show that there is any disputed material fact that can only be proved with Merolla’s testimony. As shown in Division 1 (a), supra, there is undisput s burden of showing that Merolla is likely to be a necessary witness at trial, the trial court’s disqualification of Merolla on that basis was an abuse of discretion. Martinez v. Housing Auth. of DeKalb County, 264 Ga. App. at 288 (5). 2. Clough also contends' that, even if the trial court properly found that Merolla was likely to be a necessary witness at trial on the malpractice suit, Rule 3.7 does not authorize the court to disqualify Merolla from representing Clough prior to the trial. Because the question of when a Rule 3.7 disqualification takes effect could arise again in this case upon r sing Exchange, 866 FSupp. at 1303-1304 (C) (<HOLDING>); but see Gen. Mill Supply Co. v. SCA Svcs.,
holding that before pretrial detention may be ordered in a life felony case state must show that proof is evident or the presumption great holding that judge presiding at trial may not testify in that trial as witness holding that trial court abused its discretion in permitting the testimony of a witness who was not listed in the pretrial order and no reason was given for the failure to list the witness holding that an attorney who was going to be a necessary witness at trial may participate in pretrial hearings conferences motions practice etc but should be disqualified from taking or defending depositions because at trial his participation in the depositions will be evident and confusing to the jurors holding that because of potential for abuse of privilege against selfincrimination by defendants who use it to obstruct discovery only to waive it and subject the plaintiff to surprise testimony at trial courts recognize appropriateness of imposing sanctions for civil defendants assertion of the privilege during discovery decision to assert privilege during pretrial depositions may be valid grounds for precluding defendant from testifying at trial as well as for striking affidavits opposing summary judgment motions