What is the impact of the trial court's offer to appoint a public defender in place of private counsel at a hearing?

Lastly, the trial court's offer to "appoint" the public defender in place of petitioners' private attorneys was not made until the first day of the hearing, after petitioners' private counsel had expended considerable time in research, preparation of pleadings and preparation for trial. Petitioners did not want the public defender substituted in as their counsel at this late stage but wished to continue with existing counsel. While a forced substitution at this time might not have violated petitioners' right to counsel (the Sixth Amendment does not give an indigent the right to counsel of his choice (Drumgo v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 930, 933-935, 106 Cal.Rptr. 631, 506 P.2d 1007), we do believe the public defender, with professional respect for retained private counsel, would have declined the appointment at this stage of the proceedings.