One statistic I read is that 80% of criminal defendants get public defenders. Some are good but many are overworked. The state of Florida budgets only $750 for a felony defense–the cost of one week in jail.
If a criminal defendant doesn’t like their lawyer usually their only choice is self-representation and a limited small study shows they did better.According to Erica J. Hashimoto, an assistant professor at the Georgia School of Law,:
“After conducting an empirical study of pro se felony defendants, I conclude that these defendants are not necessarily either ill-served by the decision to represent themselves or mentally ill….In state court, pro se defendants charged with felonies fared as well as, and arguably significantly better than, their represented counterparts…of the 234 pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50 percent of them were convicted on any charge….for represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75 percent were convicted of some charge…. Only 26 percent of the pro se defendants ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies…in federal court…the acquittal rate for pro se defendants is virtually identical to the acquittal rate for represented defendants.”
“Defending the Right to Self-Representation: An Empirical Look at the Pro Se Felony Defendant by Erica J. Hashimoto, University of Georgia School of Law 2006 http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=fac_artchop

I also found that Robert W. Kearns was self-represented when he won $10 million from Ford Motor in 1990 over the intermittent windshield patent dispute.www.nytimes.com/2005/02/26/obituaries/26kearns.html

Here is S.C. dicta on the attorney client relationship:

“rejected is respondents’ suggestion that the attorney-client relationship be treated as a sort of business partnership or joint venture for tax purposes. In fact, that relationship is a quintessential principal-agent relationship, for the client retains ultimate dominion and control over the underlying claim. The attorney can make tactical decisions without consulting the client, but the client still must determine whether to settle or proceed to judgment and make, as well, other critical decisions. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Banks, 125 S.Ct. 826, 543 U.S. 426, 160 L.Ed.2d 859 (U.S. 01/24/2005)

and here is S.C. dicta on the right of self-representation:

“there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. §1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . .”) WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007)

Here is the fundamental right:

“The right of a citizen of one state… to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state… are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities.” Justice Thomas and the Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissenting opinion in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (U.S. 05/17/1999)

to be limited only by compelling state interest:

The Fourteenth Amendment “forbids the government to infringe . . . `fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Washington v. Glucksberg, No. 96-110 (U.S. 06/26/1997) Syllabus by the Court Chief Justice Reinquist