THE RESEARCH WAS DESIGNED TO ANSWER THREE QUESTIONS. FIRST: IS THERE A TWO-TRACK SYSTEM OF JUSTICE SO THAT PEOPLE WHO HIRE THEIR OWN LAWYERS OBTAIN MORE FAVORABLE TREATMENT THAN PEOPLE WITH APPOINTED LAWYERS? IT WAS FOUND THAT CASE OUTCOMES WERE NEARLY EQUIVALENT AMONG DEFENDANTS WHO HAD DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAWYERS. SECOND: DO ANY OF THE VARIOUS TYPES OF DEFENDER SYSTEMS PROVIDE BETTER REPRESENTATION AND GREATER CLIENT SATISFACTION THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS? EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT INSTITUTIONAL OFFICES ON THE WHOLE OBTAIN SOMEWHAT BETTER CASE OUTCOMES THAN PROGRAMS OF INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, BUT THE DIFFERENCES WERE NOT LARGE. INTERVIEWS WITH LEGAL PROFESSIONALS, AS WELL AS THE CASE OUTCOME DATA, SUGGESTED THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL OFFICES MADE LITTLE, IF ANY, DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF HOW EFFECTIVE THE ORGANIZATION IS OR WHAT CLIENTS THINK OF IT. THIRD: WHAT DO CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS THINK ABOUT DEFENSE REPRESENTATION OF THE POOR? A PERVASIVE ANTIPATHY WAS FOUND TOWARD PUBLICLY PAID DEFENSE LAWYERS, PRIMARILY THOSE WHO WORK FOR THE FIRST-LINE DEFENDER SYSTEM, AND IT RAPIDLY BECAME EVIDENT THAT THESE ANTIPATHIES WERE BASED ON DEFENDANTS' SUSPICIONS ABOUT BOTH LOYALTIES AND THE ABILITIES OF THESE LAWYERS. THE STUDY CONCLUDES THAT IF THERE ARE WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITIES IN THE URBAN COURT SYSTEM, THEY ARE NOT DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN THE KINDS OF LAWYERS PEOPLE GET, EXCEPT PERHAPS FOR THE VERY WEALTHIEST CLIENTS AND COSTLIEST LAWYERS, BOTH OF WHICH WERE RARITIES IN THE SYSTEMS STUDIED. SUPPORTING STATISTICS ARE PRESENTED.