the government designated certain of Kiernan’s clients as targets of the investigation, and moved once more to disqualify Kiernan from his multiple representation. The district court held a second Wheat hearing in January of 1999, and this time granted the motion to disqualify Kiernan. Kiernan filed a notice of appeal from that order on behalf of his clients, and the appeal was expedited. II Before we can reach the merits, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction. Appellants assert that we do, pursuant to the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). In support of their position, they cite cases from the 1970s that allow such appeals. See In re Investiga 04 S.Ct. 1051, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449
holding that there is a qualified first amendment right of access to proceedings and documents relating to disqualification of a judge in a criminal case and to conflicts of interest between attorneys in a criminal case holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable holding appealable a case dismissed in effect by the district courts order holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception holding that the disqualification order is an issue completely independent of the merits of the action