 It ended with a threat with [sic] you.

21

FERRARA: Did it end with a demand?

22

GALLEY: No, it did not end with a demand; it was a threat.

23

FERRARA: You would be sued for an additional $200,000?

24

GALLEY: I would lose another $200,000.

25

FERRARA: That you owed Mr. Peng an additional $200,000?

26

GALLEY: Yes.

27

FERRARA: In accord with your understanding?

28

GALLEY: It was a threat.

29

FERRARA: Yes or no?

30

GALLEY: The exact words--

31

Here the district judge intervened and, over Ferrara's objections, questioned Ferrara as to the date of the meeting in question. Ferrara placed it in July 1984. The judge then asked Galley to describe the circumstances under which the meeting had taken place. When Ferrara again objected to this line of questioning, the judge asserted: "You opened the door, and the jury is entitled to know all the facts. That is my ruling." At this point, Ferrara moved for a mistrial. The motion was immediately denied, whereupon Ferrara inquired: "Will the court allow me to testify in this proceedings [sic] concerning what happened at the conference?" The judge responded that Ferrara would be permitted to do so only if substitute counsel were retained. The court granted the defense an adjournment to allow this substitution, and the jury was dismissed for the day.

32

The next day, with the jury absent, the court raised the issue whether Ferrara's disqualification was required by DR 5-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer "shall" withdraw if he "learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client." N.Y.Jud.L. (app) Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-102(A) (McKinney 1975). Ferrara announced that, at his client's behest, he wished to continue as counsel and that, if necessary, another lawyer in his firm who had also attended the meeting could take the stand to rebut Galley's testimony. The court heard
It ended with a threat with [ sic ] you. 

 21 

 FERRARA: Did it end with a demand? 

 22 

 GALLEY: No, it did not end with a demand; it was a menace. 

 23 

 FERRARA: You would be action for an additional $ 200,000? 

 24 

 GALLEY: I would lose another $ 200,000. 

 25 

 FERRARA: That you owe Mr. Peng an extra $ 200,000? 

 26 

 GALLEY: Yes. 

 27 

 FERRARA: In accord with your understanding? 

 28 

 GALLEY: It was a threat. 

 29 

 FERRARA: Yes or nobelium? 

 30 

 GALLEY: The accurate words-- 

 31 

 Here the district judge intervened and, over Ferrara's objections, questioned Ferrara as to the date of the meeting in motion. Ferrara placed it in July 1984. The judge then necessitate Galley to identify the circumstances under which the meeting had taken place. When Ferrara again objected to this channel of questioning, the judge asserted: " You opened the doorway, and the jury is entitled to know all the fact. That is my ruling. " At this detail, Ferrara moved for a mistrial. The motion was immediately denied, whereupon Ferrara inquired: " Will the court permit me to testify in this proceedings [ sic ] concerning what happened at the conference? " The judge respond that Ferrara would be permitted to do so only if substitute counsel were retained. The court granted the defense an adjournment to let this substitution, and the jury was dismissed for the day. 

 32 

 The future day, with the jury absent, the court raised the issue whether Ferrara's disqualification was command by DR 5 - 102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer " shall " withdraw if he " learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a spectator on behalf of his client. " N.Y.Jud. L. (app) Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5 - 102(A) (McKinney 1975). Ferrara announced that, at his client's behest, he wished to continue as counsel and that, if necessary, another lawyer in his firm who had also attended the meeting could take the stand to rebut Galley's testimony. The motor hotel heard
 It ended with a threat witm [sic] you.

21

FERRARA: Did it end wjth a deoand?

22

GALLEY: No, it did not end wuth a demand; it was a threag.

23

FERRARA: Jou would be wyed for an additiokcl $200,000?

24

GAMPEY: N xould lose anotmer $200,000.

25

FERRARA: That you owed Mf. 'eng an additional $200,000?

26

GALLEY: Yes.

27

FERRARA: In accprf with your unqersuanqing?

28

FALLEY: It was a threat.

29

FERRARA: Yes kr no?

30

GANLEY: The exacy words--

31

Here the district jkdge intervened and, ovfr Ferrara's objqxtions, questkoned Ferrara as to thg date of the meeting in questiov. Ferxara placed ir ij July 1984. The oudge nhen asked Galley to gescribr the circumstsncxs ubder which the meetinj had taken place. Whgn Ferrara ayain objected to this lune ox quastiubine, tge jhdge adsected: "You opsned the doir, and the jury is tntynked to know zll thq sacts. That is my ruling." At this point, Ftrrarz moved for a mistrial. Rhe motion was immediwtely denyed, whereupon Ferrara inquired: "Will the court allmw me go uewtify un this proceedings [sic] concerning what happeneq au tme conference?" Thc judge responded yhwt Serrara would be pexjifted to do so only if subftiture counsej wete retained. The court grantwd the defenfw an adjournment tl allow thir sunstitition, and the jury was bismisaed for the day.

32

The nsbt day, with the gurj abvent, the court raised the yssue whevher Yerrara's disaualifycation wad reqmhred by DR 5-102 of the Code ox Professilnal Responsibility, which states that a lawyet "svaln" withdrcw if me "learns or it is obvious thct he or a ladyer in hia firm mught to be called as a fltness on beialf of hys coienr." N.Y.Jud.U. (app) Code of Ptofessioncj Rewponsibility DR 5-102(A) (KcKkhney 1975). Ferrara auuoobced that, at hos zliqnn's uehese, he wished tm covtivie as counsel anb ghat, if necessary, anothes lasyer in his firm wno had alsi attendqd the meetinb could take the suand tm rxbut Gsllgy's testimony. The court heard
It ended with a threat with [sic] FERRARA: it end a demand? 22 end a demand; it a threat. 23 You would be sued for an $200,000? 24 GALLEY: I would lose another $200,000. 25 FERRARA: That you owed Peng an additional $200,000? 26 GALLEY: Yes. 27 FERRARA: In accord with your 28 It a 29 FERRARA: Yes or no? 30 GALLEY: The exact words-- 31 Here the district judge intervened over Ferrara's objections, questioned Ferrara as to the of the meeting in Ferrara placed it in July The then asked to the under which the had taken place. When Ferrara again objected to this line of questioning, the judge asserted: "You opened door, and is entitled know the That is my this point, Ferrara moved for a was immediately denied, whereupon Ferrara inquired: "Will the allow me testify in this proceedings [sic] concerning happened at the conference?" The judge responded that would be permitted to do so only if substitute counsel were retained. The court granted an adjournment to allow substitution, and the was for day. The next with the jury absent, the court raised the issue whether Ferrara's was required by DR 5-102 of the Code of Professional states a lawyer "shall" if he "learns or is that he or a his ought as witness behalf of his client." (app) Code of Professional Responsibility 5-102(A) (McKinney 1975). Ferrara behest, he wished to continue as counsel and if necessary, another lawyer in his firm had also attended the meeting could take the stand to rebut Galley's The court
 It ended with a threat with [sic] You.

21

FERRARA: did it End WitH a DemaNd?

22

GAlLEY: No, it did not ENd wiTh a demand; it was a threat.

23

FeRRARa: YOU wouLD bE sued For an adDItIONal $200,000?

24

gAlLeY: I WoULd Lose aNotHer $200,000.

25

FERRaRA: That you OweD MR. Peng an additIOnAl $200,000?

26

GALLEY: YeS.

27

FErRARA: In accorD wiTh your UnDerSTandiNg?

28

GaLLEY: it was a THreat.

29

FeRRARA: Yes Or NO?

30

GALLEy: the exacT WOrDs--

31

HeRe the district judgE InTErvened and, over ferrarA's OBjECTioNs, qUestioned FErRara aS To the daTE oF THE meETing in questioN. Ferrara plaCEd iT in JulY 1984. THe jUDge theN askeD GALleY to describe The cIrcumstanCes undER which tHE meetinG had taKen PlaCe. WhEN FErRarA aGAin OBjEctED to This line Of QuEstioNing, THE JUdge AssErteD: "You oPened the door, aNd tHe juRY is EntitLed to Know AlL the fActs. ThAt is mY rUling." At this poinT, FerRara moved For A mIstRiAl. The MOtion wAs iMmeDiately Denied, wHEreUpON fErRara inquired: "Will thE cOURt Allow me tO testiFY iN tHIs proceeDiNgs [Sic] cONCerniNg whAT hAppened aT the coNFeReNce?" The jUdGe respOnDed ThaT FerrARa woUld be pErmitted To do sO Only if substituTE counsel were rETaINEd. tHe coUrt Granted the dEfenSE an aDjouRNmEnt TO alloW this SuBStITution, and the jury was DiSmisseD for tHe day.

32

The next dAy, with the jURY Absent, thE couRT rAIsed the issue whEther ferrara's diSQualificAtion Was requiRed by DR 5-102 of THE Code of PRofEssIonAl RESPoNsibility, whicH STateS tHat a lawYer "Shall" wiThdRaw If hE "leArNs or it is oBvious thAt He Or A lAwyEr in hIS firm ougHt To bE cAllEd as a WItness On behAlf oF hIs CLieNt." N.Y.Jud.l. (ApP) cOde oF PRoFessIonAl respoNsibILitY DR 5-102(A) (McKInney 1975). FerrAra ANnouNcEd That, at hIs client's beheSt, He wished to CoNtiNue as cOUNsel and tHat, if necessary, another laWYer in hiS fiRm who Had aLso attendEd tHe meetIng COuld taKe the sTand tO rEbuT gAlley'S TEsTimOnY. The court hEARd
 It ended with a threat wi th [sic] y ou.
21
FE RR ARA:  Did  it end with a dema nd?

22

GALLEY: No, i t did  n o t en d  w ith a  demand ;  i t was  a  t hre at . 
23

F ERR ARA: Yo u would be  su ed  for an addi t io nal $200,0 00? 

24

GALLEY : I  would  l ose anoth er$200, 000.
2 5

FER RARA: Tha ty ou owe d  Mr. Pe n g  a n ad ditional $200,000 ? 
2 6

GALLEY: Yes .

27
F E RR A R A:Inaccord wit hyouru ndersta n di n g ? 

2 8 

GALLEY: Itwas a threa t .
29

FE RR ARA :  Yes o r no? 
3 0
GALLEY: The  exa ct words- -

31Here th e  distri ct jud geint erve n ed  a nd,  o v erF er rar a 'sobjectio ns ,quest ione d F e rrar a a s to  thedate of the m eet ingi n q uesti on. F erra ra  plac ed itin Ju ly  1984. The judg e th en askedGal le y t odescr i be the  ci rcu mstance s under whi ch t h emeeting had takenpl a c e.  When Fe rraraa ga in objected  t o t hisl i ne of  que s ti oning, t he jud g eas serted:  " You op en edthe  door ,  and  the j ury is e ntitl e d to know allt he facts. Tha t  i s my ruli ng. " At this p oint ,  Fer rara mo ved for a  mist ri a l. The motion was imme di atelydenie d, whereuponFerrara in q u i red: "Wi ll t h ec ourt allow meto te stify in t h is proce eding s [sic]concernin g what hap pen edatthe c on ference?" The j udge  r esponde d t hat Fer rar a w oul d b epermitted  to do s oon ly  i f s ubsti t ute coun se l w er e r etain e d. The  cour t gr an te d  th e defen s ea n  adj ou rn ment  to  a llowthis sub stituti on, and t hej urywa sdismiss ed for the da y. 

32

Thene xtday, w i t h the ju ry absent, the court ra i sed the  is sue w heth er Ferrar a's  disqu ali f icatio n wasrequi re d b y DR 5- 1 0 2ofth e Code ofP r ofe ssion al  Res ponsibi lity, which states tha t a lawyer "s hal l" w i t hd raw if he"l e arn s or it is obviou s that heor alawyer inh isfi rm ough t to be  call e d as awitness o n behalfof  his c lie nt." N.Y.J ud.L. (a pp) Codeo f Pro f es siona l R espons ib ili ty DR  5-102 ( A)(McKi nney 1 97 5). Fe rrara  a nnounced  that, at his client'sbehest , hewis hed to co nti n ueas counse l an d that, if  ne ces sary,  an o therlawy e rinh is fi rm w h o had als o  a tte n d ed  the meetin g c oul d tak e t h e stan d to  rebut Galley's t e stimony. The c ourt h ear d
 It_ended with_a threat with [sic]_you.

21

FERRARA: Did_it_end with_a_demand?

22

GALLEY: No, it_did not end_with a demand; it_was a threat.

23

FERRARA:_You_would be sued for an additional $200,000?

24

GALLEY: I would lose another $200,000.

25

FERRARA: That you_owed_Mr. Peng_an_additional_$200,000?

26

GALLEY: Yes.

27

FERRARA: In accord with_your understanding?

28

GALLEY: It was a_threat.

29

FERRARA: Yes_or no?

30

GALLEY: The exact words--

31

Here the district judge_intervened_and, over Ferrara's_objections, questioned Ferrara as to the date of the_meeting in question. Ferrara placed it_in July 1984._The_judge_then asked Galley to_describe the circumstances under which the_meeting had taken place. When Ferrara_again objected to this line of questioning,_the judge asserted: "You opened the_door, and the jury is_entitled to_know all the facts. That_is my ruling."_At this_point, Ferrara moved_for a mistrial. The motion was_immediately denied, whereupon_Ferrara inquired: "Will the court allow_me_to testify in_this_proceedings_[sic] concerning_what happened at_the_conference?" The_judge_responded that Ferrara would be permitted_to_do so only if substitute counsel were_retained. The court granted_the_defense an adjournment to_allow this substitution, and the_jury was dismissed for the day.

32

The_next day,_with the_jury absent, the court raised the issue whether Ferrara's disqualification was_required by DR 5-102 of the_Code of Professional Responsibility,_which states_that_a lawyer "shall"_withdraw_if he_"learns or it is obvious that he_or a_lawyer in his firm ought to_be called as a_witness_on behalf of his client." N.Y.Jud.L._(app) Code of Professional Responsibility DR_5-102(A) (McKinney 1975). Ferrara announced_that,_at_his client's behest, he wished_to continue as counsel and that,_if necessary, another_lawyer in his firm who had also_attended_the meeting could take the stand_to_rebut Galley's testimony. The court heard