The attorney insisted on going to trial, telling Mark that it was "all or nothing" and there was "no in-between", as far as pleading guilty to reduce his sentencing exposure.  Without any options, Mark took his case to a trial he knew he could not win, and was subsequently found guilty.  Mark later learned, after he was sentenced to life, that the attorney withheld the plea offers in order to force him to go to trial.  This was all in an effort to protect his other client, who was the primary "target" of investigation in Mark's case, and who was paying the attorney's legal fees to represent Mark.  By law, this was a clear conflict of interest and a classic case of ineffective assistance of counsel.  This conflict was the motivating reason for the attorney to purposely mishandle Mark's case.  You can see the proof for yourself in the (Newly-discovered evidence) hyperlink on the "About Mark" page where the attorney gets caught in several misleading and contradictory statements when confronted on the issue of withholding the plea offers. 

Why was this purposely withheld?