Can a lawyer defend a client if said lawyer is a witness to the crime?

(Inspired by this GD thread)
Scenario: A defense attorney and a close friend (a colleague from the same firm) are having lunch at an outdoor cafe. Another man, who also works for this firm and is known by name to both defense attorney & friend, walks up to the two lunching lawyers, pulls out a pistol, fires several shots into the friend’s head & chest … then reloads and fires several more shots into the friend in the same general manner. This is all in plain sight of our defense attorney, who was sitting three feet from the murder. The (alleged?) murderer then sets the murder weapon down gently on the table, and leaves the scene on foot. Police nab the (alleged?) murderer mere minutes afterward.

The GQ: Is there any way that the defense attorney could ever be compelled to defend this particular defendant? ISTM that defense lawyers routinely have to sublimate feelings such as “I suspect my client is guilty”. Would a judge ever expect a defense attorney to sublimate the actual experience of having witnessed the crime at close range? Or is this a scenario where actually “knowing your client is guilty” would more or less excuse the defense attorney from bearing a reasonable expectation to being able to fairly represent this defendant?

Have there ever been a real-life case kinda/sorta like this? I assume that if things went down as presented in the scenario, there’s zero real-life chance that the defense attorney would ever be compelled to represent the (alleged?) murderer. But there must be a chain of attenuation in which changing the scenario’s conditions sufficiently would lead to a comparable (not equivalent) scenario in which the defense lawyer COULD be reasonably expected to “do his job” and defend the (alleged?) murderer.

IANAL but I assume there is some legal restriction on the prosecutor or defense lawyer being a witness - simply because the court may worry the jury would not adequately separate sworn testimony from what the lawyer may say - speculation, arguments, etc. - as an advocate for his client.

IANAL either, but I can’t imagine that going to trial and being allowed to stand - conflict of interest and getting the whole thing declared a mis-trial are the first things that come to my mind.

In this case, there would also be a built-in conflict of interest due to the vicitim being a friend and colleague of the attorney.

ETA Cat Whisperer’s post was not here when I wrote this

Non-lawyer question, but when would a defense lawyer ever be compelled to represent someone?

Just because a lawyer might to be called as a witness does not automatically disqulify them from representing one of the parties to a case.

See Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7

However, if the lawyer is a necessary witness, like the situation in the OP, then the lawyer couldn’t represent the client unless one of the exceptions set forth in 3.7 was met.

Dunno. I was looking back to the inspiration thread (about defending Bin Laden), and thinking that you couldn’t pull the “well, I think he did it!” excuse to weasel out of defending Bin Laden.

“Compel” is the wrong word. The idea is that at some point, a lawyer may have to set aside “common sense” and “things everyone knows” and just do his/her job and defend someone even some publicly convicted to the best of their ability.

See Model Rules of Professional Conduct 6.2.

A lawyer can be appointed to represent somebody, but there are exceptions. Most likely would be that the lawyer did not have the necessary skill or found the client to be repugnant. The lawyer is going to have to prove those things in some way to the judge.

Funny, I was just thinking about this a few nights ago, when I saw the 1957 courtroom drama Witness for the Prosecution.

A crusty old London barrister sees a woman, with some justification, stab his client (who is her murderous, philandering husband) to death. The barrister immediately declares that he will defend her in her own murder trial.

The best practice, of course, is for a lawyer who is a potential witness to not represent someone in that trial. It’s a very far-fetched hypothetical. There will almost always be other counsel available, and it can otherwise place the lawyer in an awkward ethical spot where he might have to choose between his duty to represent his client zealously, and his duty to testify truthfully when called as a witness.

Bingo.

Appointed by whom? IANAL but the only appointments I have ever heard of would be appointing a public defender for someone who could afford a lawyer, not lawyers in private practice. What are the scenarios for this?

It might be worth noting in the UK that barristers have to abide by something called the Cab Rank rule - except in certain specific situations they have to taken on any case if they are asked to: Cab-rank rule - Wikipedia

I think the bolded section would rule him out in the OP’s hypothetical

My legal friends inform me that in practice a reason can always be found…

Some places don’t have ranks of public defenders, they use private lawyers (officers of the court) in that jurisdiction if needed.

I am actually a Barrister (called to the Bar of England and Wales a few years ago by the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn) and you should note that Barristers do not deal directly with clients, clients go to solicitors and solicitors engage Barristers. In such a case as the OP, with the Barrister going to be a witness, their is no way any Solicitor is going to Instruct him in the case.
And to yourn statement, for the most part being professionally embarrassed (meaning a conflicty of interest or being placed in a position where you cannot ethically put your clients case forward) or being double booked (having more than one case on a single day) are the only acceptable reasons. Bugger the BSB.

Any chance of a an ask the barrister thread?

Sure.

A lawyer that can’t always find a reason would be a poor advocate.