(“A mere difference of opinion concerning the tactics with which litigation should be handled does not make inadequate the representation of those whose interests are identical with that of an existing party or who are formally represented in the lawsuit.”). In Bumgarner, present counsel and the applicant for intervention disagreed on how a defense would be handled. 417 F.2d at 1308. The Tenth Circuit held there is adequate representation even when there is a mere difference in a trial tactic. Id. The court implicitly reasoned that a difference in litigation tactics, including how to present a defense, was not serious enough to prevent present counsel from representing the applicant’s viewpoints adequately. See id. But cf. Bragg v. Robertson, 183 F.R.D. 494, 496 (S.D.W.Va.1998) (<HOLDING>). Here, Nomm’s concerns about present counsel
holding that the intervening partys defense not raised by the present counsel rendered her interest inadequately represented holding that a corporate entity must be represented by licensed counsel holding that defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses recognizing a defendants constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his own choice