The defense conflict between the accused and his attorney is a prominent problem in the defense practice in our country. There are two major modes to solve defense conflict in other countries, one is the “litigant-oriented” mode, which is represented by the U. S., and the other is the “independent attorney defense” mode, which mainly exists in Continental countries. The former mode stresses the loyalty of the attorney to his client, while the latter stresses the attorney’s duty to serve pubic interest and to promote the correct implementation of the law. Both modes have their respective theoretical basis and operational logic, and they are closely related to the different recognition of the attorney’s responsibility in the two law families as well as to their different cultural ideology and litigious systems.The solution of defense conflict in our country should mainly refer to the “independent attorney defense” mode in Continental countries. Taking in the merits of this mode, we should develop a mode which suits the unique situations in our country. We stress not only the independence of the attorney’s defense activity, but also the communication between the attorney and his client and the efficiency of defense activity, thus turn from “absolutely independent defense” to “relatively independent defense”. On the one hand, we should clarify that the independence of attorney is the basis of defense theories and practice in our country. On the other hand, we should be aware that excessively stressing the independence of attorney may bring about a lot of negative results in practice.In solving defense conflict, we should respect and reveal the will of the accused, especially the full expression of the defense grounds by the accused. When defense conflict happens, the attorney should have full communication with the accused which can urge the accused to give up his unreasonable ideas and accept his attorney’s reasonable opinions. Moreover, it can also help the attorney to modify his original defense opinions and tactics. If the attorney and the accused can not reach an agreement after communication, unless the accused clearly states his refusal to the attorney’s defense, the attorney can present his defense opinions according to his understanding of the facts and law, but such opinions should not harm the rightful interests of the accused. |