Public defenders: where is the line between representing a client and overriding them?

​

Trying to understand where actual practice lines up with theory.

Short version: Nevada case, multiple appointed/conflict counsel, repeated requests for self-representation, competency proceedings triggered during disputes, ongoing issues with lack of clear written findings on major decisions.

The questions that matter:

1. Client autonomy vs. control

   If a defendant repeatedly and clearly requests self-representation, at what point does continuing to act on their behalf become overriding their autonomy instead of protecting it?

2. Competency vs. disagreement

   Where is the real line between legitimate competency concerns and a client who is just legally literate, disagreeing with counsel, or pushing their rights aggressively?

3. Acting over objection

   Is it ethically acceptable for defense counsel to initiate major actions (like competency or substitution) over the client’s express objection? If yes, what prevents that from becoming a control mechanism?

4. Failure to act / investigate

   If a client is repeatedly asking for specific evidence or action and it doesn’t happen, how do you distinguish strategy from just not doing the work?

5. When the relationship is clearly broken

   If a client is saying on the record that counsel is harming their case and wants to proceed pro se, what is the correct move: continue anyway, or get out?

Not looking for “clients can be difficult.” Obviously.

I’m trying to understand where the profession actually draws the line between:

defense,

management,

and control.