In Craig v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 93 Pa. Commw. 586, 502 A.2d 758 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985), the Court explained the rationale for applying the requirements of Anders and McClendon to counsel seeking to withdraw from representation of petitioners seeking review of parole revocation appeals. The Court explained that it wanted to balance the interest of indigent petitioners in receiving effective assistance of counsel against the duty of attorneys not to press frivolous cases as is recognized in case law and the Pennsylvania Code of Ethical Responsibility. Craig, 502 A.2d at 760-61.