at 216. 43 . Id. at 221. In In re Estate of "Waters, we held that the necessary prejudice had been shown when an attorney was both trial counsel and a necessary witness in a probate proceeding. In re Estate of Waters, 647 A.2d 1091, 1097-98 (Del.1994) (citing Infotechnology, 582 A.2d at 221-22). 44 . Infotechnology, 582 A.2d at 216-17. 45 . Id. at 221. 46 . See id. at 220. 47 . Id. at 216-17; see also Waters, 647 A.2d at 1098 (citing Infotechnology, 582 A.2d at 222). 48 . See Supr. Ct. R. 64(e) (describing the powers and duties of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel). 49 . In re Reardon, 759 A.2d 568, 575 (Del.2000) (citing In re Green, 464 A.2d 881, 885 (Del.1983)). 50 . In re Asbestos Litig. (Turchen), 2011 WL 5344308, at *9 (Del.Super. Oct. 28, 2011); cf. Waters, 647 A.2d at 1097-98 (<HOLDING>). 51 . Fairthorne Maint. Corp. v. Ramunno, 2007
holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence holding that the failure of defense counsel to call a corroborating witness resulted in prejudice to the defendant holding loss of documents and death of witness did not impair defense where both events occurred when there was no presumption of prejudice holding that prejudice existed when an attorney was both the trial counsel and a necessary witness