THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STANDARDS ON THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE ROLES IN DIVERSION OFFERED BY SEVERAL PROMINENT COMMISSION AND ASSOCIATIONS ARE REVIEWED. THE AUTHORS CONCLUDE THAT BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE ARE DEEMED TO HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CONSIDERING DIVERSIONARY ALTERNATIVES. IT IS NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT CONSIDERABLE RESISTANCE HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THE IDEA OF DEFENDEROPERATED DIVERSION. THE POSSIBLE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROSECUTION-OPERATED DIVERSION ON THE DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS AND THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE RESULTS OF OFFERING PROSECUTOR AND THIRD PARTY DIVERSION TO AN EXTREMELY LIMITED GROUP OF NONSERIOUS OFFENDERS ARE DISCUSSED. THE AUTHORS CONCLUDE THAT DIVERSION CAN BE LEGITIMATELY OFFERED BY PROSECUTOR, DEFENDER AND THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATIONS. DEFENDER ORGANIZATIONS COULD BE THE PROVIDER OF 'LAST RESORT' DIVERSION SERVICES, OFFERING DIVERSION TO THOSE NOT NORMALLY CONSIDERED AND PROVIDING DIVERSION AT THE POST ADJUDICATION, PRESENTENCING STAGE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)