Late last month, we noted a welcome trend at the Ninth Circuit to go en banc more often to correct more of the rogue panel decisions that have given that court its reputation. Today that trend continues in Plumlee v. Masto. The case involves a difficult client who demands appointment of a different attorney because of a deterioration in the relationship, even though the attorney appointed for him has no actual conflict and has done nothing wrong. A panel bought the argument, but today the en banc court got it right.

We hold today that the Nevada Supreme Court did not misapply clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court when it ruled that Plumlee’s right to the effective assistance of counsel was not violated by the trial judge’s refusal to appoint a different lawyer.

Only one judge in today's 11-member quasi-en-banc panel dissented from this holding.