Quite simply, this court chooses to abide by the ageless wisdom that a person cannot serve two masters. In sum, the district court abused its discretion by failing to address the claim of unethical conduct in the form of witness tampering. We must now consider the appropriate sanction for this ethical violation. B. Appropriate Sanction Federal courts have inherent powers to manage their own proceedings and to control the conduct of those who appear before them. By invoking the inherent power to punish bad faith conduct which abuses the judicial process, a court must exercise discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction.
District judges have an arsenal of sanctions they can impose for unethical behavior.
These sanctions include monetary sanctions, contempt, and the disqualification of counsel. It is the duty of the district court to examine the charge, since it is that court which is authorized to supervise the conduct of the members of its bar. The courts, as well as the bar, have a responsibility to maintain public confidence in the legal profession. This means that a court may disqualify an attorney for not only acting improperly but also for failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety. In the case at bar, Erickson raised his claim of unethical conduct.