Opinion ID: 626729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limits on Participation of Counsel

Text: Berov also asserts that the district court’s decision that only one of Berov’s two attorneys could act as the spokesperson deprived him of his right to due process of law by failing to permit him the full use of both of his retained attorneys during the contempt hearing. This claim is without merit. Berov has a fundamental right to counsel during civil contempt proceedings, In re DiBella, 518 F.2d 955, 959 (2d Cir. 1975), and the record demonstrates that Berov was represented by Adam Richards, Esq., an attorney of Berov’s choosing, at every stage of the procedure. He was also represented by Bernard Kleinman, as additional counsel, before, during and after the contempt proceeding. To the extent that Berov suggests that Attorney Richards was not the best of his team to present the defense and that Berov was improperly compelled by the district court to rely solely on Attorney Richards’ presentation, this does not automatically translate into a meritorious ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment. Hurel Guerrero v. U.S., 186 F.3d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1999). This is especially so under circumstances in which Attorney Kleinman stated to the district court that Attorney Richards was best equipped to handle questions about Berov’s defense. 10