In Ingram v. Justice Court (1968) 69 Cal.2d 832, the court held that "a court cannot remove an attorney on the far less relevant ground of the nature of the financial arrangement between him and his client." ( Ingram, supra, 69 Cal.2d 832, 840.) In Ingram, the public defender appeared for a defendant after being satisfied that the defendant was an indigent. The question presented below was whether the trial court could determine that the defendant was not an indigent and remove the public defender. In holding that the trial court had no power to do so, the court reasoned that to permit such a removal would "infringe upon the defendant's right to counsel of his choice and compromise the independence of the bar." ( Ingram, supra, 69 Cal.2d 832, 840.) The Court said: "We recently held that a court has no power to remove a defense attorney, over the objections of both the defendant and that attorney, upon a finding that the latter is 'incompetent' because of purported ignorance of the law to try the particular case. ( Smith v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 547.) A fortiori, a court cannot remove an attorney on the far less relevant ground of the nature of the financial arrangement between him and his client. To do so would, an in Smith, infringe upon the defendant's right to counsel of his choice and compromise the independence of the bar."