| LEO Num | Topics | Summary | Date |
0487
 Print
|
| A Commonwealth's Attorney and an assistant are barred from testifying in an action in which the office is involved, because the Commonwealth's Attorney's office is subject to the same restrictions applicable to a private law firm. (9/3/82) [This LEO was presumably overruled by Rule 3.7(c), under which this disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.] | 9/3/1982 |
1315
Print
|
| A decedent died after transferring accounts and placing items in a safety deposit box. Plaintiff challenges the transfer and disputes ownership of the safety deposit box's contents. The plaintiff has sued both administrators -- one of which is a lawyer. The same firm cannot represent both administrators if there is a dispute between them about the transfer or the ownership of the box's contents. The lawyer-administrator's partner may undertake the representation even if the lawyer must be a witness, as long as the issues do not relate to the firm or its legal work, and provided that the lawyer does not intend to perform any advocacy functions in the future. | 2/15/1990 |
1361
Print
|
| A defense lawyer learning that the plaintiff tried to bribe a witness must advise the tribunal of the potential crime and may also advise the Commonwealth's Attorney (the Bar did not decide if failure to report the crime would amount to misprision of a felony under Va. Code ยง 18.2-461). The lawyer may continue to represent the defendant in the civil case even though the lawyer might be a witness in the resulting criminal matter. Reporting the bribery would itself be unethical only if the lawyer was acting "solely for the purpose of obtaining an advantage in a civil matter." | 6/28/1990 |
1668
Print
|
| A law firm may represent the defendant beneficiaries in a will contest even though a lawyer at the firm prepared the will and non-lawyer employees witnessed the will, because: (1) the lawyer preparing the will was no longer at the firm, and the witness-advocate rule only applies if the lawyer/witness still practices at the firm; and (2) the witness-advocate rule does not apply when non-lawyer employees are called as witnesses. | 2/28/1996 |
0655
Print
|
| A law firm must withdraw when it becomes apparent that a partner will "be required" to testify as a material witness in an arbitration hearing (unless one of the exceptions applies). [Under Rule 3.7(c), this disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.] | 1/17/1985 |
0652
Print
|
| A law firm that is the product of a merger may not represent one of its predecessors in a malpractice action when one of its partners will have to testify as a witness. [Under Rule 3.7(c), this disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.] | 1/16/1985 |
1352
Print
|
| A lawyer acted as a "scrivener" for two shareholders of a corporation attempting to reach an agreement (the lawyer had represented the company, and therefore properly declined to represent either shareholder in their dispute). The Bar warned that a lawyer acting as a "scrivener" faces multiple representation problems, especially if the parties are not otherwise represented by lawyers. If a dispute arises between shareholders of a closely held corporation, the lawyer may not play any role if the lawyer had been the corporation's lawyer. If one of the parties called the lawyer to testify, the lawyer should move to quash the subpoena. If the court denies the motion, the lawyer may testify. [Superseded in LEO 1803, which held that the existence of an attorney client relationship depends on the lawyer's action rather than a mere title, and holding that the attorney client relationship would arise between prisoners and lawyers practicing at a state prison if the lawyers did anything more than simply typing up what the prisoner wrote]. | 5/8/1990 |
1474
Print
|
| A lawyer acting as a mechanics' lien agent would have to be a witness in litigation involving the mechanics lien, and therefore could not act as an advocate. DR 5-101(B) does "not include any provision for a cure by consent of the parties." | 10/19/1992 |
1387
Print
|
| A lawyer acting as executor or trustee could hire the lawyer's own law firm to represent an estate as long as the co-fiduciaries consented. However, the firm would have to withdraw if the executor/trustee had to be a witness in any later proceedings (unless the testimony involved a matter of formality or an uncontested matter, and would not be rebutted by another party). [Under Rule 3.7(c), this disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.] | 11/30/1990 |
0658
Print
|
| A lawyer for a landlord in an unlawful detainer proceeding need not withdraw even after filing an affidavit in support of the action; the lawyer may continue until it is apparent that the lawyer's testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client [the Bar did not explain why the lawyer was not already a witness by reason of the affidavit.] | 1/16/1985 |
1500
Print
|
| A lawyer had a legal assistant interview a witness. When the witness told a different story at trial, the lawyer wanted to call the legal assistant to impeach the witness. The lawyer may call the legal assistant as a witness without withdrawing. | 12/14/1992 |
0457
Print
|
| A lawyer had represented both the buyer and seller in a real estate transaction. The lawyer should not have later represented one against the other in a dispute over the deed because it was "reasonably likely" that the lawyer might be a witness (having prepared the deed) and because the lawyer had previously represented the defendant in the same transaction. | 4/16/1982 |
1424
Print
|
| A lawyer handling collection cases may appear as a witness as to the amount owed, as long as the trial is uncontested as a result of the defendant's failure to appear. | 9/16/1991 |
1539
Print
|
| A lawyer in a criminal case must withdraw after overhearing and participating in conversations about the client with the arresting officer and another police officer, because the client's and police officers' stories differ and the lawyer would have to testify about the conversation. | 6/22/1993 |
ABA-400
Print
|
| A lawyer interviewing for a job with the firm the lawyer is opposing in a matter must obtain the client's consent if the negotiations involve substantive discussions about experience, clients or business potential, or the terms of a possible association; the negotiating lawyer's conflict is not imputed to the rest of the firm, but the lawyer's colleagues may have their own conflict because of an interest in the negotiations; the firm with which the lawyer is negotiating faces a similar conflict. | 1/24/1996 |
0866
Print
|
| A lawyer may continue a representation even though it is obvious that the lawyer will be called as a witness other than on the client's behalf, unless the lawyer's testimony would be prejudicial to the client. | 11/26/1986 |
0879
Print
|
| A lawyer may continue a representation even though the lawyer must testify to the nature and value of legal services rendered (in seeking to recover attorneys' fees from the adversary). | 3/11/1987 |
0797
Print
|
| A lawyer may continue a representation until the lawyer knows or it is obvious that another lawyer in the firm will be a witness to matters other than uncontested matters or matters of formality. [Under Rule 3.7(c), this disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.] | 5/1/1986 |
0717
Print
|
| A lawyer may continue representing a client even if the lawyer must testify as to the nature and extent of legal fees. | 8/30/1985 |
1226
Print
|
| A lawyer may continue to represent a client if the adversary has threatened to call the lawyer as a witness, until it is "apparent" that the lawyer's testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client. If there is any doubt, the lawyer should resolve it against continuing as an advocate and in favor of testifying. | 5/8/1989 |
0641
Print
|
| A lawyer may continue to represent a plaintiff after learning that the defense counsel intends to call the lawyer as a witness, unless the lawyer's testimony would be adverse to his client. | 12/19/1984 |
1605
Print
|
| A lawyer may continue to represent a wife while also testifying for the prosecution against the former husband on a perjury charge, because the testimony would not be in the client's case. The "appearance of impropriety" language of Canon 9 relates only to the "limited contexts of judges, former government attorneys, and a lawyer's exertion of improper influence upon a tribunal, legislative body, or public official." | 7/21/1994 |
0282
Print
|
| A lawyer may not act as counsel for a grand jury after appearing as a witness before the grand jury. | 6/23/1976 |
0198
Print
|
| A lawyer may not continue representing a client if the lawyer expects to testify about advice to refuse a blood test in connection with a DUI arrest. Depending on the facts, a lawyer may be barred from acting as trial counsel if the lawyer expects to testify about advice given to the client. | 4/4/1969 |
1048
Print
|
| A lawyer may not continue to represent beneficiaries of a will when the lawyer will have to be a witness about the signing of the will and inability to find the will. | 3/2/1988 |
0615
Print
|
| A lawyer may not hire a private investigator to be paid out of any settlement or award if the use of the private investigator as a rebuttal witness cannot be ruled out. | 10/31/1984 |
0557
Print
|
| A lawyer may not represent a client if it is "likely" that the lawyer will be called as a witness. | 4/10/1984 |
0907
Print
|
| A lawyer may not represent a client if the lawyer may be called as a witness on the client's behalf on a central issue, and none of the witness-advocate exceptions apply. A lawyer may not represent a client if the lawyer knows the lawyer will be called by a former client (the current client's adversary) to the possible detriment of the present client. | 5/4/1987 |
1011
Print
|
| A lawyer may not represent the lawyer's spouse in an action in which the lawyer will be a witness, but may proceed pro se. The Bar declines to say whether the lawyer could receive an assignment of the spouse's claim. | 12/12/1987 |
0523
Print
|
| A lawyer may not send pleadings to the Board of Directors of an adversary's client, even if the lawyer believes that the Board has been misinformed. A lawyer whose partner serves as an escheator may not represent a landowner whose property may be involved, because the partner may be called as a witness. | 8/1/1983 |
0742
Print
|
| A lawyer may notarize a client's signature as long as there is no chance that the lawyer will be a witness about the signature; the lawyer's secretary may notarize the client's signature and the lawyer may notarize a non-client's signature. | 1/20/1986 |
1006
Print
|
| A lawyer may notarize a client's signature as long as there is no probability that the lawyer will be a witness. | 11/24/1987 |
1064
Print
|
| A lawyer may represent a client against whom the lawyer had previously filed an adverse claim involved in the same matter, as long as the client consented. The lawyer may continue the representation even if the lawyer must be a witness on an uncontested matter and the opposing party would not offer opposing evidence. | 4/1/1988 |
0891
Print
|
| A lawyer may represent a client although a secretary in lawyer's firm will testify against the client, as long as the client consents. | 4/1/1987 |
1118
Print
|
| A lawyer may represent a client unless the lawyer learns or it becomes obvious that the lawyer or a lawyer from the firm may be called as a witness other than on behalf of the client and that the testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client. | 9/1/1988 |
1521
Print
|
| A lawyer may represent a developer in litigation in which an employee of a title company (of which the lawyer is part-owner) may have to testify, because the witness-advocate rule applies only when a lawyer must testify. | 5/11/1993 |
0960
Print
|
| A lawyer may represent a firm in suing a former client of one of the lawyer's partners even if the partner will be a witness as to the fee arrangements, services rendered and fair market value of the services. | 9/3/1987 |
0958
Print
|
| A lawyer may represent a law partner in litigation, even if the partner must be a witness (although the LEO summary indicates that the matter is unconnected to the law firm, this does not appear to be a condition to the representation). [Under Rule 3.7(c), this disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.] | 8/21/1987 |
0836
Print
|
| A lawyer may represent a party if the lawyer's partner is to be called as a witness, unless the partner's testimony would be prejudicial to the client. | 10/9/1986 |
0322
Print
|
| A lawyer may testify as a witness on behalf of a former client if the client requests it. | 4/25/1979 |
0462
Print
|
| A lawyer must "withdraw from representing [the] client" after discovering that the lawyer must testify as to material matters on the client's behalf. | 7/2/1982 |
0901
Print
|
| A lawyer must withdraw from a divorce matter when the lawyer was a party to a telephone conversation (involving both clients and both lawyers) about a settlement agreement over which the parties now disagree. | 3/11/1987 |
0311
Print
|
| A lawyer practicing with a legal aid society should not represent either the society or an individual society lawyer sued in a malpractice case, because the defendant-lawyer must be a witness in the case. [The summary incorrectly indicates that the lawyer may represent the society or the individual lawyer-defendant.] | 4/3/1979 |
1240
Print
|
| A lawyer represented a client in a personal injury case. The lawyer arranged a settlement, but the defendant reneged. The lawyer may not represent the client in a breach of contract case against the defendant, because the lawyer will have to be a witness. However, the lawyer may continue to represent the client in the underlying tort case, because the lawyer will not be a witness in that case. If the lawyer's testimony in the breach of contract case would be adverse to the client, the lawyer should then withdraw from representing the client in the tort case (because it might be inconsistent with the lawyer's duty to the client). | 5/2/1989 |
1032
Print
|
| A lawyer represented a couple in the purchase and refinance of their home. The lawyer may now represent the husband in a divorce action because the lawyer has only public knowledge about the home transaction. Although the wife claims that the lawyer will be a witness to the transaction, the lawyer may continue to represent the husband unless it is obvious that the lawyer will be called as a witness and the lawyer's testimony is or may be prejudicial to the husband. | 2/2/1988 |
1362
Print
|
| A lawyer represented husband and wife in an action brought by a bank on a note. The husband testified that the wife signed his name on the note without his knowledge. The wife was indicted for forgery, but the case was dismissed when the husband testified at the criminal trial that the wife signed his name with his permission. The Bar held that the lawyer should not have put the husband on as a witness in the criminal trial without first determining which of the husband's statements was truthful, and rectifying any false testimony (because "the conflicting testimony offered by the husband at the civil and criminal indictment proceedings clearly indicates that he was not testifying truthfully on at least one occasion") [the Bar did not discuss the "clearly established" test.]If lawyers know that they may be called as witnesses, they may continue the representation until it is apparent that their testimony is or may be prejudicial to their clients. Here, the lawyer's testimony would be prejudicial because the lawyer would have to testify about the client's possible perjury. | 7/17/1990 |
1435
Print
|
| A lawyer representing both the buyer and seller in a real estate transaction must advise both clients that "he will not be able to represent either party against the other if a dispute should arise." The lawyer may testify on behalf of one of the parties if the other former client consents or the court orders it. | 11/18/1991 |
0703
Print
|
| A lawyer representing one of two criminal defendants being tried separately can testify at the other defendant's trial about a conversation in which the lawyer participated. | 5/24/1985 |
0746
Print
|
| A lawyer represents a client in arbitrated claims against three other parties. One of the parties later sues the client and the lawyer in state court on grounds involving the arbitration. As long as the client consents, the lawyer may continue to represent the client in the arbitration despite the lawyer's role as defendant in the state court action. Because the lawyer's testimony "may be critical" to the client's defense in the action, the lawyer must withdraw as counsel in the state court proceeding. | 12/30/1985 |
1455
Print
|
| A lawyer wants to represent his wife in a child custody matter involving her former husband. Opposing counsel has moved to disqualify the lawyer because he must be a witness. Because the wife does not intend to call her lawyer-husband as a witness and it is not obvious that the lawyer "ought" to be called as a witness "simply by virtue of his status as husband of Client and stepfather of the child," the lawyer may continue to represent his wife -- even if opposing party calls him as a witness -- unless his testimony prejudices his wife. | 3/13/1992 |
1616
Print
|
| A lawyer who formerly represented a party in performing a title examination may not now represent someone else in a boundary line dispute with the former client. Although the issue is now moot, the Bar confirms that "an attorney may continue representation of a party, even if called to testify by the opponent, until it is apparent that his testimony is or may be prejudicial to his client." | 11/29/1994 |
0251
Print
|
| A lawyer who had testified in support of the mental competence of a woman may not later represent her in an action involving the same matter, even though the lawyer's representation would be consistent with the earlier testimony (because the lawyer might have to testify again). | 9/18/1974 |
0863
Print
|
| A lawyer who has acted as an escheator may not later represent a party in litigation over property sold in the estate sale, because there is a "strong possibility" that the lawyer would be a witness. | 4/1/1987 |
1498
Print
|
| A lawyer who is named as a co-defendant may act as an advocate for the client and a witness and advocate for himself or herself, unless the lawyer's testimony would be prejudicial to the client. [It is surprising that the Bar did not find a conflict here, because the lawyer's interests would seem likely to conflict with the client's interests.] | 12/14/1992 |
0612
Print
|
| A lawyer who learns that an adversary will call the lawyer as a witness must withdraw unless one of the exceptions applies. [The Rules would require such a withdrawal only if the lawyer's testimony would be prejudicial to the lawyer's client.] | 10/5/1984 |
0723
Print
|
| A lawyer who must testify in a case must withdraw unless the finder of fact determines that the lawyer's testimony will relate solely to an uncontested matter or to a matter of formality (on which no substantial opposing evidence will be offered) or that the lawyer is being called as a witness other than on behalf of the client and that the testimony will not be prejudicial to the client. | 9/24/1985 |
0273
Print
|
| A lawyer who prepared a will and interviewed the testator in presence of a beneficiary may not represent the beneficiary in an action alleging undue influence, because the lawyer is a potential witness. | 12/3/1975 |
1517
Print
|
| A lawyer who represented corporations equally owned by two shareholders may represent one of the shareholders in alleging that the other shareholder breached fiduciary duties, because the lawyer never represented the defendant shareholder individually (as long as the lawyer had not obtained any confidences from the defendant shareholder while the lawyer represented the corporations). The lawyer need not withdraw because opposing counsel threatens to call the lawyer as a witness unless it becomes apparent that the lawyer's testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client. | 4/12/1993 |
1709
Print
|
| A lawyer who testifies in a venue hearing may not continue to represent the client through the rest of the litigation even if the venue issue will not "come up again during the trial on the merits." If the lawyer had to testify, it could not have been an uncontested matter. The "substantial hardship" exception did not apply because the lawyer did not allege "a distinctive value to the client as a result of any long-standing relationship with the client and familiarity with the client's affairs such that changing lawyers would pose a 'substantial hardship' to the plaintiff." Even though the venue question would not arise before the jury, the witness advocate rule applies with equal force to issues addressed to the judge. The witness-advocate rule "is a broad prophylactic rule designed to prevent even the appearance of impropriety," and therefore a lawyer who "testifies as a witness as to some contested pretrial issue" may not later appear as an advocate on the client's behalf. The lawyer may not arrange for another lawyer to file the lawsuit and handle the pretrial hearing examination (and then replace that lawyer as advocate), because it would circumvent the witness-advocate rule "through the actions of another."A lawyer may not contact an adversary ex parte after the adversary has non-suited a case, because "the entry of a non-suit does not terminate the representation of a party." The presumption of representation continues after the non-suit, just as the presumption continues during the period when an appeal might be filed after a final judgment. | 2/24/1998 |
1386
Print
|
| A lawyer's spouse attempted to borrow money, but the lender insisted that the lawyer be a co-borrower (which violated federal law). Because the lawyer was a party to the conversation in which the lender explained this policy, it would be in the spouse's best interests to have the lawyer's spouse as a witness. The lawyer and the lawyer's spouse have been unsuccessful in finding a lawyer to represent the spouse, but this problem did not justify the lawyer being both a witness and an advocate. "The apparent lack of available alternative representation is not sufficient to permit the attorney to serve as both attorney and witness." | 1/14/1991 |
1507
Print
|
| A public defender was appointed to represent a criminal defendant, but the public defender's office was currently representing or formerly represented a number of witnesses. The Bar held that "continued representation of a new client is improper when it becomes necessary to challenge the credibility of a former client, even in an unrelated matter, if it requires the use of the former client's confidential information in order to zealously represent the current client." Because the public defender was apparently representing one of the current adverse witnesses, the continued representation of the defendant required the consent of the defendant and the witness. The Commonwealth's Attorney had discussed the case with the witnesses. The Bar held that the Commonwealth's Attorney may not approach a present client of defense counsel without notifying defense counsel, and may not provide any legal advice (such as recommending signing a waiver) to any unrepresented former client.The public defender may continue to represent the defendant even if it became necessary to call one of the same office's former lawyers as a witness because DR 5-102(A) applies only when the lawyer-witness is presently associated with the firm. | 3/1/1993 |
0329
Print
|
| Administrative hearings before the State Water Control Board amount to litigation from which a lawyer must withdraw if the lawyer will be a witness. | 7/16/1979 |
1729
Print
|
| Although lawyers acting as guardians ad litem generally must comply with the ethics rules, "the relationship of the GAL and child is different from the relationship of attorney and client," and the "specific duty of the guardian ad litem should prevail" if there is any conflict with a lawyer's standard ethics responsibility. A guardian ad litem who must testify on a disputed issue of material fact may continue to represent the child despite the witness-advocate rule, because the lawyer's statutory duty to "advise the court" about the child's interest and welfare trumps the witness-advocate rule (which would otherwise prohibit the guardian's representation of the child in the hearing). | 3/26/1999 |
0597
Print
|
| An Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney may testify for the Commonwealth unless there will be some dispute about the testimony. | 8/17/1984 |
1359
Print
|
| An in-house lawyer may not act as an advocate and a witness at a hearing conducted by the Virginia Employment Commission, because the hearing would be "litigation" triggering the witness-advocate rule; all doubts about whether a lawyer should be a witness or an advocate should be resolved in favor of the former. ([Rule 3.7(a) uses the term "adversarial proceeding" rather than the old Code's "trial."] | 6/28/1990 |
1849
Print
|
| An outside lawyer assisting a client in a debt collection action cannot act as an advocate in the general district court proceeding if the lawyer testifies about the debt or files an affidavit about the debt (because either act would render the lawyer a "necessary witness"). Even if the defendant does not appear at the proceeding, the issue is not "uncontested" -- which eliminates one of the exceptions to the witness advocate rule. | 9/29/2010 |
0593
Print
|
| As long as both clients consent, a lawyer may represent both a plaintiff against a defendant and an important witness who has been sued by the defendant. A lawyer may continue the representation even if the lawyer is called as a witness by the opposing party, unless it becomes apparent that the lawyer's testimony "is or may be" prejudicial to the clients. | 6/18/1984 |
1320
Print
|
| Because an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney must be a witness in a perjury case based on the defendant's statements at a hearing, the Commonwealth's Attorney's office may not prosecute the perjury matter and should appoint a special prosecutor. [Under Rule 3.7(c), this disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.] | 2/27/1990 |
0256
Print
|
| Former corporate counsel who resigned because of a dispute among the directors may not represent one of the directors in litigation arising from the dispute (both because of the conflict and because of the likelihood that the former corporate counsel "may be called as a witness"). | 12/16/1974 |
0361
Print
|
| If a lawyer's testimony may be prejudicial to a client, the lawyer must withdraw. | 3/10/1980 |
0729
Print
|
| If one lawyer in a two-person firm must be a witness in a condemnation proceeding, neither lawyer may represent the client. [Under Rule 3.7(c), this disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.] | 11/1/1985 |
1394
Print
|
| In a partnership dispute in which their testimony would be "critical and material to the central issue of fraud," two lawyers should not have accepted employment if they knew or should have known that they ought to be called as witnesses. DR 5-101(B), which governs the initial acceptance of employment, is equally applicable to a lawyer who ought to be called either on behalf of a client or by the opposing party. Here, the lawyer should not have accepted the representation ab initio, and therefore was not entitled to the latitude of DR 5-102(B) which allows the lawyer to continue the representation if called as a witness other than on behalf of the client until it is apparent that the lawyer's testimony would be prejudicial to the client. | 2/15/1991 |
1162
Print
|
| It is probably improper for a law firm to represent a client in a malicious prosecution claim when one of the firm's partners was involved in the criminal prosecution from which the civil action arose. Furthermore, the partner may well be a witness in the civil case to establish the existence of probable cause. | 10/6/1988 |
1051
Print
|
| Relying on LEO 958, the Bar held that a lawyer may represent a partner in litigation, even if the partner must be a witness. [The Bar apparently based its holding on all parties' consent, although LEO 958 did not appear to require consent.] | 3/4/1988 |
0976
Print
|
| The "substantial hardship" that justifies a lawyer's continued representation even though the lawyer must be a witness arises only: in a complex suit having been prepared over a long period of time; if hiring a new lawyer would be expensive and delay the trial; or when there is a long and extensive professional relationship in which the lawyer has acquired "extraordinary familiarity" with the client's affairs. In this case, the "substantial hardship" exception did not apply. | 9/1/1987 |
1301
Print
|
| The Code of Professional Responsibility applies whenever a lawyer is acting in a fiduciary relationship, even if there is no attorney-client relationship (such as a lawyer acting as trustee under a Deed of Trust). A lawyer acting as trustee and acting pro se may testify. | 1/4/1990 |
1513
Print
|
| The witness-advocate rule prohibits a law firm from handling an appeal in a case in which one of the law firm's partners testified at trial. [This LEO was overruled by Rule 3.7(c), under which such disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.] | 5/11/1993 |
1313
Print
|
| This Opinion was withdrawn on 11/16/12. | 11/16/1990 |
1136
Print
|
| Two lawyers represent clients in criminal matters. There is a dispute with the IRS about the extent of the immunity the clients have been given. The lawyers must withdraw as counsel if they testify at any pretrial hearings about the scope of the immunity, because the Virginia Code "does not provide a distinction between testifying on pre-trial issues and testifying at the trial" (the Bar had insufficient information about possible substantial hardship on the clients should the lawyers withdraw). | 9/9/1988 |