DOJ-OGR-00000143.tif

80a
instruction may be inadequate to mitigate these risks
given the nature of the allegations involved.
Importantly, a joint trial is also likely to require
disqualification of at least one of Maxwell's attorneys
from participating as an advocate on her behalf. The
perjury counts likely implicate the performance and
credibility of her lawyers in the civil action-two of
whom represent her in this case. The New York Rules
of Professional Conduct generally forbid a lawyer from
representing a client in a proceeding in which the
lawyer is likely also to be a witness. N.Y. R. Prof'l
Conduct § 3.7(a). Maxwell's counsel in the civil action
and the deposition may be important fact witnesses on
the perjury counts. Even if counsel were not required
to testify, trying all counts together could force Maxwell
to choose between having her counsel testify on her
behalf on the perjury charges and having them assist
her in defending the Mann Act charges.
The Second Circuit has recognized that witness
testimony offered by a party's attorney presents
serious risks to the fairness of a trial. See Murray v.
Metro. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 2009).
The lawyer might appear to vouch for their own
credibility, jurors might perceive the lawyer as dis-
torting the truth to benefit their client, and blurred
lines between argument and evidence might confuse
the jury. Id. Disqualification of counsel also implicates
Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to be represented
by the counsel of her choice. See, e.g., United States v.
Kincade, No. 15-cr-00071 (JAD) (GWF), 2016 WL
6154901, at *6 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2016). The prejudice to
Maxwell is especially pronounced because the attorneys
who represented her in the civil case have worked with
her for years and are particularly familiar with the
facts surrounding the criminal prosecution. See United
DOJ-OGR-00000143