v. Munton, 989 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Mo.Ct.App.1999)). In Macheca Transp. Co., the court of appeals held the district court abused its discretion when it disqualified an attorney without first determining whether he would be the only witness who could testify to events surrounding a vexatious refusal to pay claim. Id. at 833-34. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has similarly held that: “[a] lawyer is not ‘likely to be a necessary witness’ when evidence pertaining to each matter to which he could testify is available from another source.” United States v. Starnes, 157 Fed.Appx. 687, 693-94 (5th Cir.2005) (quoting Horaist v. Doctor’s Hosp. of Opel-ousas, 255 F.3d 261, 267 (5th Cir.2001)); see Tennessee Bank & Trust v. Lowery, No. 3:11-0984, 2012 WL 4849968, at *1 (M.D.Tenn. Oct. 11, 2012) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omit ted); Rothberg
holding that if there is only one construction that will permit all parts of the deed to be given effect it should be followed holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that an attorney is a necessary witness for purposes of tennessee rule of professional conduct 37a only if there are things to which he will be the only one available to testify  holding that attorney fees are incurred only when there is an express or implied agreement that the fee award will be paid over to the legal representative