In October 2009, a lawyer from Lakewood obtained an adverse ruling from a federal court judge that barred the testimony of an anticipated witness.  In addition, the lawyer was required to pay the cost of investigating and litigating the witness’s recusal. The trial court reserved a decision as to whether there was a need for professional discipline or sanction.

The core of the controversy related to an age-old legal principle that prohibits litigants and lawyers from paying fact witnesses.  The case subject of the trial court’s ruling was a breach of contract action.  During discovery, the lawyer identified the witness as an expert.  The witnesses was deposed and it was learned that the witness contacted the attorney and disclosed helpful information and questioned whether he would be paid as a witness.  In order to circumvent this well received principle of law prohibiting payment to fact witnesses, the lawyer identified the witness as an expert and paid him more than $4,000 in fees.  The trial court concluded that this tactic was ruse.  As a result, he sanctioned the lawyer.