government’s representation is inextricably intertwined and entangled in the merits of Mr. Bolden’s claims.” This argument, however, overlooks that the Court has “consistently eschewed a case-by-case approach to deciding whether an order is sufficiently collateral.” Cunningham, 527 U.S. at 206, 119 S.Ct. 1915. Every appeal that has considered the disqualification of an entire United States Attorney’s office has found the disqualification issue to be entirely separate from the merits of the underlying case. See Whit-taker, 268 F.3d at 192 (“the [disqualification] order unquestionably resolves a jur-isprudentially important issue completely separate from the merits of the dispute concerning whether Whittaker committed mail fraud”); United States v. Vlahos, 33 F.3d 758, 761 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Caggiano, 660 F.2d 184 (6th
holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable holding that the disqualification order is an issue completely independent of the merits of the action holding disqualification was appropriate but referencing several aba formal opinions where screening prevented the disqualification of an entire firm holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception holding that if a motion implicates the merits of a cause of action the district court should find jurisdiction exists and treat the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case