Observation was the primary method of data collection. However, prosecutors and defense counsel were interviewed, and the files of pretrial cases not resolved at that stage (and of cases at other stages in which the defendant refused to plea bargain) were reviewed. Analysis reveals that three groups of interrelated activities operated in juvenile court. The first, negotiated justice, includes plea negotiation, dismissal bargaining, litigation negotiation, and postconviction negotiation. The second consists of nonnegotiated guilty pleas; the third, unilateral dismissals. The judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel are instrumental in determining whether plea negotiation occurs; parents and probation officers play only limited roles in these determinations. Essentially, plea bargains in juvenile court are structurally similar to (i.e., charge and sentence bargains) those in adult courts and are generated by many of the same reasons (both sides get acceptable results). However, no jury trial is offered to juvenile defendants, there is no threat of trial penalty, and role distortion does not occur. Plea negotiations and pleading guilty in juvenile court are concluded not to violate the fundamental fairness constitutionally owed each juvenile defendant. Studies should be undertaken to see how the Philadelphia Court compares with other juvenile courts across the country. Approximately 200 references are included.