What is the current state of the law in the context of retained counsel's representation in a civil case?

The guiding precept governing the exercise of judicial discretion in this area was stated by this court in People v. Crovedi (1966) 65 Cal.2d 199 at page 208, 53 Cal.Rptr. 284, at page 290, 417 P.2d 868 at page 874. There, after a review of relevant cases, we embraced the conviction 'that the 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 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.' It is this principle which must inform the exercise of discretion in the instant case. Reasoning which eludes or ignores its effect is necessarily beyond the realm of proper judicial determination when it is the right to representation by retained counsel which is at stake.