Four Virginia jurisdictions have experimental public defender systems. The study matched these jurisdictions with similar ones using the assigned counsel system. The qualitative data underscored the prevailing notions about the two defense approaches. Assigned counsel attorneys could devote more attention to the indigent but must balance that obligation against their more lucrative clients. Public defenders were more experienced in criminal procedures but were pressured to expedite their cases through plea bargaining rather than trial because of their caseload demands. Quantitative data revealed only two areas where type of attorney or type of system seemed to make a significant difference. Public defenders were more likely to plead their clients guilty, and assigned counsel attorneys tended to take longer to process their clients' cases. These findings may not be relevant to other Virginia jurisdictions, should the system be expanded in the future. Public defender systems are more efficient than assigned counsel systems in processing cases, but they do not provide an obviously superior quality of defense to indigent defendants. Local issues regarding the two systems, tables, footnotes, interview schedules, and 38 references are supplied.