IIRC, the difference is that Lori was subsequently appointed public defenders (both of whom were DP qualified), Chad chose not to have a public defender. Chad wanted Mr Prior instead, so the DP rules do not apply. At the time the order was written, Mark Means was Lori's attorney. MM was not DP qualified, so I think that this order is in relation to MM and not the subsequent attorneys appointed by the court.
ETA - I have found the order which sets out Chads constitutional right to retain his own counsel.
https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...523-Order-on-Motion-to-Appoint-Co-Counsel.pdf
‘However, despite this advisement of rights under I.C.R. 44.3, from both Court and through
counsel, Daybell has continually and unequivocally asserted his decision to have Mr. Prior
represent him at trial, with or without additional counsel’.