the record affirmatively demonstrates that the client has been made aware of the conflict and has affirmatively wavetek that it is extraordinary rules are rooted in the nature of per se because these types of in these types of conflicts the risk that the conflict will affect the course of the representation is high while at the same time the chance that the error will be detected and remedy is low the record in this case demonstrates that just me that wants attorney labored under per se conflict of interest to track court expressly appointed the public defender's office to act as court appointed counsel and a guardian ad litem for the minor the assistant public defender who was fair in court and to represent her wine made no objection and asked for no clarification about her role and at the time such appointments were not prohibited this case fell in the wind where the appellate decision in austin a is the korean supreme court austin adams expressly stated we find there is an inherent conflict between the professional responsibilities of a defense attorney and ichy else so once you have that to a point there is that kind of labor confect these proceedings or was it a straight up criminal albeit juvenile prosecution if the response to that is first i think there is a suggestion in the record that counsel made an error in particular counsel did not ask the trial court to find the minor guilty of the lesser included offense of criminal trespass to an automobile so counselled again that's the type of that's the type of issue that council may or may not have made a strategic decision we don't know but that's where the per se will takes us the per se rule takes us it's too hard to find actual demonstrations of time flecked and per se conflict cases because of the very nature of this of this type of and guardian ad litem it was consistent with what was in the case law defense counsel would have no reason at that point to depart from what the trial court to hold her to do it was an express statement it was a choice by the trial court to mention both of as her role as a guardian ad litum affected her advice to the client on whether to read or elect a trial we don't know any of that and again it takes us back to the whole notion that per se conflicts of interest are grounds for rehearsal for just those reasons analysis of what counsel did in order to draw the conclusion that counsel was acting as a guardian ad litum because there was no express appointment that discussion in austin and would not have been necessary if the trial court in austin and had made a dual appointment like the court did in this case and so this extensive discussion at austin at is really rooted in and the supreme court in austin and went before they begin their analysis they say we are evaluating two distinct questions in this case does hybrid appointment constitute a conflict of interest and did the attorney in this case operate as a defense attorney and a guardian ad litum and because there was no express dual point that the court engaged in the analysis pointed to the language that trial counsel use about how he viewed his role but in the face of a trial court order to an attorney saying you this statement even if it may have been a misstatement that raises the groups they put the indicate not under existing case law the rule for children the rule for adults is the same once the per se conflict has been established a reversal is automatic  are all sorts of issues associated with that and this is a case where there is i would knowledge there is no there is no firm evidence that representation was affected by the  but what we know is the council was charged to act in both of those roles areas this one portion of the record where counsel doesn't ask for the lesser included a conviction on a lesser included offense of criminal trespass in a case where the question about whether the miners intended to actually permanently deprive the owner of the car was pretty slim so there there is actually some suggestion in the record that counsel made an error whether that error was truly an error or a matter of strategy whether it was an error based on counsel's view of herself as a guardian ad litum and directing the course of representation in a way that she thought was best for the minor is a question we don't know but the beauty of the per se rule is we don't need which would require a ferment in this case the state is wrong that the fact that council was private counsel in austin and is an appointed defender in this case makes any difference for children and children of means are entitled to competent representation that i conflict free and again we discussed the notion that there needed to be any additional evidence on the record besides the besides the expressed support for we talked about the fact that the reason there was this discussion in supreme court austin  impact then on your initial argument which is you know an attorney is appointed as both then there is a person on but you have to establish that an attorney was appointed to serve the dual role and here you don't have the evidence because the judges words were about the top what defender's office is appointed to serve out i don't know if the counsel is going to s series even if the that the the original point was directed aps the office of the public defender the office of public defender was obligated to follow the terms of that point may as made and was responsible for ensuring that the particular attorney that was assigned to represent she won in the proceedings acted in compliance with the trial court's order so the fact that the appointment was directed at the i can't answer that question directly i do not believe that that occurs i believe that what occurs in champaign county is the appointment is made and there's usually a sheet that companies that first appearance with the child which is also there is a detention hearing that help is held at the same time and pointed out in my reply brief the court reporter listed every individual who's in the court room at every hearing every one was identified whether they were affiliated with the with probation department service is the state's attorney's office the public defender's office there was not a single person in that courtroom that was ever identified as a guardian ad litem there were no documents filed on behalf of the minor that were attributable to a filing by the guardian ad litum and again the public defender in this case would have absolutely no reason to make us two separate appointments at this point because appellate austin that decision was in place and even though p l a had been granted in the case that case was still good law on the ferry given give an appellate austin am  iraqis did not require but authorized hybrid hybrid appointment to work so there was an attorney who appeared regardless of the identity of the attorney it was either the public defender or one of the the response argument is that there is somehow an expressed appointments of an attorney to act as well defense attorney and as the guardian ad litem it's not the case because what the trial court actually said was motion on behalf of the minor respondent for appointment of counsel motion will be allowed and then said office of the public defender it's appointed to act as court appointed counsel and guardian ad litem for the minor there is no reference in there that somehow the trial court was insisting on only rule so even if for example another public defender had represented the witness against the minor work defendant a criminal case that does not per se disqualify that person's housel from being represented by the another member of the public defender's office so essentially the only question of dispute is whether in fact stephanie coren had appeared and acted as guardian ad litum and not just defense attorney and has nothing to respond it has to acknowledge although there is still the possibility that the public defender just did not acknowledge or didn't receive her somehow chose not to follow or interpret it anticipated asta nems reversal and play when it's the single attorney assuming of roles here and that you don't need to have proof of the acts performed in the g a o role what do you think i think the respondents argument is if there's an expressed appointment of one attorney in a a conflict is shown then it's automatically firstly don't have to show what might have been done that might have been affected by the conflict however what they're trying to do here respondents trying to accomplish here is to assume the presence of a person a conflict it appears that the crux of the disagreement between the defense and state has this question of whether the traffic court order for hybrid representation was directed at a particular person and if it was directed at the public defender's office was the assistant public defender bound by that word trial court make orders to the assistant public defender sue appearing all the time because the appointment was for the public defender it wasn't for me assistant public defenders act on the behalf of public defenders in every court room where there is appointed counsel and those attorneys are expected to comply with the court orders that true trial courts make in those markings and in this case the trial court said to ms quorum that she was point that the public defender's office was appointed to act as both guardian ad litem and defense  attorney and defense attorney and as a representative of the public defender's office and the attorney of the public that that was assigned to represent this this case that order was binding on her