F.3d 827, 833 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting State ex rel. Wall Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 1:06-cv-111, 2008 WL 2401190, at *2 (E.D.Tenn. June 11, 2008) (“For a lawyer to be a .necessary witness, his testimony must be relevant, , material, and unobtainable elsewhere.”); Harter v. University of Indianapolis, 5 F.Supp.2d 657, 663 (S.D.Ind.1998) (“A necessary witness is not the same thing as the ‘best’ witness. If the evidence that would be offered by having an opposing attorney testify can be elicited through other means, then the attorney is not a necessary witness. In addition, of course, if the testimony is not relevant or is only marginally relevant, it certainly is not necessary.”); World Youth Day, Inc. v. Famous Artists Merchandising Exchange, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 1297, 1302 (D.Colo.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also Mettler v. Mettler, 50 Conn.Supp.
holding that a lawyer is a necessary witness where the lawyers testimony is relevant to disputed material questions of fact and where there is no other evidence available to prove those facts holding that a lawyer may advertise his or her certification as a trial specialist holding that a lawyer is a  necessary witness if his or her testimony is relevant material and unobtainable elsewhere holding that a request for a lawyer requires the police to cease questioning until the accused consults with his or her lawyer unless the defendant initiates further conversation holding that a party is not bound by the testimony of a witness it calls