THE EXPERIENCES OF BOTH DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND PROSECUTORS ARE TRACED FROM THEIR RECRUITMENT THROUGH THE FINAL STAGES OF THEIR ADAPTATION TO THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS. THEIR INITIAL EXPECTATIONS -- REGARDING COURT TRIALS, THE ADVERSARY RELATIONSHIP, AND, FOR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, THE INNOCENCE OF MOST OF THEIR FUTURE CLIENTS -- ARE DESCRIBED. THEIR EVOLVING PERCEPTIONS OF GUILT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH AMONG GUILTY DEFENDANTS ARE EXAMINED. THE DISCUSSION FURTHER CONSIDERS THE WAYS IN WHICH NEW ATTORNEYS FIRST LEARN HOW TO GO ABOUT PLEA BARGAINING AND HOW THEIR OPINIONS OF ITS PURPOSE, USEFULNESS, AND ETHICALITY CHANGE THROUGH DIFFERENT STAGES OF EXPERIENCE. IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE DECISION TO PLEA BARGAIN, SUCH AS STRENGTH OF THE CASE, POSSIBLE FLAWS IN THE EVIDENCE OR POLICE PROCEDURES, AND CASELOAD, ARE DISCUSSED. JUDGES, TOO, ARE CONDITIONED TO ACCEPT PLEA BARGAINING, AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH THEIR ADAPTATION OCCURS IS ANALYZED AS WELL. JUDGES' ATTITUDES TOWARD PLEA BARGAINING ARE OFTEN AFFECTED BY THEIR PRIOR EXPERIENCES AS ATTORNEYS. AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN A JUDGE'S ADAPTATION TO THE PROCEDURE IS THAT HE DOES NOT ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE. HIS ROLE IS REACTIVE, AND HE ACTS MORE AS AN ARBITER OF THE FINAL DECISION. JUDGES ALSO GO THROUGH A PERIOD OF LEARNING TO DISTINGUISH AMONG GUILTY DEFENDANTS, AND THIS ASPECT OF THEIR ADAPTATION IS DESCRIBED. SEVERAL ADVANTAGES TO JUDGES OF ACCEPTING PLEA BARGAINING ARE DISCUSSED, INCLUDING A SAVINGS OF TIME AND EFFORT ON THEIR PART AND A REDUCTION IN THE CHANCES THAT THEIR DECISIONS WILL BE REVERSED ON APPEAL. FINALLY, THE AUTHOR PRESENTS HIS CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR PLEA BARGAINING REFORM. A SUMMARY OF THE ADAPTATION PROCESS INCLUDES A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TRAINING OF ATTORNEYS INCLUDE SOME PREPARATION FOR THE PRACTICE OF PLEA BARGAINING. EXCERPTS FROM OPINIONS BY ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES REGARDING THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PLEA BARGAINING ARE PRESENTED, AND THE AUTHOR'S PERCEPTIONS OF ITS INEVITABILITY IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ARE EXPLAINED. THE FACT IS STRESSED THAT THE PRACTICE IS JUST AS PREVALENT IN COURTS WITH SMALL CASELOADS AS IN THOSE WITH A GREAT DEAL OF CASE PRESSURE. SUGGESTIONS FOR A PLEA BARGAINING REFORM POLICY ARE PRESENTED, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. NOTES, A BIBLIOGRAPHY, AND AN INDEX ARE PROVIDED. (VDA)