circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not conduct a second inquiry. Finally, regarding whether the conflict between Osuji and his counsel was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense, the record does not support Osuji’s claim that communication between himself and his attorney completely broke down. The record instead shows that Osuji’s counsel cross-examined every government witness, argued numerous objections and motions, and conducted an appropriate direct examination of Osuji when he testified in his own defense. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Osuji’s motion to substitute counsel. See United States v. Hanley, 974 F.2d 14, 17 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). III. We next address both Defendants’
holding insurer vicariously liable for defense counsels negligent defense of a medical malpractice claim holding counsels vigorous defense at trial indicated a lack of complete communication breakdown recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act holding defense counsels rates to be an improper starting point in determining plaintiff counsels reasonable hourly rate