In denying a motion to disqualify counsel based on a claim that the opposing attorney might be a witness in violation of Rule 3.7, the court viewed the motion as a tactical maneuver. The court focused on the procedural context as relevant to the nature of enforcement, but not the need to enforce the rule. The court found that the movant would not be prejudiced at this stage of the case, the opposing party would not receive an advantage, and disqualification could cause undue economic impact. The motion was denied without prejudice to renewing it at a later time. Benge v. Oak Grove Motor Court, Inc., download file.