A major criticism of the assigned counsel system is that:

The primary concern regarding the assigned counsel system—where private attorneys are appointed to represent indigent defendants—centers on the qualification of the attorneys provided. In this system, judges make appointments often without a stringent vetting process, which can lead to situations where defendants are represented by lawyers who may not have the necessary expertise to effectively handle their cases. Unlike public defenders who may have specialized training and experience in criminal law, assigned counsel attorneys may vary significantly in their competency and familiarity with the specific legal issues at play. This inconsistency can result in inadequate legal representation, which poses a serious risk to the fairness of the trial and ultimately to the rights of the defendants.

The other factors, while they can be points of criticism, do not capture the essence of the issue as directly as the qualifications of the attorneys. Concerns about costs or specialization relate to the broader system but do not directly impact the immediate outcome of a defendant's trial as much as ensuring that the attorney knows how to properly defend the case. Likewise, while public defenders may face overwhelming caseloads, that issue is separate from the qualifications of assigned counsel in particular.