In re: Denzel W., a Minor; and People v. Smith 

Failure to obtain required written consent of client to allow Rule 711 senior law student or recent law graduate to perform legal services, under supervision of licensed attorney, is not a per se violation of right to counsel, but is one factor to be considered in assessing whether supervising attorney provided effective assistance of counsel. One case involved juvenile adjudicated as delinquent for aggravated battery; 711 law student performed some witness examination at bench trial. Appellate Court must examine all of juvenile's claims of error, and trial court's refusal to allow supervising attorney to conduct redirect, to determine whether counsel's performance prejudiced Defendant. Other case involved Defendant convicted, after jury trial, of possession of controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school; 711 intern took direct testimony and argued at motion to suppress hearing, but did not participate in trial. Defendant did not argue errors by 711 intern, but only per se violation. No per se violation of right to counsel by failure to obtain written consent.