Demystifying the Plea Process: Investigating Attorney Communications and Client Misconceptions

Objective: to study issues related to the lawyer and client interaction regarding building a legal position on the case and the plea process.
Methods: the article uses the universal dialectical method of cognition, as well as general (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction) and specific scientific research methods (formal-legal method).
Results: As the United States has shifted to “a system of pleas,” the role of defense attorneys has swung from trial litigator to plea negotiator. The study results indicated that defense attorneys spend a significant amount of time meeting with clients. Attorneys also cited substantial deficits in criminal defendants’ knowledge of the legal system, as well as many misconceptions regarding legal procedures. The respondents provided a diversity of responses regarding the most important advice they offer their clients with many mentioning facts related to the case resolution process, the direct and collateral consequences associated with a criminal conviction, the role of the defense attorney, and the importance of the right to silence. Further, over half of the attorneys surveyed indicated a general hesitance and 15.0% – an outright refusal to provide an explicit plea recommendation to their clients.
Scientific novelty: The plea process is complex, and defense attorneys play a critical role in this process. The current work highlights how that role has potentially evolved – moving from adviser to educator and evaluator. More qualitative data collection like this is needed to illuminate how attorneys influence defendants’ decision-making rather than just whether they do and by how much. This type of research on “expanded criminal defense lawyering” often goes above and beyond typical outcomes, and instead focuses more on the process, such as plea negotiations and effective attorney-client communication, and often incorporates the defendants’ perspectives. Such studies will inform future avenues for research and how best to operationalize attorney-client communication. The research substantiates the need to reduce the burden on defense attorneys by making it easier for them to ensure that their clients are meeting the knowing and intelligent requirements for plea decisions.
Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering issues related to building a legal position on the case and the plea process.

1. Abrams, D. S. (2011). Is pleading really a bargain? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8(S1), 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01234.x

2. Alkon, C. (2016). Plea bargain negotiations: Defining competence beyond Lafler & Frye. American Criminal Law Review, 53, 377–407. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/861

3. Alkon, C., & Schneider, A. K. (2021). How to be a better plea bargainer. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 66, 65–105. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3934577

4. Allen v. Edwards, 2021. https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/joseph-allen-et-al-v-john-bel-edwards-et-al

5. Alschuler, A. W. (1975). The defense attorney’s role in plea bargaining. The Yale Law Journal, 84(6), 1179–1315.

6. American Bar Association. (2004). Gideon’s broken promise: America’s continuing quest for equal justice. ABA Division for Legal Services Standing Committee on Legal Aid & Indigent Defense. https://www.in.gov/publicdefender/files/ABAGideonsBrokenPromise.pdf

7. American Bar Association. (n.d.). Criminal justice standards: Defense function. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/resources/standards/defense-function/#:~:text=(d)%20Defense%20counsel%20is%20the,the%20law%20or%20such%20standards

8. ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants. (2017). The Louisiana Project: A study of the Louisiana public defender system and attorney workload standards. http://lpdb.la.gov/Supporting%20Practitioners/Standards/txtfiles/pdfs/Louisiana%20Proiect%20Report.pdf

9. ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants. (2022). The Oregon Project: An analysis of the Oregon public defense system and attorney workload standards. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legalaidindigentdefense/indigentdefensesystemsimprovement/publications/or-project/

10. August, C. N., & Henderson, K. S. (2021). Juveniles in the interrogation room: Defense attorneys as a protective factor. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(2), 268–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000294

11. Backus, M., & Marcus, P. (2018). The right to counsel in criminal cases: Still a national crisis. George Washington Law Review, 86(6), 1564–1603. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3541332

12. Brenner, L. A. (2011). Eliminating excessive public defender workloads. Criminal Justice, 26(2), 2433.

13. Boccaccini, M. T., Boothby, J. L., & Brodsky, S. L. (2004). Development and effects of client trust in criminal defense attorneys: Preliminary examination of the congruence model of trust development. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 22(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.584

14. Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2002). Attorney-Client trust among convicted criminal defendants: Preliminary examination of the attorney-client trust scale. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20(1–2), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.469

15. Boccacini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., & Turner, D. B. (2014). Jurors’ views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 32(4), 438–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2129

16. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Brink, M. (2017). Still under water: Louisiana’s public defense system in crisis. Criminal Justice, 32(2), 45–46.

17. Campbell, C., Moore, J., Maier, W., & Gaffney, M. (2014). Unnoticed, untapped, and underappreciated: Clients’ perceptions of their public defenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 33(6), 751–770.

18. Campbell, C. M., & Henderson, K. S. (2021). Bridging the gap between clients and public defenders: Introducing a structured shadow method to examine attorney communication. Justice System Journal, 43(1), 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011494

19. Citizen v. Louisiana, 916 So. 2d 1040 (2005).

20. Cohen, T. H. (2014). Who is better at defending criminals? Does type of defense attorney matter in terms of producing favorable case outcomes. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(1), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0687403412461149

21. The Constitution Project. (2009). Justice denied: America's continuing neglect of our constitutional right to counsel. Report of the National Right to Counsel Committee.

22. Daftary-Kapur, T., Henderson, K. S., & Zottoli, T. M. (2021). COVID-19 exacerbates existing system factors that disadvantage defendants: Findings from a national survey of defense attorneys. Law and Human Behavior, 45(2), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000442

23. Daftary-Kapur, T., & Zottoli, T. M. (2014). A first look at the plea deal experiences of juveniles tried in adult court. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(4), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.960983

24. Dezember, A., Luna, S., Woestehoff, S. A., Stoltz, M., Manley, M., Quas, J. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2022). Plea validity in circuit court: Judicial colloquies in misdemeanor vs. felony charges. Psychology, Crime and Law, 28(3), 268–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1905813

25. Domanico, A. J., Cicchini, M. D., & White, L. T. (2012). Overcoming Miranda: A content analysis of the Miranda portion of police interrogations. Idaho Law Review, 49(1), 1–22.

26. Dunlea, R. R., Wilford, M. M. (2025). Who minds their pleas and queues? Defendant decisionmaking and the misdemeanor quick plea. Manuscript under revision.

27. Edkins, V. A., & Dervan, L. E. (2018). Freedom now or a future later: Pitting the lasting implications of collateral consequences against pretrial detention in decisions to plead guilty. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(2), 204–215. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000159

28. Edkins, V. A., & Redlich, A. D. (Eds.). (2019). A System of pleas: Social science’s contributions to the real legal system. Oxford Publishing.

29. Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and proposed solutions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 788–821. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.6.3.788

30. Fountain, E. N., & Woolard, J. L. (2018). How defense attorneys consult with juvenile clients about plea bargains. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 24(2), 192–203. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000158

31. Feld, B. C. (2006). Juveniles’ competence to exercise Miranda rights: An empirical study of policy and practice. Minnesota Law Review, 91, 26–100. https://scholarship,law.umn.edu/facultvarticles/295

32. Furst, B. (2019). A fair fight: Achieving indigent defense resource parity. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/ReportA%20Fair%20Fight.pdf

33. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

34. Harlow, C. W. (2000). Defense counsel in criminal cases. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. https://bis.oip.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf

35. Helm, R. K., Reyna, V. F., Franz, A. A., & Novick, R. Z. (2018a). Too young to plead? Risk, rationality, and plea bargaining’s innocence problem in adolescents. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10/1037/law0000156

36. Helm, R. K., Reyna, V. F., Franz, A. A., Novick, R. Z., Dincin, S., & Cort, A. E. (2018b). Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: Attorney perspectives on guilt, innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system. Psychology, Crime and Law, 24(9), 915–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1457672

37. Henderson, K. S., & Levett, L. M. (2018). Investigating predictors of true and false guilty pleas. Law and Human Behavior, 42(5), 427–441. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000297

38. Henderson, K. S., & Levett, L. M. (2019). Plea bargaining: The influence of counsel. In M. K. Miller & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 4, pp. 73–100). Springer.

39. Henderson, K. S., & Shteynberg, R. V. (2019). Plea decision-making: The influence of attorney expertise, trustworthiness, and recommendation. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 26(6), 527–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1696801

40. Henderson, K. S., Sutherland, K. T., & Wilford, M. M. (2023). “Reject the offer”: The asymmetric impact of defense attorneys’ plea recommendations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(9), 1321–1340. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231172515

41. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985).

42. Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A.-M., & Dana, L. F. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5

43. Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15(3), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061711

44. Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5

45. Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012).

46. Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017).

47. Lee, G. L., Jaynes, C. M., & Ropp, J. W. (2020). Satisfaction, legitimacy, and guilty pleas: How perceptions and attorneys affect defendant decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 38(6), 1095–1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2020.1786147

48. Lee, G. L., & Ropp, J. W. (2020). “Sometimes I’mjust wearing the prosecutor down”: An exploratory analysis of criminal defense attorneys in plea negotiations and client counseling. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.2168ad3e

49. Luna, S. (2022). Defining coercion: An application in interrogation and plea negotiation contexts. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 28(2), 240–254. https://doi.org/2022-44628-001

50. Mayson, S. G., & Stevenson, M. T. (2020). Misdemeanors by the numbers. Boston College Law Review, 61(3), 971–1044. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol61/iss3/4

51. Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012).

52. Moore, J., Plano Clark, V. L., Foote, L. A., & Dariotis, J. K. (2019). Attorney-client communication in public defense: Aqualitative examination. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(6), 908–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419861672

53. Nugent-Borakove, M. E., Cruz, F., & Lefstein, N. (2017). The power of choice: The implications of a system where indigent defendants choose their own counsel. Justice Management Institute. http://www.tidc.texas.gov/media/8d87c73b45a851e/client-choice.pdf

54. Oppel, R. A., & Patel, J. K. (2019). One lawyer, 194 felony cases, and no time. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-defender-case-loads.html

55. Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).

56. Powell v. Alabama, 287 S. Ct. 45 (1932)

57. Pruss, H., Sandys, M., & Walsh, S. M. (2022). “Listen, hear my side, back me up”: What clients want from public defenders. Justice System Journal, 43(1), 6–25. https://doi.om/10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011496

58. Redlich, A. D., Bibas, S., Edkins, V. A., & Madon, S. (2017). The psychology of defendant plea decision making. American Psychologist, 72(4), 339–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040436

59. Redlich, A. D., Bushway, S. D., & Norris, R. J. (2016). Plea decision-making by attorneys and judges. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(4), 537–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9264-0

60. Redlich, A. D., Domagalski, K., Woestehoff, S. A., Dezember, A., & Quas, J. A. (2022). Guilty plea hearings in juvenile and criminal court. Law and Human Behavior, 46(5), 337–352. https://doi.ora/10.1037/lhb0000495

61. Redlich, A. D., & Shteynberg, R. V. (2016). To plead or not to plead: A comparison of juvenile and adult true and false plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb/0000205

62. Redlich, A. D., & Summers, A. (2012). Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent pleas: Understanding the plea inquiry. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(4), 626–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026066

63. Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 539–554.

64. Roberts, J., & Wright, R. F. (2016). Training for bargaining. William and Mary Law Review, 57(4), 1474–1504. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol57/iss4/11

65. Rogers, R., Gillard, N. D., Wooley, C. N., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2011). Decrements in Miranda abilities: An investigation of situational effects via a mock-crime paradigm. Law & Human Behavior, 35, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9248-y

66. Sandys, M., & Pruss, H. (2017). Correlates of satisfaction among clients of a public defender agency. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 14(2), 431–461.

67. Scherr, K. C., & Madon, S. (2013). Go ahead and sign: An experimental examination of Miranda waivers and comprehension. Law and Human Behavior, 37(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000026

68. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984).

69. Strong, S. M. (2016). State-Administered Indigent Defense Systems, 2013. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bis.oip.gov/content/pub/pdf/saids13.pdf

70. Stover, R. V., & Eckart, D. R. (1975). A systematic comparison of public defenders and private attorneys. American Journal of Criminal Law, 3(3), 265–300.

71. Tor, A., Gazal-Ayal, O., & Carcia, S. M. (2010). Fairness and the willingness to accept plea bargain offers. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1740-1461.2009.01171.x

72. Wilford, M. M., & Bornstein, B. H. (2023). The disappearing trial: How social scientists can help save the jury from extinction. Psychology, Crime and Law, 29(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1984482

73. Wilford, M. M., DiFava, R. J., & Henderson, K. S. (2025). Demystifying the Plea Process: Investigating Attorney Communications and Client Misconceptions. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 26(1), 16–34.

74. Wilford, M. M., Frazier, A., Lowe, A., Newsome, P., & Strong, H. V. (2025). Quick and dirty: An evaluation of plea colloquy validity in the virtual courtroom. Manuscript under revision.

75. Wilford, M. M., & Redlich, A. D. (2018). Deciphering the guilty plea: Where research can inform policy [Introduction to the special section on Guilty Pleas]. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(2), 145–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000169

76. Wilford, M. M., Sutherland, K. T., Gonzales, J. E., & Rabinovich, M. (2021). Guilt status influences plea outcomes beyond the shadow-of-the-trial in an interactive simulation of legal procedures. Law and Human Behavior, 45(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000450

77. Wilford, M. M., Wells, G. L., & Frazier, A. (2021). Plea-bargaining law: The impact of innocence, trial penalty, and conviction probability on plea outcomes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(3), 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09564-y

78. Worden, A. P., Davies, A. L. B., & Brown, E. K. (2011). A patchwork of policies: Justice, due process, and public defense across American states. Albany Law Review, 74(3), 1423–1463.

79. Wright, R., & Roberts, J. (2023). Expanded criminal defense lawyering. Annual Review of Criminology, 6(1), 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030421-035326

80. Zimmerman, D. M., & Hunter, S. (2018). Factors affecting false guilty pleas in a mock plea bargaining scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12117

81. Zottoli, T. M., & Daftary-Kapur, T. (2019). Guilty pleas of youths and adults: Differences in legal knowledge and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 43(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000314

82. Zottoli, T. M., Daftary-Kapur, T., Winters, G. M., & Hogan, C. (2016). Plea discounts, time pressures, and false-guilty pleas in youth and adults who pleaded guilty to felonies in New York City. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(3), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000095