When may a lawyer appear as a witness in a matter where they represent a party?

Hypo 1: Bob is representing Sam in a contract dispute. During the trial, it becomes clear that Bob was present when the contract was signed. The opposing counsel asks to call Bob as a witness to testify about what he observed. Result: This situation is problematic under Rule 3.7(a). Bob's testimony would likely be contested and doesn't fall under the exceptions. If Bob's testimony is necessary, he may need to withdraw from representing Sam and act only as a witness. If Bob believes his testimony is crucial and his withdrawal would substantially harm Sam's case, he could potentially continue under the third exception, but would need to carefully evaluate the situation and possibly obtain Sam's informed consent.

Hypo 2: Sam is suing his former business partner, and Bob is representing him. During the trial, a question arises about the legal fees Sam has paid. The judge asks Bob to testify about the nature and value of his services. Result: This scenario falls under the second exception in Rule 3.7(a). Bob can testify about the nature and value of the legal services he provided to Sam without violating the rule. This type of testimony is specifically allowed because the lawyer is uniquely positioned to provide this information, and it's unlikely to prejudice the client's case.

Hypo 3: Bob is representing Sam in a complex patent infringement case. Bob is also a renowned expert in the specific technology at issue. The opposing counsel wants to call Bob as an expert witness due to his expertise. Result: This is a challenging situation under Rule 3.7(a). While Bob's testimony would likely be contested, it might fall under the third exception if Bob's expertise makes him distinctively valuable to the case and his withdrawal would impose substantial hardship on Sam. However, Bob would need to carefully consider whether his testimony might create prejudice against Sam. If so, he would need Sam's informed consent to proceed. Bob should also consider whether another expert could provide similar testimony, which might negate the "substantial hardship" argument.

Hypo 4: Sam is involved in a personal injury lawsuit, and Bob is his lawyer. The only other witness to the accident was Bob's law partner, Amy. The defense wants to call Amy as a witness. Result: This scenario implicates the imputation aspect of Rule 3.7(a). Even though Bob himself wouldn't be testifying, the rule's prohibition extends to his colleagues in the same firm. If Amy's testimony is necessary and might be contested, Bob's firm may need to withdraw from representing Sam, unless they can argue that withdrawal would cause substantial hardship to Sam. If Amy's testimony might create prejudice against Sam, informed consent would be required.

Hypo 5: Bob is representing Sam in a property dispute. During the trial, a question arises about the property boundaries. Bob happens to live next door to the property in question and has uncontested knowledge about the boundary lines. The judge asks if Bob can testify to this fact. Result: This situation likely falls under the first exception in Rule 3.7(a). If Bob's testimony about the property boundaries is truly uncontested, he may be able to testify without violating the rule. However, Bob should be cautious and ensure that his testimony is indeed uncontested and won't create any prejudice against Sam. If there's any doubt, Bob should consider having someone else testify about the boundaries or seek Sam's informed consent before proceeding.