United States District Court
Northern District Of Illinois
Local Rules
LR83.53.7. Lawyer as Witness
(a) A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial or evidentiary proceeding if
the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer may be called as a
witness therein on behalf of the client, except that the lawyer may do so and
may testify:
(1) if the testimony will relate to an uncontested matter;
(2) if the testimony will relate to a matter of formality and the lawyer
reasonably believes that no substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the
testimony;
(3) if the testimony will relate to the nature and value of legal services
rendered in the case by the lawyer or the firm to the client; or
(4) as to any other matter, if refusal to act as an advocate would work a
substantial hardship on the client.
(b) If a lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer may be called as a
witness other than on behalf of the client, the lawyer may act as an advocate
in a trial or evidentiary proceeding unless the lawyer knows or reasonably
should know that the lawyer’s testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client.
(c) Except as prohibited by LR83.51.7 or LR83.51.9, a lawyer may act as advocate
in a trial or evidentiary proceeding in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm may be called as a witness, and nothing in this rule shall be deemed to
prohibit a lawyer barred from acting as advocate in a trial or evidentiary
proceedings from handling other phases of the litigation.
Committee Comment. Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the opposing party
and can involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.
The opposing party has 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.
Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) recognize that if the testimony will be
uncontested or relates to a matter of mere formality, the ambiguities in the dual role
are purely theoretical. Subsection (a)(3) recognizes that where the testimony
concerns the extent and value of legal services rendered in the action in which
the testimony is offered, permitting the lawyers to testify avoids the need for
a second trial with new counsel to resolve that issue. Moreover, in such a
situation the judge has firsthand knowledge of the matter in issue; hence, there
is less dependence on the adversary process to test the credibility of the
testimony.
Apart from these two exceptions, subsection (a)(4) recognizes that a balancing
is required between the interests of the client and those of the opposing
party. Whether the opposing party is likely to suffer prejudice depends on the
nature of the case, the importance and probable tenor of the lawyer’s testimony, and the probability that the lawyer’s testimony will conflict with that of other witnesses. Even if there is risk
of such prejudice, in determining whether the lawyer should be disqualified due
regard must be given to the effect of disqualification on the lawyer’s client. It is relevant that one or both parties could reasonably foresee
that the lawyer would probably be a witness. The principle of imputed
disqualification stated in LR83.51.10 has no application to this aspect of the problem.
Whether the combination of roles involves an improper conflict of interest
with respect to the client is determined by LR83.51.7 or LR83.51.9. For example,
if there is likely to be substantial conflict between the testimony of the
client and that of the lawyer or a member of the lawyer’s firm, the representation is improper. The problem can arise whether the
lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing
party. Determining whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the
responsibility of the lawyer involved. See Comment to LR83.51.7. If a lawyer who is a member of a firm may not act as
both advocate and witness by reason of conflict of interest, LR83.51.10
disqualifies the firm also.