United States v. Keith T. Engstrom Sheryl L. Engstrom, William A. Cohan, Esq., in Re William A. Cohan, Esq.

Cohan appeals from the district court’s order holding him in criminal contempt, entered pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He also appeals from the district court’s order revoking his permission to practice in the Western District of Washington for three years, entered pursuant to the court’s authority to sanction lawyers for unprofessional conduct. Standing Committee on Discipline v. Ross, 735 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.) (Ross), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1081 , 105 S.Ct. 583 , 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). We have jurisdiction over Cohan’s timely appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294(1). We affirm the revocation of Cohan’s permission to practice, but reverse the order holding him in criminal contempt, and remand for further proceedings.

I

The District Court for the Western District of Washington granted Cohan pro hoc vice status to represent Keith and Sheryl Engstrom in a criminal case involving federal tax laws. A jury convicted both Engstroms, but we reversed on appeal because the government had faded to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (h)(5). On remand, the case was transferred to the Honorable Jack E. Tanner for trial.

It took little time for…