we will address it here. The purpose of Rule 3.7 is to prevent an attorney from being in the awkward position of acting as both a witness and an advocate at trial, which could create some of the following problems: the possibility that, in addressing the jury, the lawyer will appear to vouch for his own credibility; . . . the unfair and difficult situation which arises when an opposing counsel has to cross-examine a lawyer-adversary and seek to impeach his credibility; and ... the appearance of impropriety created, i.e., the likely implication that the testifying lawyer may well be distorting the truth for the sake of his client. (Citations omitted.) Culebras Enterprises Corp. v. Rivera-Rios, 846 F2d 94, 99-100 (II) (1st Cir. 1988). Further, there is great po S. Dist. LEXIS 15672 (<HOLDING>); cf. World Youth Day v. Famous Artists
holding that a lawyers willful absence from his clients trial is contemptuous holding that loss of contingency fees that lawyers might have earned from other clients was not foreseeable and directly traceable to clients failure to pay amounts due under contract holding that lawyers who were necessary witnesses in the case under rule 37 were not prohibited from representing their clients in all pretrial matters including discovery holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline holding that rule 37 does not prohibit a lawyer who will testify at trial from acting as counsel in pretrial discovery