Andrews is being criminally prosecuted for false imprisonment and assault. Andrews seeks to impeach the alleged victim, Markus, with the following testimony from Estes, a lawyer who is working with Estes on a potential civil suit against Markus has against Andrews. In the offer of proof, Estes testified that another attorney contacted him and told him that the Czech consulate wanted some United States lawyers to contact Markus and advise him of his legal rights. Estes and the other lawyer met with the consul and Markus. The lawyers told Markus about the various legal claims he might have against Andrews, and Markus asked the lawyers to see if there was something they could do for him. Markus signed a retainer agreement. Estes discussed the possible lawsuit with a deputy county attorney who said she did not want him to file a lawsuit at that time. Estes made out a rough draft of a complaint but as of the time of the trial nothing further had taken place and the matter was "up in the air". (a) What is the best argument for the Andrews that the proffered evidence should be admitted? (b) What is the best argument for the Prosecution that the proffered evidence should be excluded? (c) You are the judge. How do you rule? Provide a short statement explaining your reasoning.