Pratt v. Sanders’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is clear from the relevant rules and interpretative cases that an attorney should be disqualified from continued employment where he elects to become a witness for his client concerning a disputed question of fact relating to the merits of the cause, if such withdrawal would not ‘work a substantial hardship on the client because of the distinctive value of the lawyer or his firm as counsel in the particular case. ... ’ “It is equally clear, however, that a lawyer may continue his representation of his client when he anticipates being called as a witness other than for his client, so long as it is not apparent that his testimony is or may be prejudicial to his client. When the two subsections of DR [5-102] are contrasted, it is readily apparent that prejudice to the client is the sole consideration in determining whether withdrawal from current employment is appropriate when the lawyer knows that he ‘may be called as a witness other than on behalf oí his client’ ..., as opposed to when it is apparent that the lawyer ‘ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client’.... In the latter situation, where the lawyer is making the decision, the lawyer is allowed to continue representation only if he falls within one of ‘the circumstances enumerated in DR 5-101(B)(l) through (4).’ [[Image here]] “We have found nothing in the testimony that was, or could have been, prejudicial to [National Filtronics]. ... “A trial judge’s discretionary power to disqualify an attorney under”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brown

2. ““(B) A lawyer shall not accept employment in contemplated or pending litigation if he knows or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness, except that he may undertake the employment and he or a lawyer in his firm may testify: “(1) If the testimony will relate solely to an uncontested matter; “(2) If the testimony will relate to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony; “(3) If the testimony will relate solely to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case by the lawyer or his firm to the client; “(4) As to any matter, if refusal would work a substantial hardship on the client because of the distinctive value of the lawyer or his firm as counsel in the particular case.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brown

3. ““(A) If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client, he shall withdraw from the conduct of the trial and his firm, if any, shall not continue representation in the trial, except that he may continue the representation and he or a lawyer in his firm may testify in the circumstances enumerated in DR 5 — 101(B)(1) through (4). “(B) If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm may be called as a witness other than on behalf of his client, he may continue the representation until it is apparent that his testimony is or may be prejudicial to this client.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brown