Black v. Black
| Decision Date | 01 November 1978 |
| Citation | 376 Mass. 929,381 N.E.2d 1304 |
| Parties | Rose BLACK v. Samuel W. BLACK. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John J. Murphy, Boston, for plaintiff.
Elihu Pearlman, Malden, for defendant.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and BRAUCHER, WILKINS and ABRAMS, JJ.
Since the record supports the jury verdict, there was no error in the judge's denial of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Although there was no objection to defense counsel's acting as trial counsel and witness, we take this occasion to repeat our disapproval of this practice. (emphasis added). Kendall v. Atkins, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- A, 372 N.E.2d 764, 766 (1978), quoting from Potter v. Ware, 1 Cush. 519, 524 (1848). See S.J.C. Rule 3:22, DR5-101(B), 359 Mass. 796, 814 (1972). The ethical problems raised by trial counsel acting as counsel and as a witness are most serious where, as here, counsel is an independent witness in a family dispute and the outcome of the case may well turn on his credibility.
In any event, judges should not permit this practice absent exceptional circumstances. Attorneys finding themselves in the position of trial counsel and witness should obtain substitute counsel well in advance of trial.
Judgment affirmed.
a. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1978) 255, 258-259.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borman v. Borman
...are especially serious when the outcome of the case may turn on counsel's credibility as a witness. Black v. Black, --- Mass. ---- A, 381 N.E.2d 1304 (1978). See also Commonwealth v. Rondeau,--- Mass. ----, ---- - ---- B, 392 N.E.2d 1001. Although the impact on the client, trial, and public......
-
Com. v. Shraiar
...trial counsel in unseemly position of arguing own credibility), citing S.J.C. Rule 3:07, DR 5-102 (A). 5 See also Black v. Black, 376 Mass. 929, 381 N.E.2d 1304 (1978). No conflict of interest arose in the present case because Mr. Gens, although placed on the list of Commonwealth witnesses,......
-
Mailer v. Mailer
...and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony." Cf. Black v. Black, 376 Mass. 929, 381 N.E.2d 1304 (1978) ("The ethical problems raised by trial counsel acting as counsel and as a witness are most serious where ... counsel is an i......
- Simonoko v. Stop & Shop, Inc.