With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 216. 43 . Id. at 221. In In re Estate of "Waters, we held that the necessary prejudice had been shown when an attorney was both trial counsel and a necessary witness in a probate proceeding. In re Estate of Waters, 647 A.2d 1091, 1097-98 (Del.1994) (citing Infotechnology, 582 A.2d at 221-22). 44 . Infotechnology, 582 A.2d at 216-17. 45 . Id. at 221. 46 . See id. at 220. 47 . Id. at 216-17; see also Waters, 647 A.2d at 1098 (citing Infotechnology, 582 A.2d at 222). 48 . See Supr. Ct. R. 64(e) (describing the powers and duties of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel). 49 . In re Reardon, 759 A.2d 568, 575 (Del.2000) (citing In re Green, 464 A.2d 881, 885 (Del.1983)). 50 . In re Asbestos Litig. (Turchen), 2011 WL 5344308, at *9 (Del.Super. Oct. 28, 2011); cf. Waters, 647 A.2d at 1097-98 (<HOLDING>). 51 . Fairthorne Maint. Corp. v. Ramunno, 2007

A: holding that prejudice existed when an attorney was both the trial counsel and a necessary witness
B: holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence
C: holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity
D: holding that the failure of defense counsel to call a corroborating witness resulted in prejudice to the defendant
A.