It is hypothesized that attorneys with more experience and attorneys with a more favorable opinion of the usefulness of competency to stand trial evaluations will adopt a more paternalistic approach in the application and use of competency evaluation. The criteria by which attorneys adopting the paternalistic approach decide to have certain defendants evaluated for their competency to stand trial is focused more on the client’s best interests, such as mental welfare, rather than strictly on case outcome, or the least restrictive measures. This study surveys criminal defense attorneys in a large, urban, North Texas county as to which decisional approach, paternalism or pure advocacy, they follow. The study finds that attorneys with a more favorable opinion of the usefulness of competency evaluations express a greater degree of support of the use of both paternalistic and pure-advocacy items as solitary criteria for seeking a competency evaluation.