A path model hypothesizes that the judicial orientations of juvenile probation officers result from various factors, including commitment to professional norms as related to commitment to bureaucratic norms and the effects of those commitments on professional training, the degree of bureaucracy, and therapeutic judicial orientation. Data derive from in-court observation of juvenile court hearings; informal observation of social interactions in and out of the courtroom; juvenile court files; and a questionnaire survey of judges, probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Findings indicate that the therapeutic orientation is characterized by the beliefs that each case should be handled on an individual basis and that the court disposition is an opportunity to treat the underlying psychological problem, with characteristics of the offense considered irrelevant to the final disposition. Recommendations for dispositions vary widely. In contrast, the more legalistic orientation is characterized by concern for the protection of society from youths' delinquent behavior, by the belief that punitive sanctions serve a deterrent function, and by emphasis on the importance of the nature of the act. Findings also suggest that a legalistic approach is more consistent with a bureaucratic organizational structure than a therapeutic orientation. Professional training in social work results in commitment to norms more compatible with the therapeutic orientation, while organizational bureaucracy produces commitment to bureaucratic norms more compatible with a legalistic orientation. Variables affecting the degree of support for each orientation are delineated. Research on the process by which orientations affect actual dispositions is recommended. Figures, tables, notes, and a bibliography containing instruments are provided.