This study was part of a larger study that focused on the daily routines of a private, nonprofit corporation of court- appointed defense attorneys. The study was conducted between September 1984 and September 1988. The population studied consisted of all the attorneys employed at the downtown branch of the corporation; approximately 15 attorneys were employed at any given time. Data were initially collected through participant observation. In-depth interviews were conducted toward the end of the study to clarify and refine observational findings. The study concludes that defenders gauge the strength of evidence against their clients through a tacit, taken-for-granted process that emulates trial proceedings; based on their implicit understanding of evidence, defenders envision a courtroom dialog wherein the prosecution and defense take turns presenting their cases in front of a judge and jury. At issue throughout the dialog is whether or to what extent information is sufficient, legal, and persuasive enough to convict the defendant. Although the findings show that legal principles play an important role in defenders' decisions to plea bargain, because the process is tacit and emerges during ongoing daily routines, it is not obvious in plea- bargaining episodes. Thus, naive spectators may conclude that legal considerations have no bearing on decisions to settle cases. At the same time, because defenders only rarely, if ever, feel compelled to explain the process by which they gauge the strength of evidence, other analysts may conclude that the procedures are more ethical than they actually are. 64 references