Donaldson

Issues on Appeal

For over a century and a half, the judiciary has had the implied power to regulate the practice of law. (Hustedt v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 329, 336-337 , and fn. 5 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 636 P.2d 1139 ], citing People v. Turner (1850) 1 Cal. 143, 150 .) The judiciary traditionally has deferred to legislative enactment of “ ‘a reasonable degree of regulation and control over the profession and practice of law . . . . ’ ” (Hustedt v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 30 Cal.3d at pp. 337-338.) Congruent with that tradition, the Legislature has authorized the State Bar, with the Supreme Court’s approval, to “formulate and enforce rules of professional conduct for all members of the bar . . . .” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6076; Brydonjack v. State Bar (1929) 208 Cal. 439, 442-446 [ 281 P. 1018 , 66 A.L.R. 1507 ].) Pursuant to that authority, the State Bar has adopted a rule of professional conduct that prohibits, with few exceptions, a lawyer from acting as both advocate and witness. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 5-210.)

In the case at bar, the credibility of the key prosecution witness was the critical issue, as she was the only person who…