Although I only occasionally summarize on this blog decisions of the Delaware Superior Court, the trial court of general jurisdiction in Delaware, for example, when they are of special commercial import or they apply generally to business litigators, this is such an instance.
In Dunlap v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2007 WL 2390682 (Del. Super. 2007), read opinion here, the Delaware Superior Court granted a Motion to Disqualify filed by one party, based on Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 which prohibits attorneys advocating in a trial to also serve as witnesses, but then, sua sponte, (which for the non-Latin lovers among my readers, means "on its own"), the Court also disqualified the opposing attorney who filed the motion. The Court reasoned that: both attorneys "… used some very strong language about positions the other side has taken….[and] it is beyond proper vigorous advocacy. Both counsel have lost too much professional detachment in their "vigorous" advocacy.The Court, therefore, believes that both sides need new counsel."
Far be it from me to pontificate, as there but for the grace of God go I, though it is easy to observe that litigation should not be about the lawyers, and as hard as it is to do, even if the other attorney is insulting and boorish, the goal is to focus on the issues in the case. Here and here are two separate follow-up opinions denying a motion for reargument and denying a motion for "clarification" of the ruling.