Show PERFIDY AND TREACHERY A subscriber acks if it la more for an attorney to witness a will and then try to break that will than to be an 1 attorney for ono aldo and appear later as a witness on the other side our answer Is that the attorney who attests ta a will and then appears in court to prove that what he subscribed to was false commits a great wrong first hla act Is that of perfidy in proving false to a trust implied when attesting to a document the attorney virtually says he will defend the validity of the document with his plighted word no tacitly declares his honor Is back othas signature second his course reflects on the ethics of tho profession aside from its stultification the act Is reprehensible aa calculated to bring the practice of law into disrepute and fill the public mind with distrust but in the case of an attorney simply called upon by an opposing side to testify there are not the elements of treachery that enter into the acts of tho turncoat turn coat subscriber to a will but even in such instances good practice opposes the course and the records are filled with declarations denunciatory of such duplicity our own supreme court has bad occasion to deprecate the conduct of a lawyer who became a witness in an ordinary case tor those opposed to bis client and chief justice bartch in mclaren vs et al uses the following language see 19 utah page while we hold that the attorney was a competent witness under the statute of state we do not wish to be the practice of calling an attorney attorn sy engaged la the trial ot a case as such to testify as a witness this practice should not be indulged in except la cases where it is absolutely necessary cases may arise however where it Is absolutely necessary that the attorney be called as a witness but when such exigency arises and the attorney can safely do so with respect to the interests of his client he should invariably retire from the case |