advocate-witness rule in Illinois

2025The State responds the advocate-witness rule is inapplicable because the prosecutor was - 25 - not offering testimony but pursuing questioning that appropriately called into question the witnesses’ credibility. ¶ 76 The advocate-witness rule “bars attorneys from assuming a dual role as advocate and witness in the same proceedings.” People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 136 (2000).

2020Additionally, the prosecutor’s statements did not violate the advocate witness rule. “[T]he ‘advocate-witness rule’ *** bars attorneys from assuming a dual role as advocate and witness in the same proceedings.” People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 136 (2000).

2021Ammons-Lewis asserts that this allowed Handler to “coax[]” the trial court judge to the point that the trial court never even reached a determination of whether Handler’s fees were reasonable or necessary. - 10 - No. 1-20-0426 ¶ 30 “The advocate-witness rule precludes an attorney from acting as an advocate and as a fact witness in the same case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cushing v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 103197, ¶ 317 (quoting Northern Moraine Wastewater Reclamation District v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 392 Ill.

2013Aug. 1, 1990). ¶ 317 “The advocate-witness rule precludes an attorney from acting as an advocate and as a fact witness in the same case.” Northern Moraine Wastewater Reclamation District v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 392 Ill.

2025“The rule reflects the inconsistency between the role of an advocate and that of a witness; the function of an advocate is to advance or argue the cause of another, while that of the witness is to state the facts objectively.” People v. Gully, 243 Ill.

2022“The advocate-witness rule precludes an attorney from acting as advocate and witness in the same case.” People v. Gully, 243 Ill.

2025The advocate-witness rule “precludes an attorney from acting as an advocate and a fact witness in the same case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cushing v. Greyhound Lines, Ltd., 2013 IL App (1st) 103197, ¶ 317 .

2024Defendants maintain they should have been allowed to depose Meyers because she negotiated the Agreement. ¶ 75 “The advocate-witness rule precludes an attorney from acting as an advocate and as a fact witness in the same case.” Cushing v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 103197, ¶ 317 .

2025People v. Rivera, 2013 IL 112467, ¶¶ 39-40 .

2021See People v. Rivera, 2013 IL 112467, ¶¶ 39-40 .

2024But “disqualification is regarded as a drastic measure [citation] which courts should grant only 19 when the movant can show that the lawyer’s testimony is likely to prejudice the testifying lawyer’s own clients.” Weil, Freiburg & Thomas, P.C. v. Sara Lee Corp., 218 Ill.

2021Schwartz v. Cortelloni, 177 Ill. 2d 166, 176 (1997). ¶ 31 The advocate-witness rule is closely linked to Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

2020Because the prosecutor’s statements were based on the evidence, the prosecutor did not improperly testify in violation of the advocate-witness rule. ¶ 132 Second, we reject defendant’s argument that it was improper for “the prosecutor [to] twice highlight[ ] the fact that [defendant] was in jail at the time of trial.” In support of his argument, defendant cites People v. Hayes, 353 Ill.

2020Because the prosecutor’s statements were based on the evidence, the prosecutor did not improperly testify in violation of the advocate-witness rule. ¶ 132 Second, we reject defendant’s argument that it was improper for “the prosecutor [to] twice highlight[ ] the fact that [defendant] was in jail at the time of trial.” In support of his argument, defendant cites People v. Hayes, 353 Ill.

2013“The testimony of an attorney in a case that he is trying should be allowed only when the court, in its discretion, deems it necessary.” Andrea Dumon, Inc. v. Pittway Corp., 110 Ill.

2009See 134 Ill. 2d Rs. 3.3(a)(10), 3.7; People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 136 (2000); Bauer v. Memorial Hospital, 377 Ill.

2009Bauer, 377 Ill.