Skip to main content

Lawyer as a Witness

Adopted: January 15, 1993

Opinion rules that a lawyer may not represent an estate in litigation against a claimant where the lawyer's testimony may be necessary to resolve the validity of the claim.


Mr. X, the father of Miss M, applied for life insurance in the amount of $100,000 in 1985. Miss M contends that Mr. X intended for the proceeds of the policy to be used to educate Miss M who was then 13 years old. Mr. B, the uncle of Mr. X, was living with Mr. X when the policy was issued. Mr. B was shown as the primary beneficiary of the policy, and Miss M was shown as the secondary beneficiary.

Mr. X died intestate on January 20, 1989. Mr. B hired Lawyer L to represent his interests in regard to the estate of Mr. X. The insurance company paid Mr. B $100,000. Mr. B subsequently invested some of the insurance proceeds in certificates of deposit in his own name. Shortly after the death of Mr. X, Lawyer L, on behalf of Mr. B, wrote a letter to Ms. W, the former wife of Mr. X and the mother of Miss M, in which Ms. W was asked to renounce any rights she might have to administer the estate of Mr. X. Thereafter Ms. W did renounce her right to administer the estate. She and Miss M contend that the renunciation was executed only after they had met with Lawyer L in his office and had been assured by Lawyer L that Mr. B would use the entire insurance proceeds to pay for Miss M's college and law school education. Lawyer L denies ever having offered such assurances to Ms. W and Miss M.

After the renunciation was filed, Mr. B was appointed administrator of Mr. X's estate and employed Lawyer L to represent him in that capacity.

Mr. B died intestate on September 22, 1990, and his daughter, Ms. F, qualified as administratrix of his estate. Ms. F employed Lawyer L as attorney for the estate of Mr. B. The certificates of deposit mentioned above and perhaps other funds derived from the subject insurance proceeds became assets of the estate of Mr. B.

Sometime after Mr. B's death, Miss M and Ms. W were informed by Ms. F, either personally or through Lawyer L, that only $25,000 from the estate of Mr. B would be paid toward Miss M's educational expenses.

On April 1, 1991, Miss M filed a claim against the estate of Mr. B for $92,773.49. This claim was rejected on April 11, 1991, in a letter from Lawyer L.

Subsequently, Attorney A filed suit against the estate of Mr. B on behalf of Miss M seeking payment of Miss M's claim. Attorney A has requested that Lawyer L withdraw citing conflicts and the possibility that Lawyer L will be called upon to testify in the lawsuit. Lawyer L has refused to withdraw.

May Lawyer L continue representing the estate of Mr. B in the defense of the lawsuit brought by Miss M?


No. At issue in the lawsuit will almost certainly be Mr. B's understanding of why Mr. X purchased life insurance, how Mr. B came to be named as the primary beneficiary and what assurances, if any, were offered to Ms. W and Miss M by Lawyer L in conjunction with the renunciation of Ms. W's right to administer Mr. X's estate. The testimony of Lawyer L will be necessary to the resolution of these questions. In particular, only Lawyer L is in a position to deny the contentions of Ms. W and Miss M that it was affirmatively represented to them by Lawyer L that in consideration for Ms. W's renunciation, the proceeds of the life insurance would be used to pay for Miss M's education. Rule 5.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that "a lawyer shall not accept employment in contemplated or pending litigation if he knows or it is obvious that he…ought to be called as a witness…" None of the exceptions to the general rule appear to be applicable in this case. Since it appears that it will be necessary for Lawyer L to testify, he is disqualified from representing the estate in a litigation.

Back to top