admitted the testimony, the error was harmless. See Magleby, 241 F.3d at 1318. Thus, we affirm the District Court’s decision to admit the testimony. D. Disqualification of Counsel 1. Standard of Review Mr. Hardridge contests the District Court’s order disqualifying his attorney. “We review attorney disqualification orders under a bifurcated standard of review. First, we review the district court’s factual conclusions under a clear error standard. Second, we review the district court’s legal interpretation of particular ethical norms under a de novo standard when that interpretation implicates important constitutional rights.” United States v. Bolden, 353 F.3d 870, 878 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 628 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 2. Merits Mr. Hardridge retained attorney
holding that a trial courts erroneous denial of the defendants counsels application for admission pro hac vice violated the defendants sixth amendment right to choice of counsel and amounted to a structural error requiring no showing of prejudice holding disqualification orders affect a defendants sixth amendment rights when they disqualify the defendants counsel of choice holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel recognizing a defendants constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his own choice holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial