 Glasser wished the benefit of the undivided assistance of counsel of his own choice . We think that such a desire on the part of an accused should be respected . Irrespective of any conflict of interest , the additional burden of representing another party may conceivably impair counsel 's effectiveness . To determine the precise degree of prejudice sustained by Glasser as a result of the court 's appointment of Stewart as counsel for Kretske is at once difficult and unnecessary . The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial . 
