The Civil-Appeal Deadline & the Disqualification of Criminal Defense Counsel
In Amador v. United States, the First Circuit held that the civil-appeal deadline applied to a criminal defense attorney’s appeal from a disqualification order. The court reasoned that the appeal did not involve the underlying conviction or sentence, nor was the appeal brought on behalf of the defendant. The appeal was thus collateral to the criminal prosecution, and the civil-appeal deadline applied.
The Disqualification Order
Simplifying a bit, Amador involved a criminal prosecution for drug offenses and other crimes. After the defendant was arrested, he claimed indigence. But three private attorneys eventually appeared on his behalf.
The government asked the district court to inquire into who was paying the fees for those attorneys. Apparently the government third-party funding, which could create a conflict of interest. The defendant objected to this inquiry, arguing that the government was trying to investigate whether someone higher “in the ladder” of a criminal enterprise was funding the defense.
The district court overruled the defendant’s objection and held a hearing. Two of the defendant’s counsel explained that they had been paid by the defendant’s mother. But a third invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify. The district court then ordered that the defendant’s attorneys be disqualified. It also ordered them to disgorge any fees they had collected.
The Time for the Attorney’s Appeal
One of the attorneys (the one who had invoked the Fifth Amendment) later appealed the district court’s disqualification order. But there was a timeliness issue, as he had filed his notice of appeal 28 days after the district court entered the judgment.
The Civil & Criminal Appeal Deadlines
In a criminal case, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 14 days of the judgment. So if Rule 4(b)(1) applied, the attorney’s appeal was late.
But in a civil case in which the United States is a party, Rule 4(a)(1) requires that a notice be filed within 60 days of the judgment.
The timeliness of the appeal thus turned on which appeal deadline applied.
The Civil Deadline for Collateral Matters
The First Circuit concluded that the civil deadline applied.
The court explained that it applies “a pragmatic approach that looks to the substance and context, and not the label, of the proceeding appealed from to determine its civil or criminal character.” (Quotation marks omitted.) Appeals from orders “collateral to criminal punishment” are likely to be treated as civil appeals.
In Amador, the attorney’s appeal was collateral to the criminal prosecution:
Here, Burgos’s appeal does not challenge the prosecution of or sentence imposed on Mulero, nor is it brought by, or on behalf of, him. Instead, this appeal is brought by Burgos, a third-party in the underlying criminal case, and it challenges proceedings and a ruling below that were entirely separate from the ultimate imposition of the criminal sentence. This appeal is thus decidedly not from, but instead collateral to, the government’s criminal prosecution of Mulero.
Amador v. United States, 2024 WL 1403188 (1st Cir. Apr. 2, 2024), available at the First Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
Orders on the disqualification of counsel are not normally appealable. In most cases, an appeal from a final judgment suffices to protect the relevant interests. But what about when a district court disqualifies an entire U.S. Attorney’s Office from participating in a prosecution? Several courts have held that such a disqualification is immediately appealable via […]
Continue reading....
Updated to correct the publication dates in the article cites. The Akron Law Review just published its symposium on federal appeals. The symposium collects contributions from Cassandra Burke Robertson & Gregory Hilbert, Andrew Pollis, Michael Solimine, Adam Steinman, Joan Steinman, and me. The in-person portion of the symposium was unfortunately canceled due to COVID-19. But […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review an order that narrowed the potential injunctive relief in an action. The plaintiff in Union Pacific sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from bringing certain claims against the plaintiff. The district court rejected some […]
Continue reading....
May saw several decisions on effective injunction denials. One of those decisions raised an interesting question about the Supreme Court’s test for when a district court order effective denies a preliminary injunction. In other developments, the Fifth Circuit sat en banc to jettison its rule barring review of waiver-based remands. Other decisions addressed the finality […]
Continue reading....
In Heidi Group, Inc.v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of federal and state immunities but declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over other issues. In the course of doing so, one judge questioned the collateral-order doctrine’s application to state immunities, and the entire court questioned the doctrine of […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court granted cert in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The case asks if defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of derivative sovereign immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I wrote about the petition and the underlying circuit split earlier this year. And I wrote about the Tenth Circuit decision from which the petition stems […]
Continue reading....
Injunction appeals have been in the spotlight of late. We’ve seen a few recent decisions on appeals from temporary restraining orders. And this month has already produced three cases involving effective denials of preliminary injunctions. One of these cases raised a question about the test for effective—and thus appealable—injunction denials. Under the Supreme Court’s decision […]
Continue reading....