Court Opinion

ID: 9466872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:31:19.196814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:01.470489
License: Public Domain

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The refusal of a district court to disqualify counsel leaves neither court nor opponent without remedy. The court may order disqualification at any later time if subsequent events make it appropriate. Disbarment, see United States v. Costen, 38 F. 24 (C.C.D.Colo.1889), reversal, see United States v. Bishop, 90 F.2d 65 (6th Cir. 1937), injunctive protection, see United States v. Mahaney, 27 F.Supp. 463 (N.D.Cal.1939), and denial of compensation, see Gesellschaft Fur Drahtlose Telegraphie M. B. H. v. Brown, 78 F.2d 410 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 296 U.S. 618, 56 S.Ct. 139, 80 L.Ed. 439 (1935), are also available remedies. I agree, therefore, that the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949) does not give this Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of this nature. Because the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility are presently in a state of flux,* and we shed little permanent light *452by our discussion of the merits, I would simply dismiss the instant appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

 A Discussion Draft of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct is presently being circulated by the American Bar Association and a final version of the Rules will be submitted to *452the House of Delegates at its February 1981 meeting.