the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness except where: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in ld prefer to withdraw that claim if the presiding judge was “inclined” to grant the motion to disqualify them. However, the statement was conditional in nature rather than being an actual withdrawal of the claim. Upon inspection of the presiding judge’s order and the remainder of the record, we conclude that the lawyers never obtained a ruling on whether withdrawing their claim would permit them to remain as counsel once the presiding judge’s order made clear that their disqualification would be required if they were to serve as witnesses. See Smith v. Baptiste, 287 Ga. 23, 30 (694 SE2d 83) (2010) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, if the lawyers had actually
holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal holding that the supreme court will not address an argument on appeal if a party has failed to obtain a ruling below holding that a party must obtain a distinct ruling on an issue in order to raise it on appeal holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that appellants failure to obtain a ruling at the trial level even on a constitutional issue precluded review on appeal