So here's a question that does not easily lend itself to a Westlaw or Lane-Baker search.
A criminal defense attorney gets himself into a bit of trouble and one of his breathren graciously agrees to represent him pro bono.
The Defense Attorney/Defendant refuses a perfectly reasonable plea offer, goes to trial, and gets hammered.

Attorney/Defendant files a motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in a variety of ways. It appears that trial counsel will most likely fall on his sword and agree that he was ineffective.

I know that counsel is held to an objective standard of reasonableness and, if the client were a typical Joe Schmo, he may have a valid basis for relief. But when the client is perfectly capable of representing himself, actively participated in the trial, and even testified that he had represented numerous individuals and gone to trial many times on the same sort of charges, wouldn't you think that an ineffective assistance claim ought to fall flat?

Has anyone ever heard of this type of case before? (If you can figure out a westlaw search for this question that doesn't give hundreds of inapplicable cases, you're a better researcher than I!) Surely something like this has come up before, I'd just love to see how it was resolved.

Sounds like a made for TV movie.

Maybe one of these cases will get you started:

State v. Oliver
656 N.E.2d 348
Ohio App. 8 Dist.,1995

United States v. Green, 882 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1999)

I am at home right now or I'd look for the cite, but back in the 1980's I did the State's Brief in a case against a Jack G. Neal. He wanted a jury trial when he was accused of stealing from the District Attorney's Office when he was the District Attorney.

He represented himself.

He was sentenced to prison.

Inadequate admonishments on the dangers of self representation were the primary point on appeal as I recall.

See if you can find the cite. Search by his name and/or my name. Maybe that will help.

Good luck.

State v. Neal, 689 SW2d 420 ....

What I had reference to is the stuff under headnote 9 - it would suggest to me that the court finds it rational to hold a defendant with a law license (particularly one with criminal trial experience) to a higher standard when analyzing an alleged 6th Amendment/Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel.

A lawyer who knows what he is doing should not be permitted to frustrate the orderly administration of justice by shopping for the stupidest and most incompetent lawyer he can find in Texas, try the case and then if he is not happy with the result yelling foul and demanding a second bite at the apple.