prevent the disqualification of all of the members of the firm if the circumstances of the conflict fall within the mandate of the rule. See In re American Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605, 618-19 (5th Cir.1992). “[T]he test does not depend on whether actual confidences were received, but on whether the former and current representation are substantially related.” Atasi Corp. v. Seagate Tech., 847 F.2d 826, 829 (Fed.Cir.1988). In reviewing a district court order regarding attorney disqualification, we employ an abuse of discretion standard. Cf. People v. District Court, 884 P.2d 707, 710 (Colo.1994) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to reverse a district court’s order disqualifying the district attorney); see also People v. County Court, 854 P.2d 1341, 1344 (Colo.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Extraordinary relief under C.A.R. 21 is
recognizing that different panels of the ninth circuit have applied an abuse of discretion standard and a de novo standard in reviewing district court remand decisions recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that abuse of discretion is the correct standard in reviewing a district court order disqualifying the district attorney for an appearance of impropriety holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding abuse of discretion is the proper standard for reviewing award of attorney fees in patent cases although questions of law may in some cases be relevant