than a jury are of such gravity and controversy that disqualification of a lawyer who will serve as a witness maybe justified. See id. at 138 (2). This Court has recognized that a lawyer is more likely to act ethically in serving as both a witness and an advocate if his or her testimony relates to merely formal matters, but this factor clearly did not weigh in Martin’s favor, because the lawyers’ anticipated testimony concerned a critical and disputed matter. See Payne, 295 Ga. at 611. Alawyer is more likely to be allowed to testify and remain as an advocate where the need for his or her testimony is unexpected or occurs when a change in counsel would be disruptive to the proceedings. See id. at 611, n. 2; Pulte Home Corp. v. Simerly, 322 Ga. App. 699, 702-703 (746 SE2d 173) (2013) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Clough, 274 Ga. App. at 137-138 (2)
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to disqualify an attorney based on a matter not raised by the opposing party until only weeks prior to trial holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the withdrawal of the juiy trial waiver holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly rejecting a waiver argument where the motion to disqualify was filed after a threemonth delay holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits