Seattle and King County are unique in the United States in having multiple nonprofit public defender offices provide services to the same court systems. Although most of those interviewed are proud of the system, with respondents often asserting that competition among various defender agencies is healthy and results in more effective legal representation, no evidence was found to support these conclusions with reference to municipal court. One reason for the failure of the system is the absence of clear guidelines for effective representation. For one office, the rapid disposition of cases to minimize defendant jail time is the ultimate objective, while for another primary provider, protection of the defendants' legal rights, even to the point of ignoring time constraints, is the goal. Advocates of the multi-provider system assert that the defendant is given a choice of attorneys; however, it is questionable whether most indigent defendants are in a position to make an informed choice between the various providers, and the same option could be achieved through an expansion of the private bar panel. The preferred system would use one institutional defender supplemented by private bar participation. If the current system is continued, providers should meet budgeting and qualitative standards set by the jurisdiction. Private bar participation should also be expanded under the current system. Other recommendations are offered, with particular attention to the arraignment process.