The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed that "[t]he fact that a lawyer serves as both an advocate and a witness does not, standing alone, compel disqualification." Here, the court also restated the well-settled rule that disqualification of counsel is subject to mandamus. The court reiterated that Rule 3.08 only requires disqualification if the attorney’s testimony is essential to establish a fact on behalf of the client and actual prejudice will result. The court added that the fact that an attorney notiarized a key document does not require disqualification. Because the real party in interest failed to establish that the attorney’s testimony was necessary to establish an essential fact, the trial court abused its discretion by disqualifying relator’s counsel. Accordingly, the court granted the writ. The court’s opinion in In re Garza can be found at this link. Our previous blog entry on this subject can be found at this link.