as follows: Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal arest of circumstances should a judge be called upon to give evidence as to matters upon which he has acted in a judicial capacity, and these occasions, we think, should be limited to instances in which there is no other reasonably available way to prove the facts sought to be established.” State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wash.2d 12, 482 P.2d 775, 781 (1971); see also Phillips v. Clancy, 152 Ariz. 415, 420-21, 733 P.2d 300, 305-06 (App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Because there were other reasonably available
holding that plaintiffs failure to offer any evidence with respect to the convenience of the parties means that this factor militates against him holding that public policy militates against a judge testifying as an expert witness for one of the parties holding that the prosecution could not retain as a testifying expert for trial a nontestifying expert the defendant had previously retained holding that evidence of a threat to a witness by the defendant is relevant as showing an attempt to prevent a witness from testifying and avoid punishment for the crime holding that witness immunity does not bar a claim against a retained expert witness for negligence performance of his duty