of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. (b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 32:1.7 or Rule 32:1.9. Iowa Rules of Prof’l Conduct 32:3.7. There are no reported decisions from the Iowa appellate courts interpreting Rule 32:3.7. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal courts have examined other states’ identical versions of Rule 32:3.7. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that Missouri’s rule “has been interpreted to mean an attorney is a ‘necessary witness’ only if ‘there are things to which he will be the only one available to testify.’ ” Macheca Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia Idem. Co., 928 A.2d 631, 633 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Clough v. Richelo, 274 Ga.App. 129, 616
holding that under connecticut rule of professional conduct 37 a necessary witness is not just someone with relevant information however but someone who has material information that no one else can provide holding that because the line of questioning was not relevant to the credibility of the witness and sought information about which the witness had no knowledge it was not a constitutional violation to sustain the objection holding that information of other conduct by the investigating police officer was not material under brady because the information would not have been admissible under fedrevid 608b as it would have been extrinsic evidence impeaching the witness on collateral matters holding that such information is not material under securities law holding a claimant who refuses to provide financial information necessary to ascertain whether a claimant is working may have his indemnity benefits suspended until such information is provided