Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.7 • Disqualification • “Necessary Witness”
O’Keefe v. Ace Rest. Supply, LLC, PICS Case No. 17-0507 ( E.D. Pa. March 27, 2017) Surrick, J. (11 pages).
Plaintiff sought to disqualify defendants’ counsel under rule 3.7, alleging that he was a necessary witness to “confirm the identical nature” of claims brought against defendants in other state law actions but court found that the individuals who filed the other actions could better supply the information plaintiff sought, the information sought would involve the disclosure of privileged information and disqualifying attorney would impose a substantial hardship on defendants. Motion denied.
