What is the test for a private attorney representing a defendant in a criminal case?

In People v. Lau, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d 473, defendant and an accomplice were charged with attempted murder and assault. Defendant was represented by privately retained counsel. Defendant's attorney did not appear for the scheduled first day of trial and could not be located. Counsel appeared the next day and explained that he believed a negotiated plea disposition could be reached. Counsel stated a plea agreement was defendant's best option based on his objective evaluation of the evidence. The prosecutor clarified that any negotiated disposition required a plea agreement by both defendants, and the accomplice refused to plead guilty. Defendant immediately moved to discharge retained counsel and claimed a conflict of interest existed because counsel believed he was guilty. However, counsel assured the court he would defend his client as best he could, and the court agreed the attorney would not have been doing his job if he had not expressed his evaluation of the likelihood of prevailing. The trial court denied defendant's motion to discharge his retained counsel because there were no legally sufficient reasons supporting the motion, particularly given the late date it was being made. (Id. at pp. 477-478.) The court noted the basic problem was defendant's disagreement with counsel's analysis and evaluation of the case against him, but found that such a difference of opinion did not justify substitution of attorneys, "'particularly in a two defendant case at this point in time.'" (Id. at p. 479.)