Involuntarily mental health treatment; Post-hearing request to adjourn the hearing & retain new counsel based on ineffective assistance of counsel

Holding that the “trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying respondent’s post-hearing request to adjourn the hearing and retain new counsel,” the court affirmed the probate court’s order requiring him to involuntarily undergo mental health treatment. He “was committed to a combined hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment for no longer than 180 days, with an initial hospitalization period of up to 30 days.” He argued that he was “entitled to a new hearing because he was denied the assistance of his chosen counsel.” The court noted that at “the beginning of the hearing, the trial court confirmed that there was no other attorney present to represent respondent and that respondent had not requested anyone else.” The trial “court then decided to continue the hearing with appointed counsel, properly weighing respondent’s right to counsel of his choice against the public’s interest in the efficient administration of justice.” The court noted that he “testified on his own behalf and did not request an adjournment until the hearing was concluded and the court entered its ruling. Respondent did not identify his preferred counsel or explain why his preferred counsel was not present at the” 6/28/23 hearing. And respondent had “not offered any further explanation on appeal.”