1381 (1986) ("Expert testimony concerning the fact of an ethical violation is not appropriate, any more than expert testimony is appropriate concerning the violation of, for example, a municipal building code.”); Commonwealth v. Lambert, No. 0423-1992, 1998 WL 558749, at *10 n. 34 (Pa.Com.Pl. Aug.24, 1998) (excluding Professor Wolfram's testimony on ethical propriety of lawyers' conduct and stating: "The interpretation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of Criminal Procedure is a legal issue to be decided by a court, for which use of an expert would be wholly inappropriate. A court may not abdicate its role to determine the ultimate issue by allowing expert testimony.”). 6 . In addition, Judge Pollack found even more fault with the "gratuitous swo 6, 171 (1st Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Consider the following list of full-time
holding that recusal was required based on newspaper report of interview with trial judge holding the issue of recusal of the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review must be raised in the trial court holding recusal not required holding that where appellant moved to recuse trial judge from deciding the motion for new trial the judge of the administrative district was required to designate a judge to hear the recusal motion holding that recusal was required based on evidence of judges statements of bias against a particular ethnic group