Circuit is the only circuit falling into the first category and considers an order only damaging an attorney’s professional reputation as never appealable. Clark Equip. Co. v. Lift Parts Mfg. Co., Inc., 972 F.2d 817, 820 (7th Cir.1992) (“[A]n attorney may not appeal from an order that finds misconduct but does not result in monetary liability, despite the potential reputational effects.”). In reaching its conclusion, the Seventh Circuit balanced the severity of the harm of damage to an attorney’s professional reputation-characterizing it as a “speculative contingency” rather then a concrete injury, id.,against the practical considerations of “congested appellate dockets and ... the difficulty of assuring an adversary contest in most such appea ces, 395 F.2d 954, 956 (D.C.Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>). The Ninth Circuit also falls into this
holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable holding that a court could not agree to impose a sentence within the guidelines but then give a sentence that suspended all but an amount within the guidelines because a reasonable defendant would believe that within the guidelines included suspended time holding that a finding of professional misconduct not accompanied by other sanctions is analogous to a defendant found guilty but given a suspended sentence and is appealable holding that defendant was not entitled to partially suspended sentence as a previously convicted felon holding sanctions pursuant to rule 26g not immediately appealable