counsel forces him to be a witness. For his second point, Appellant argues that even if Rule 3.7 is applicable, Hatfield is not a necessary witness, because his testimony is either uncontested or cumulative of other witnesses’ testimony. We discuss these points together, as they are interrelated. This court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 3.7, in a per curiam opinion delivered on December 16, 1985. See In the Matter of Arkansas Bar Ass’ n: Petition for the Adoption of Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 287 Ark. Appx. 495, 702 S.W.2d 326 (1985). The Model Rules became effective on January 1, 1986, and they replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was adopted by per curiam order on June 21, 1976. See id. Rule 3 279, 57 S.W.3d 171 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The remaining two cases, Purtle v. McAdams,
holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence holding that attorneys testimony would only be cumulative to evidence offered by some nineteen other persons holding that any deficiency in failure to object to hearsay did not prejudice defendant when testimony was cumulative of other evidence holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative