Beller v. Crow

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the disqualification of Beller's attorney under Nebraska Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 because he was likely to be a necessary witness. The court held that his firsthand knowledge and active participation in relevant events made his testimony material and unobtainable elsewhere, and that his disqualification would not impose substantial hardship on the client.

Holdings

1. A lawyer may not act as trial advocate when the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness, and McGuane was likely to be a necessary witness because he possessed firsthand, unique knowledge of material facts underlying Beller's claims.
2. None of Rule 3.7's exceptions prevented McGuane's disqualification because his testimony concerned contested issues rather than uncontested issues or the nature and value of legal services, and disqualification would not cause Beller substantial hardship.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly disqualified Beller's counsel under Nebraska Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 because he was likely to be a necessary witness.
2. Whether the defendants established that counsel's proposed testimony was material and relevant and unobtainable elsewhere.
3. Whether disqualification would impose substantial hardship on Beller under Rule 3.7(a)(3).

Disposition

affirmed