argue that he lacked counsel at this stage of the proceedings. Cf. United States v. Osterbrock, 891 F.2d 1216, 1218 (6th Cir.1989) (concluding that, where the verdict was returned and the jury was polled in the presence of the defendant, any prejudice resulting from counsel’s absence was merely speculative). But cf. Behnke, 456 N.W.2d at 612 (finding denial of counsel prejudicial where the jury was not polled). While we do not approve of an attorney sending stand-in counsel, whose appearance has not been entered, to represent his or her client during criminal proceedings, nevertheless, our disapproval of this practice does not alter the conclusion that Mr. Durst acted as Appellant’s counsel during the relevant interval. But cf. Wilson v. State, 764 So.2d 813, 816 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, there is no need for a McGill
holding that an attorney violated rule 84d when he failed to perform any effective action on behalf of his client holding that where a standin attorney was unfamiliar with the case denied that the defendant was his client and did nothing on the defendants behalf he did not function as counsel holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case holding that the court correctly denied a mistrial when the statement that the witness saw the defendant when the defendant was signing in as a condition of bail was brief and added nothing to the governments case