OKBAR October 11, 1950

Is whether a lawyer's courtroom testimony was a violation of the Canons a question the ethics committee will answer?

Short answer: The Committee declined to answer, concluding the question turned on the admissibility of evidence, a matter for the courts rather than the ethics committee.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1950. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1950
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether the giving of testimony by a lawyer was a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

The Committee concluded that the question presented considerations concerning the admissibility of evidence and was not one of ethics. The answer, it said, was therefore for the courts and not for the committee, and it declined to opine.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1950, under the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics and decades before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee decide whether the testimony was improper?

A: No. It declined, finding the question one of evidence admissibility for the courts rather than an ethics question for the committee.

Q: Why did the Committee treat this as outside its province?

A: It characterized the issue as concerning the admissibility of evidence, which it said was for the courts to resolve, not the ethics committee.

Background and rules framework

The opinion turned on the scope of the ethics committee's role rather than on any numbered rule. The Committee distinguished questions of professional ethics, which it would address, from questions of the admissibility of evidence, which it left to the courts. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

The opinion cited no rules, statutes, cases, or prior opinions.

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Adopted October 11, 1950

QUERY

Was the giving of testimony by the lawyer a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics?

ANSWER

It is the opinion of the committee that the question here involved is one presenting considerations concerning the admissibility of evidence and is not one of ethics. The answer is therefore for the courts and not for this committee.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1950 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.