Opinion ID: 1377985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: when may defendant demand deficient counsel?

Text: Respondent (the Los Angeles Superior Court, represented by county counsel [2] ) contends that the fee contract effected a conflict contrary to constitutional guarantees of effective counsel, violated ethical standards, and jeopardized the integrity of the judicial process. (2) The right to counsel guaranteed by section 15 of article I of the California Constitution does contemplate effective counsel, and effectiveness means more than mere competence. Lawyering may be deficient when conflict of interest deprives the client of undivided loyalty and effort. (See People v. Corona (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 684, 720 [145 Cal. Rptr. 894]; cf. Glasser v. United States (1942) 315 U.S. 60, 75-76 [86 L.Ed. 680, 701-702, 62 S.Ct. 457].) Protection of a defendant's right to loyal counsel is essential. This court has said that trial judges assume the burden of ensuring that their appointments of counsel for indigent defendants do not result in a denial of effective counsel because of some possible conflict.... ( People v. Cook (1975) 13 Cal.3d 663, 671 [119 Cal. Rptr. 500, 532 P.2d 148]; but cf. Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980) 446 U.S. 335, 346-347 [64 L.Ed.2d 333, 345-346, 100 S.Ct. 1708].) (3) When a conviction is attacked validly on the ground that an appointed lawyer was influenced by conflict of interest the appellate court may not `indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of [resulting] prejudice...,' and the conviction must be reversed if the record supports informed speculation that the conflict was prejudicial. ( People v. Chacon (1968) 69 Cal.2d 765, 776-777, and fn. 3 [73 Cal. Rptr. 10, 447 P.2d 106]; see too Glasser, supra, 315 U.S. 60, 76 [86 L.Ed. 680, 702]. [3] ) Yet effective assistance is linked closely to representation by counsel of choice. When clients and lawyers lack rapport and mutual confidence the quality of representation may be so undermined as to render it an empty formality. Hence many precedents recognize that the constitutional right to counsel includes a reasonable opportunity for those defendants who have the necessary resources to control the designation of their legal representatives. (E.g., Crooker v. California (1958) 357 U.S. 433, 439 [2 L.Ed.2d 1448, 1453-1454, 78 S.Ct. 1287], overruled on other grounds, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974], rehg. den., 385 U.S. 890 [17 L.Ed.2d 121, 87 S.Ct. 11]; Chandler v. Fretag (1954) 348 U.S. 3, 9 [99 L.Ed. 4, 9-10, 75 S.Ct. 1]; Willis v. United States (9th Cir.1979) 614 F.2d 1200, 1202; United States v. Bragan (4th Cir.1974) 499 F.2d 1376, 1379.) California decisions are in accord. While acknowledging that the right to chosen counsel is not absolute they limit severely the judge's discretion to intrude on defendant's choice of counsel in order to eliminate potential conflicts, ensure adequate representation, or serve judicial convenience. People v. Crovedi (1966) 65 Cal.2d 199 [53 Cal. Rptr. 284, 417 P.2d 868] held that a court abused its discretion by denying a continuance during retained counsel's temporary incapacity. [T]hough it is clear, said Crovedi, that a defendant has no absolute right to be represented by a particular attorney [fn. omitted], still the courts should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a defendant financially able to retain an attorney of his own choosing can be represented by that attorney.... [¶] ... [T]he state should keep to a necessary minimum its interference with the individual's desire to defend himself in whatever manner he deems best, using any legitimate means within his resources  and ... that desire can constitutionally be forced to yield only when it will result in significant prejudice to the defendant himself or in a disruption of the orderly processes of justice unreasonable under the circumstances of the particular case. (Pp. 207-208, first italics original.) Despite that concern with significant prejudice this court has stressed that the judge's finding of potential incompetence or conflict usually does not justify court-ordered removal. Smith v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 547 [68 Cal. Rptr. 1, 440 P.2d 65] concluded that a trial court could not, over defendant's objection, recuse his lawyer even where the judge from preliminary observation had become convinced of the lawyer's incompetence. Speaking for a unanimous court Justice Mosk said that to protect the right to counsel the judge must be on his guard neither to infringe upon the defendant's right to counsel of his choice, nor to compromise the independence of the bar.... (P. 559.) A few months later Justice Mosk spoke again for the unanimous court: We recently held [in Smith ] that a court has no power to remove a defense attorney, over the objections of both the defendant and that attorney, upon a finding that the latter is `incompetent' because of purported ignorance of the law to try the particular case.... A fortiori, a court cannot remove an attorney on the far less relevant ground of the nature of the financial arrangement between him and his client. To do so would, as in Smith, infringe upon the defendant's right to counsel of his choice and compromise the independence of the bar. When a defendant appears with retained counsel, it is clear the court has no power to inquire into the defendant's personal financial condition, to determine that he is unable to pay his chosen attorney an `adequate' fee, and to order that he be represented instead by court-appointed counsel or the public defender [fn. omitted]; when a defendant appears with a public defender who is satisfied from his own inquiry that his client is eligible for his services, such judicial interference with their relationship would be no less tolerable. As we explained in Smith, `the relationship is independent of the source of compensation, for an attorney's responsibility is to the person he has undertaken to represent rather than to the individual or agency which pays for the service.... It follows that once counsel is appointed [or undertakes] to represent an indigent defendant, whether it be the public defender or a volunteer private attorney, the parties enter into an attorney-client relationship which is no less inviolable than if counsel had been retained. To hold otherwise would be to subject that relationship to an unwarranted and invidious discrimination arising merely from the poverty of the accused.' ( Ingram v. Justice Court (1968) 69 Cal.2d 832, 840 [73 Cal. Rptr. 410, 447 P.2d 650, 36 A.L.R.3d 1391].) (4) Still later this court observed without dissent that the involuntary removal of any attorney is a severe limitation on a defendant's right to counsel and may be justified, if at all, only in the most flagrant circumstances of attorney misconduct or incompetence when all other judicial controls have failed.... ( Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal.3d 678, 697 [122 Cal. Rptr. 778, 537 P.2d 898].) People v. Cook, supra, 13 Cal.3d 663 rejected defendants' contention of prejudice relating to retained counsel's joint representation of several codefendants. This court explained that the judge's obligation to avoid appointments of conflicted counsel does not apply where counsel has been retained. Indeed, said the court, it is extremely doubtful that defendants' right to retain counsel of their own choice could or should be challenged by the trial court. (Pp. 671-672.) Protection of defendant's right to reject unwanted counsel has progressed also on other fronts. We now know that a mentally competent defendant who duly waives counsel, may dismiss his lawyer and represent himself no matter how much the judge doubts his legal ability. ( Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 819-821 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 572-574, 95 S.Ct. 2525].) And if he timely requests substitution of appointed counsel the court at a minimum must inquire into the reasons for his displeasure with his attorney. ( People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 122-124 [84 Cal. Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44].) Developments such as those point to the conclusion that chosen representation is the preferred representation. Defendant's confidence in his lawyer is vital to his defense. His right to decide for himself who best can conduct the case must be respected wherever feasible. [4]