So some defense lawyers here in Austin have been sitting in on competency evaluations, both preliminary examinations to determine competency, and exams that are taking place at the state hospital before their clients are being discharged. In one case that I was recently reviewing, a doctor at the state hospital changed his discharge finding from "competent" to "incompetent and unlikely to regain" after defense counsel approached him, requested a re-examination of their client, and then sat in on the re-evaluation with the treatment team. Has anyone else had this sort of experience? It doesn't feel right to me. I understand that I have a right to a hearing to contest these findings, but I'd rather find a way to stop the defense attorneys from interfering with the objectivity of the examination in the first place. The judge seems ambivalent about the issue, citing the fact it may be hard for doctors to understand client communication problems unless they see the dynamics in person. But I feel like the defense attorneys, by sitting in on the exams, are sort of "raising the bar" to unrealistic levels in order for a doctor to find their clients competent. Any thoughts or ideas?