What is the test for substitute counsel in a personal injury case?

It was not within the province of the court to substitute new counsel over defendant's unwavering objection. " 'It is the duty of a court to afford counsel to the indigent. But this duty ceases when counsel is retained by a defendant. The court must then keep hands off and permit counsel to control the case within the embrace of his right to do so.' [Citation.]" (Ingram v. Justice Court (1968) 69 Cal.2d 832, 840, 73 Cal.Rptr. 410, 447 P.2d 650.) Implicit in the constitutional right to counsel is the right to representation by retained counsel of one's choice. (People v. Crovedi (1966) 65 Cal.2d 199, 206, 53 Cal.Rptr. 284, 417 P.2d 868.) "[Al]though it is clear that a defendant has no absolute right to be represented by a particular attorney, still the courts should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a defendant financially able to retain an attorney of his own choosing can be represented by that attorney. [Citation.]" (Id., at p. 207, fn. omit., 53 Cal.Rptr. 284, 417 P.2d 868; emphasis in original.) Moreover, "the state should keep to a necessary minimum its interference with the individual's desire to defend himself in whatever manner he deems best, using any legitimate means within his resources--and that that desire can constitutionally be forced to yield only when it will result in significant prejudice to the defendant himself or in a disruption of the orderly processes of justice unreasonable under the circumstances of the particular case." (Id., at p. 208, 53 Cal.Rptr. 284, 417 P.2d 868.)