1246 (2d Cir.1979) (citing Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 567 F.2d 225 (2d Cir.1977) and Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc., 528 F.2d 1384 (2d Cir.1976)) (footnote omitted). 40 .Hochstadt Decl. ¶ 14 (emphasis added). Accord Lowy Decl. ¶ 12 (claiming that he has “no first hand knowledge that could make [him] a witness”). 41 . See Lowy Reply Decl. ¶¶ 20, 21, 41. 42 . Ramey, 378 F.3d at 283 (quoting United States v. Arrington, 867 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1989)) (alteration omitted). 43 . Cf. Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of James F. Lowy Esq. and For Other Relief ("PI. Reply”) at 3 (asserting that Lowy has no unique knowledge); Lowy Reply Decl. V 15. 44 . Cf. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 937 F.Supp. at 280-81 (<HOLDING>). 45 .See Herkrath v. Gaffin & Mayo, P.C., 192
holding that attorneys testimony would only be cumulative to evidence offered by some nineteen other persons holding that attorneys should be disqualified where the substantial relationship test is met in order to assure that the confidentiality of the attorneyclient relationship and the loyalty between attorney and client are preserved holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue holding it is not error for jury to reduce uncontested attorneys fees holding that attorney was not disqualified under the advocatewitness rule where his proposed testimony concerned attorneys fees and corroboration of other testimony relating to an uncontested issue and was otherwise cumulative and disqualification would result in substantial hardship on the attorneys client