Need copy of journal article.

[care]

Would someone please help me get a copy of the following article by sending me a personal note asking where you can fax or scan it. Or if I can get it online please indicate the URL?

The Attorney as Advocate and Witness: Does the Prohibition of an Attorney Acting as Advocate
and Witness at a Judicial Trial Also Apply in Administrative Adjudications?, 26 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judges 1 (Spring 2006).

No one at the National association is answering my phone inquiries or email.

Thanks much.

[privateatty]

I'd love to see the ethical rationale.

Not to mention the cross exam of the attorney/witness.

Now tell me, Mr. Jones, do you expect this tribunal to believe that even though your fee is dependent upon your testimony being followed and relied upon, that that fact in no way taints it?

[care]

Dear Private: There is not much precedent. The rationale by at least one court is that a hearing in an administrative agency is not a trial and therefore not covered by rule 3.7. Further the rationale for 3.7 is so that the jurors will not be confused by the dual roles of attorney and witness. That will not happen before this administrative body because their is no jury and the decisionmakers presumably are sophisticated. It will be interesting to see what the article says.

My fee is not dependent on my testimony because I am appearing pro bono. However, if I don't testify, a large corporation may succeed in continuing to bilk the public out of millions. That need and the fact that my clients will be at a disadvantage if I do not testify is something which would fit within the third exception to the Rule 3.7 prohibition against the attorney being a witness.

I detect some condescension in your post, but thanks for it anyway. Hopefully someone will take the time to find me the article.

[fredcdobbs]

No one at the National association is answering my phone inquiries or email.

I never got a response to a similar inquiry (submitted several times). Perhaps they are busy with other matters?

[privateatty]

Jan 14, 2014 22:41:24 GMT -5 care said:

Dear Private: There is not much precedent. The rationale by at least one court is that a hearing in an administrative agency is not a trial and therefore not covered by rule 3.7. Further the rationale for 3.7 is so that the jurors will not be confused by the dual roles of attorney and witness. That will not happen before this administrative body because their is no jury and the decisionmakers presumably are sophisticated. It will be interesting to see what the article says.

My fee is not dependent on my testimony because I am appearing pro bono. However, if I don't testify, a large corporation may succeed in continuing to bilk the public out of millions. That need and the fact that my clients will be at a disadvantage if I do not testify is something which would fit within the third exception to the Rule 3.7 prohibition against the attorney being a witness.

I detect some condescension in your post, but thanks for it anyway. Hopefully someone will take the time to find me the article.

care, my sincere apologies to you. Certainly, it was my intent to provoke debate (as I have done in the past). My sister is condescending to me from time to time and when I call her on it, she goes all Sgt. Schultz on me.

Thank you for your post--it proves that there is (almost) always a contrarian view in the law. I learned something.

BTW, you may want to check out these two articles, the last one particularly:

heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/abaj64&div=114&id=&page=

heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/conlr35&div=36&id=&page=

[Deleted]

I love me a research challenge. I have skills that just aren't being used...

digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol26/iss1/


digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=naalj

[care]

Bravo! robg: A person from the naalj did call me back this morning and this will save her from having to dig the article out.

No problem private: Thanks for the links. Looks like I am going to have to prove much of my case through cross examination of adverse witnesses which the corporation is already objecting to. Wish me luck.

Thanks much to both of you.