The portion of the district court's order denying Patriot's motion to allow Higgins's testimony, on the other hand, was not a sanction against the appellants and did not otherwise injure them. "Counsel have standing to appeal from orders issued directly against them, but not from orders applicable only to their clients." Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, 9 F.3d 849, 854-55 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing cases); see also Kapco Mfg. Co. v. C & O Enter., 886 F.2d 1485, 1494 (7th Cir. 1989); Warner Bros., Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., 877 F.2d 1120, 1127 (2d Cir. 1989). Patriot, not its counsel, is the party aggrieved by the loss of Higgins's testimony. We therefore hold that the appellants do not have standing to appeal the portion of the district court's order denying Patriot's motion to allow Higgins's testimony." But they did deny it in around about way.