With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 64 F.3d at 122. The court further noted that the attorney was not an imposter, in that he had graduated from an accredited law school, was originally certified by California as competent to practice law, had practiced law for a decade, and had been tested and found knowledgeable about Pennsylvania law. It also noted that his breaches of conduct were unrelated to his representation of the client. See, also, Bellamy v. Cogdell, 974 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 960, 113 S. Ct. 1383, 122 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1993) (declining to find per se ineffective assistance of counsel where attorney represented client while disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and was then suspended following trial due to health concerns); Waterhouse v. Rodriguez, 848 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1988) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. People, 652 P.2d 595 (Colo. 1982),

A: holding representation by attorney who met all requirements for obtaining license but failed to take oath for admission not per se ineffective distinguishing circumstance from representation by someone impersonating lawyer
B: holding appellant waived argument by failing to assert it at suppression hearing
C: holding representation at a suppression hearing by lawyer disbarred on final day of hearing not per se ineffective
D: holding hearing in chambers was not per se a violation of due process
C.