What primary concern is addressed in MRPC Rule 3.7 regarding lawyers?

MRPC Rule 3.7 specifically addresses the situation where a lawyer is also a necessary witness in the case they are trying to litigate. This rule is primarily concerned with the potential conflict of interest that arises when an attorney represents a client and is also called to testify about matters related to that representation. The rule establishes that a lawyer should not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness, unless certain exceptions apply.

This provision aims to maintain the integrity of the legal process and avoid confusion for the trier of fact (such as a jury), ensuring that there is a clear separation between the role of advocate and the role of witness. An attorney serving both functions could create bias or confusion, potentially harming the client’s case.

The other choices do not capture the essence of Rule 3.7. The role of legal consultants, the duration of representation, and ethical obligations in closing arguments are aspects governed by different rules or principles within the Model Rules, but they do not specifically address the critical issue of an attorney acting as both an advocate and a necessary witness, which is the core concern of Rule 3.7.