Legal Ethics Opinion 1500

           Attorney's Paralegal/Investigator as Witness

You have presented hypothetical situations in which a federal
judge has recently notified an attorney that he must provide
authority for his ability to continue representing a party if he
were to introduce the office paralegal's testimony as to her
investigative functions in the case.  Each of the three following
hypothetical situations involves a paralegal who acted as an
in-office investigator for the case.

l.   The attorney's paralegal has interviewed the witness who is
     on the stand in lieu of an investigator.  Since the witness'
     testimony is inconsistent with the oral statement which he
     made to the paralegal, the attorney wants to call the
     paralegal to the stand during his case-in-chief, for the
     sole purpose of impeaching the witness based upon his prior
     oral interview.

2.   The attorney's paralegal has interviewed the witness who is
     on the stand in lieu of an investigator.  Since the witness'
     testimony is inconsistent with the written statement which
     he signed following the interview by the paralegal, the
     attorney wants to call the paralegal tothe stand during his
     case-in-chief.  The sole testimony which he will elicit from
     the paralegal involves authentication of the witness'
     statement, e.g., testimony respecting the witness' signature
     and the circumstances under which the statement was taken.
     
3.   The attorney wants to call his paralegal as a witness for
     the following sole purpose: to testify as to the
     mathematical accuracy of a diagram which she prepared and
     which is drawn to scale. 

You have asked the committee to opine whether, under the facts of
the inquiry, the attorney may continue his representation in the
case if he calls his paralegal to testify for the purposes
enumerated.

The appropriate and controlling Disciplinary Rules related to
your inquiry are DRs 5-102(A) which provides that if, after
undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a
lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firmought 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 firmmay testify in the circumstances enumerated in DR 5-101(B)(1), if
the testimony will relate solely to an uncontested matter or to a
matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that
substantial evidence will e offered in opposition to the
testimony; DR 5-l0l(B)(2), 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; or DR 5-l0l(B)(3), 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.  [emphasis added]

Based upon the plain language of the applicable Disciplinary
Rules, the committee is of the opinion that the attorney is not
required to withdraw from representing his client/party if he
calls as a witness the paralegal employed by him for purposes of
witness impeachment, authentication, or determination of
mathematical accuracy of a diagram drawn by the paralegal.  The
committee is of the view that, since the paralegal is not a
lawyer or coalled as a witness is inapposite to the circumstances
you describe.  See Ohio State Bar Association Legal Ethics
Opinion #87-7 (7/15/87), ABA/BNA Law. Man. on Prof. Conduct,
901:6827; Maryland State Bar Association Legal Ethics Opinion
#84-6 (9/29/83), ABA/BNA Law. Man. on Prof. Conduct, 801:4334.   

Committee Opinion
December 14, 1992