existence of such a relationship, and Barrett ended his attempt to call Davis as a witness. The record shows that Barrett's reasonable belief of a romantic relationship was based on statements made by his current wife who was his girlfriend at the time of the divorce proceeding. She testified that she considered the interaction between Jill and Davis, which she observed during the divorce proceedings, as romantic flirtation. Barrett stated that he had concluded the same thing. Davis testified at the disciplinary proceeding that he and Jill had eaten dinner together once during the divorce proceeding. The tenuous nature of Barrett's suspicions is reflected in Barrett's agreement to drop his request upon Davis' statement denying such a relationship. Barrett made no attempt to challenge Davis' statement nor to disclose to any information that would contradict the denial. The lack of any investigation into the relationship at issue prior to or further inquiry at trial reinforces the notion that Barrett had no purpose other than engaging in a frivolous act or harassing Davis. Furthermore, Davis' dinner with Jill was not proof of a romantic relationship, nor was it shown to have been a factor upon which Barrett relied when he called Davis as a witness. [6] At trial, the Bar emphasized the extraordinary and disruptive measure of calling an adverse counsel to testify in the middle of a hearing. Under such circumstances counsel generally must cease representation of the client and the client must secure new counsel. See Rule 3:7. Furthermore, the basis of Barrett's actions in this case  an alleged romantic relationship between Davis and his client  impugned the personal and professional reputation of the attorney. Rule 1.7, Comment 11 (A lawyer's romantic or other intimate personal relationship can also adversely affect representation of a client.). Calling Davis as a witness under these circumstances qualified as action taken to harass or injure another. Accordingly, we conclude that the three-judge court did not err in finding that these actions violated Rules 3.1 and 3.4(j).