detailed counsel’s failure to disclose the conflict rendered Appellant’s decision “uninformed and invalid” and violated his right to choice of counsel. No one, of course, would choose a conflicted or otherwise ineffective attorney, and under this logic every instance of conflict or deficient performance would constitute structural error and warrant reversal. But it has never been the case that the right to counsel of choice is violated by conflicted or ineffective counsel. Violations of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, and the attendant structural error and automatic reversal, occur when there is an erroneous deprivation of a defendant’s request for the “counsel he believes to be best,” the “counsel of his choosing.” Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 146 & n. 2, 126 S.Ct. 2557 (<HOLDING>). This case presents different circumstances.
holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding disqualification orders affect a defendants sixth amendment rights when they disqualify the defendants counsel of choice recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel holding that a trial courts erroneous denial of the defendants counsels application for admission pro hac vice violated the defendants sixth amendment right to choice of counsel and amounted to a structural error requiring no showing of prejudice holding that the district courts erroneous rulings violated respondents sixth amendment right to paid counsel of his choosing