Both happen, in sequence. A military defense counsel is first assigned automatically, but an accused can then ask for a particular military lawyer by name. That request runs through a mechanism called individual military counsel, and it is granted when the requested lawyer is reasonably available. Many service members never learn this option exists, so they assume the lawyer they were handed is the only one they can have.
Detailed counsel comes first #
The starting point is detailment. When a case is referred to a general or special court-martial, a service defense organization details a qualified judge advocate to represent the accused at no cost. That assignment is not a request; it simply happens. The detailed counsel is the baseline guarantee of representation, and it stays in place unless and until something changes it.
Requesting a specific lawyer by name #
Article 38 of the UCMJ gives the accused the right to be represented by “military counsel of his own selection if that counsel is reasonably available.” This is the individual military counsel, or IMC, request. The accused names a particular uniformed lawyer, often someone with a reputation in a certain offense area or someone another service member recommended, and asks that the request be approved.
If the named lawyer is reasonably available, that counsel is provided at no cost. There is no fee for an IMC the way there is for a retained civilian; the lawyer is still a government judge advocate, just a specifically chosen one rather than whoever was detailed.
What “reasonably available” actually means #
The catch lives in the availability standard, set out in Rule for Courts-Martial 506. The rule does not let the accused pull any lawyer in the service. It lists categories of judge advocates who are not reasonably available because of the nature of their duties or positions, and it lets each service Secretary designate others as unavailable for reasons such as the nature of their assignment, geography, exigent circumstances, or military necessity.
In plain terms, the request can be denied if granting it would pull the lawyer off duties the service treats as off-limits, or if distance or operational needs make it impractical. The determination is made under service regulations, not at the accused’s discretion, and a denial does not strip the accused of counsel because detailed counsel remains.
Quick reference on how the request resolves:
- Granted: the requested lawyer is reasonably available and is provided at no cost.
- Denied: the lawyer falls into a not-reasonably-available category or is excluded by service regulation; the detailed counsel continues.
- Either way: the accused is never left without representation.
What happens to the detailed counsel #
When an IMC is approved, the accused does not necessarily lose the original lawyer. The rules allow the detailed counsel to remain on the case, although the accused can ask that the detailed counsel be excused once the requested lawyer is on board. The result can be a single chosen military lawyer or a two-counsel military team, depending on what the accused asks for and what the authorities approve.
This is also distinct from hiring a civilian. An accused may retain a civilian lawyer at personal expense in addition to any military counsel, but that is a separate track from the IMC request, which stays entirely within the uniformed defense bar.
Why this matters #
The practical takeaway is that assignment is the default, not the ceiling. A service member who would prefer a particular military lawyer, perhaps one known for handling a specific kind of charge, can name that lawyer and have the request evaluated under the reasonable-availability standard rather than passively accepting whoever was detailed.
It is information about a right, not a promise of an outcome. The named lawyer might be granted or might be unavailable, and the standard is applied by the service, not the accused. Because these procedural choices can shape how a case is built, anyone facing a court-martial should consult a qualified military defense attorney about their situation, including whether requesting a specific individual military counsel makes sense for that case.