What is the test for a motion to relieve a public defender's office of a conflict of interest?

The debate before us focuses on disclosure. Relying chiefly on Uhl v. Municipal Court (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 526, 112 Cal.Rptr. 478, the deputy public defender argues the trial court should have excused the public defender's office without requiring a further explanation of the facts giving rise to the conflict after he made, and the court accepted, his representations. [51 Cal.App.4th 590] The People counter Uhl is invalid and the trial court must be permitted to inquire into the facts of the conflict so that it has sufficient information upon which to evaluate whether the request to be relieved is meritorious. The People further assert that, if trial counsel refuses to reveal facts because of the attorney-client privilege, the court may disregard trial counsel's other representations and deny the motion.