unseemly and ineffective position of arguing his [or her] own credibility’ ” (citation omitted)); 81 AmJur2d § 220 (2015). One circumstance that must be weighed in deciding whether a lawyer may ethically serve as both witness and advocate is whether the matter is to be heard by a jury or a judge, and this factor obviously weighed against the disqualification of Martin’s lawyers, because their testimony was to be before the presiding judge. Cf. Clough, 274 Ga. App. at 137 (2) (“[T]here is great potential for juror confusion about which role the lawyer is serving during trial.”). However, certain matters to be considered by a judge r that a lawyer who will serve as a witness at trial may nevertheless continue to represent his or her client in pretrial proceedings); Castell, 254 Ga. 556 (<HOLDING>). A lawyer is also more likely to be allowed to
holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that a habeas corpus petitioner who did not raise an ineffective assistance claim in his first state habeas petition satisfied the cause prong of the cause and prejudice test when counsel on the first state habeas petition was also trial counsel whose performance was allegedly inadequate holding that it would be improper for original trial counsel to raise the issue of his own alleged ineffectiveness in a posttrial habeas corpus case holding that counsel cannot raise his or her own ineffectiveness