Opinion ID: 695598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appearance

Text: 22 Swan argued before the district court, and continues to assert on appeal, that, as he never formally entered an appearance on behalf of either Sowers or the Wunsches in the underlying criminal proceeding, he never appeared before the district court. This contention finds no support in the record. 23 Among other things, the materials before us show that (1) Swan identified himself as Sowers's attorney in his initial telephone contact with Artson on March 18, 1993; (2) in the Designation and Appearance of Counsel form filed later that same day, both Sowers and Wilson identified Swan as one of Sowers's attorneys; (3) the clerk's criminal minutes for Sowers's arraignment identified both Swan and Wilson as defense counsel, and further noted that Wilson was appearing for Swan; (4) Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel, filed March 29, 1993, identified both Swan and Wilson as defense counsel; (5) Swan appeared with Wilson at counsel table during the April 5, 1993 hearing, where he was not sworn as a witness, but argued against his own disqualification; (6) Swan, not Wilson, signed the substitution of attorney forms as to both William and Beverly Wunsch; (7) Swan's own letter to Artson expressly referred to [y]our disqualification of Wilson and me ... (emphasis added); and (8) Swan never objected to his being listed as Sowers's attorney in any of the aforementioned documents. 24 Swan's every action was consistent with his being exactly what he appeared, and everyone else took him to be, viz., counsel for the accused. Moreover, Swan could have resolved any doubts concerning his status--and thereby rendered moot the government's efforts to have him disqualified--by the simple expedient of telling the court that he was not one of the defense attorneys for either Sowers or the Wunsches. Finally, it is disingenuous for Swan to argue that he had no connection with a case in which he fought so hard against his own disqualification. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court's ruling that Swan had appeared before the court during the course of the ongoing litigation. See Matter of Swan, 833 F.Supp. at 798.