An attorney represented the plaintiff in an automobile accident case. Two weeks before the date set for trial, the attorney discovered that there was an eyewitness to the accident. Is the attorney subject to discipline?

• A. Yes, because the attorney asked the witness to leave the jurisdiction.
• B. No, because the eyewitness may not be needed.
• C. No, because the witness is not available.
• D. Yes, because the attorney should have named the witness earlier.

Answer: (A)

Not allowing a witness to testify or trying to remove them from the picture is prohibited. A lawyer may not influence a witness, suppress evidence, or take steps to hinder testimony, because that undermines the fairness of the proceedings and the administration of justice. In this scenario, telling an eyewitness to leave the jurisdiction is precisely an attempt to prevent the witness from testifying, which is a form of obstructing the process and could be viewed as witness tampering. Such conduct subjects the attorney to discipline regardless of the witness’s perceived importance, availability, or timing. The ethical violation isn’t cured by claiming the witness wasn’t needed or that the witness wasn’t available, and it doesn’t matter that the witness could have been named earlier—the act of trying to remove the witness itself crossing the line into improper interference.