Past findings appear to support the Argersinger-Scott premise, which adopted actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel. Earlier studies also suggest that the process itself is punishment in that most of the penalties experienced by defendants in lower criminal court occur before trial. In this regard, the present study is consistent with the pretrial punishment thesis, but goes against the notion that legal representation makes no difference in disposition. This investigation of 871 first offenders found that represented persons fared better than those without counsel, regardless of charge or bail status. The presence of legal counsel enhanced chances of probated or deferred adjudication sentence for both detained and bonded defendants. No unrepresented detained defendants were given probation. In terms of pretrial punishment the process appears designed to extract a price from the defendant in relationship to his conformance to the courthouse legal culture. Defendants who totally violate this culture by rejecting or not having legal counsel and who do not post bail are subject to the harshest penalty. The author concludes by advocating improved legal services for the poor, removal of barriers to bail, and greater utilization of nonincarcerative sentencing options by the misdemeanor court. Practicing attorneys will find this article useful when challenging nonappointment of counsel and when urging policy changes in the direction of assuring maximal legal representation. (Publisher abstract)