Lawyers As Witnesses: Case Law Complexities

Lawyers acting as witnesses in cases they are also involved in as advocates is a complex issue with ethical considerations. In the US, Rule 3.7 prohibits lawyers from acting as both advocate and witness in a trial, except in specific circumstances. These include when testimony concerns the extent and value of legal services rendered, to avoid the need for a second trial. However, the dual role may give rise to a conflict of interest, and the lawyer must obtain the client's informed consent in writing. Case law in California, such as People v. Donaldson, highlights the concern that a lawyer acting as both witness and advocate may become more easily impeachable and less effective. Nevertheless, the lawyer's credibility as a witness may positively impact the client's case, and vice versa. Ultimately, lawyers must carefully consider the potential benefits and downsides of serving as both advocate and witness and make informed decisions in the best interests of their clients.

Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest arises when a lawyer's personal interests or conduct impairs their ability to represent their client effectively and provide detached advice. This can occur when a lawyer's testimony conflicts with that of their client, or when they are required to cross-examine a current client who appears as a witness in a lawsuit involving another client. In such cases, the lawyer's duty of loyalty to both the witness and litigation clients may be compromised, and they may breach their duty of confidentiality.

The "lawyer as a witness" conflict is recognised under Rule 19-303.7, which provides that a lawyer shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which they are likely to be a necessary witness unless the testimony relates to an uncontested issue, the nature and value of legal services rendered, or disqualification would work a substantial hardship on the client. This combination of roles can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party, and it may not be clear whether a statement by the lawyer should be taken as proof or analysis.

The "personal interests" conflict is closely related and arises when a lawyer's representation of a client is materially limited by their own personal interests or conduct. For example, a lawyer may not allow related business interests to affect their representation by referring clients to an enterprise in which they have a financial interest.

In some cases, a lawyer may be permitted to act as both advocate and witness with the informed consent of the client, confirmed in writing. However, if there is a significant risk of material limitation due to a conflict of interest, the lawyer must refuse one of the representations or withdraw from one or both matters.

Conflicts of interest can also arise when a lawyer represents more than one defendant in a capital case, or when a lawyer from a firm represents a client while another lawyer from the same firm acts as a witness. In such cases, it may be difficult to establish the independence of the lawyers or firms involved.

Advocate-witness rule

The advocate-witness rule, also known as Rule 3.7, prohibits a lawyer from simultaneously serving as an advocate and a necessary witness in a trial, except in specific circumstances outlined in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3). Combining these roles can prejudice the tribunal and opposing party and create a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.

Paragraph (a) of Rule 3.7 sets out the conditions under which a lawyer may act as an advocate and witness simultaneously:

• The testimony relates to an uncontested issue;
• The testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case;
• Disqualification of the lawyer would cause substantial hardship to the client.

Paragraph (b) of Rule 3.7 further clarifies that a lawyer may act as an advocate in a trial where another lawyer from the same firm is likely to be called as a witness, unless there is a conflict of interest as per Rules 1.7 and 1.9.

When determining if a conflict of interest exists, the lawyer involved bears the primary responsibility. If a conflict arises, the lawyer must obtain the client's informed consent in writing. However, in certain cases, the lawyer may be precluded from seeking the client's consent.

The advocate-witness rule aims to protect the tribunal and opposing party from potential confusion, misleading information, and prejudice that may arise when a lawyer serves as both advocate and witness.

Lawyer's dual role

Lawyers who act as witnesses for their clients in a case where they also serve as counsel must consider complex ethical issues. The dual role of a lawyer as both an advocate and a witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party, as well as create a conflict of interest between the lawyer and the client.

Rule 3.7 prohibits a lawyer from simultaneously serving as an advocate and a necessary witness in a trial, except in specific circumstances outlined in paragraphs (a)(1) to (a)(3). These exceptions include when the testimony relates to an uncontested issue, the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case, or when the lawyer's disqualification would cause substantial hardship to the client.

In California, case law has provided explanations for the purpose of the advocate-witness rule. In People v. Donaldson, the court stated that if a lawyer acts as both counsel and witness, they become more easily impeachable and may be a less effective witness. This highlights the potential conflict between the lawyer's role as an advocate and their duty to provide impartial advice to the client.

To address this, lawyers should explain all potential scenarios, including the downsides, to obtain the client's informed consent, preferably in writing. Additionally, involving another lawyer in the decision-making process can help ensure impartiality and effective representation.

While Rule 3.7's prohibition primarily applies to trials, some courts have interpreted "trials" broadly to include pre-trial evidentiary hearings and activities. This interpretation aims to prevent situations where the lawyer's dual role could be revealed to the jury, potentially impacting their perception.

Lawyer as both counsel and witness

Lawyers may be competent witnesses, but the combination of the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party. It can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client. The tribunal has a proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has a proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party's rights in the litigation.

A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof. If a lawyer is both counsel and witness, they become more easily impeachable for interest and thus may be a less effective witness. The lawyer may also be rendered less effective as a result of an apparent interest in the outcome of the trial.

In some cases, a lawyer may be permitted to simultaneously serve as an advocate and a witness. For example, if the testimony relates to an uncontested issue, or the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case. In such a situation, the judge has firsthand knowledge of the matter in issue, and there is less dependence on the adversary process to test the credibility of the testimony. However, determining whether or not a conflict of interest exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.

In conclusion, while it is possible for a lawyer to serve as both counsel and witness, there are important ethical considerations to take into account, and the potential for prejudice or conflict of interest means that it is generally not advisable.

Lawyer's testimony

Lawyers' Testimony

Lawyers can be witnesses in a case, but there are several considerations and rules that must be followed to avoid conflicts of interest and prejudice to the tribunal and opposing party. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.7, outlines the circumstances under which a lawyer may serve as a witness.

Firstly, a lawyer should not act as an advocate at a trial where they are also a necessary witness unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include when the testimony is uncontested, relates to the nature and value of legal services provided in the case, or if the lawyer's disqualification would cause substantial hardship to the client. In other words, if the lawyer's testimony is unlikely to be disputed or contradicted by other witnesses, or if their removal from the case would cause significant difficulty for their client, they may be permitted to testify.

Secondly, combining the roles of advocate and witness can create a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client and prejudice the tribunal and opposing party. This is because a witness is expected to provide factual testimony based on personal knowledge, while an advocate's role is to analyse and comment on evidence. The dual role may confuse the trier of fact and make it challenging to assess the credibility of the lawyer's statements. Therefore, a lawyer is generally prohibited from simultaneously serving as an advocate and necessary witness to protect the integrity of the tribunal.

However, there are exceptions. Paragraph (b) of Rule 3.7 permits a lawyer to act as an advocate when another lawyer from the same firm will testify as a necessary witness, as long as there is no conflict of interest. Additionally, if the lawyer's testimony concerns the extent and value of the legal services provided in the case, they may be allowed to testify to avoid the need for a second trial with new counsel.

In conclusion, while lawyers can be witnesses in certain circumstances, it is essential to carefully consider the potential for conflicts of interest, prejudice to the tribunal and opposing party, and the impact on the lawyer's client. The decision to allow a lawyer to testify should be made on a case-by-case basis, balancing the interests of all involved parties.

Frequently asked questions