1) Lawyers, generally, are like people in all occupations: some of them are really good, some of them are really bad, and most of them are average. I've known folks doing court appointed work, and folks in the office of the public defender, who were excellent attorneys, diligent, and conscientious. I've known a couple who didn't mind telling anyone who'd listen that they hated their clients, that everyone the cops brought in was guilty as far as they were concerned, and that they would never prepare for or go to trial for a "scumbag" defendant. They stood up and gave the court the decorum of due process, while actually denying due process. But those were only two out of the hundreds I've known. Point is, it's kind of a crap shoot, because you get the lawyer the court gives you. And many are inexperienced or unable or unwilling to get clients by actually working hard; it doesn't pay worth spit, so the people who do it tend to be those who don't have financial options. But like I say, there are some really good ones who are putting in their labor for the good of society and the cause of justice, who don't need the money, and will show up at the jail at two a.m. to be present at the interrogation.
2) As to plea bargains: the way that usually works is that the prosecutor will tell the defense lawyer what the deal is, the defense lawyer tells the client, somehow a decision is reached, and defense counsel relays the result to the prosecutor. Plea bargains are, in my estimation, a form of damage control. If I have a client whom I know is guilty and I think the prosecutor is very likely to put on sufficient evidence to convict without making any bone-headed mistakes, then I think plea negotiations are in order. It's a way of limiting the exposure to a severe sentence or multiple convictions, or convictions that interfere with future ability to live normally (e.g., loss of driving privileges, loss of CHP for three years, having to register as a sex offender, etc.).
Bob Horan, formerly the Commonwealth's Attorney in Fairfax County (and a great trial lawyer) told me once, about twenty years ago, that he didn't believe in plea bargains. He said that if it was truly a bargain, there was absolutely no reason for the Commonwealth to go along with it - he'd rather go to trial. That office had a fairly strict policy about the criteria they used for making decisions, and the junior assistant deputy prosecutors would get into trouble if they deviated from the rules. I think that was an extreme point of view.
Here's the other extreme: what I call "plea bargain factories". There are also "personal injury factories", and "slash-and-burn divorce factories", and they all have something in common: they operate to make as much money as quickly as possible and they do it by ripping off their clients. A law firm that demands a lot of money up front before they'll even talk to the prospective client, sends emails or text messages gratuitiously to the client just to fill up the quota of billable hours, and bills for lots and lots of time spent "in conference" or reviewing files but actually does no significant work is ripping off the client. A plea-bargain factory charges full price for legal services, as though they were going to prepare for and go to trial. They don't prepare, and they generally have several cases stacked up on any particular morning, often in more than one jurisdiction, and all they do is relay whatever the Commonwealth wants to do over to the client, and then beat up on the client to make them accept the deal.
Here's how the process is supposed to work: Either the prosecutor or defense counsel will suggest to the other the advisability of a deal. The prosecutor's interest is in processing as many cases as expeditiously as possible and saving the county some money (including the costs of incarceration) while at the same time making sure that the badguys who need to be "got" get what they deserve. So the two discuss the evidence, the likely outcome of the trial, and what kinds of terms both sides are likely to be able to accept. Defense counsel will then go to the client and explain (a) the range of possible solutions to the problem - there are usually three: take what the prosecutor is offering, plead guilty and argue sentencing before the judge, or go to trial; (b) the risks and benefits of each - usually it boils down to a reasonably certain outcome as opposed to the possibility of no outcome (or at least a good basis for appeal) with maximum risk; (c) a recommended solution, if there is one; and (d) the basis for the recommendation. At that point, it's the client's decision what he wants to happen in his life, and defense counsel's job to support that decision.
This is the point at which the client generally asks, "What should I do?". My response is uniform: I don't know what you should do - I know what I would do, but I'm not you, and it won't be me leaving the courtroom in handcuffs out the side door. I'm not terribly risk-averse, and I don't mind uncertainty, so I always lean toward going to trial; you can always appeal. But that's extra expense that doesn't necessarily reduce the ultimate risk. If you want to be pretty sure about what the sentence will be (the judge doesn't have to rubber stamp the prosecutor's offer, though they almost always do), then go with the deal. Sometimes, I've told clients that I thought a particular judge would do better on sentencing than the prosecutor's offer, and recommended pleading "straight up" and arguing sentencing before the judge. Sometimes, the deal is so bogus that I thought a "slow plea" would be preferable - plead not guilty, go to trial, make the Commonwealth prove its case, don't put on any evidence, and then argue sentencing if necessary. (The latter is an especially good approach if there's a possibility of a horrible civil suit afterwards - if you plead "not guilty", then they can't use your plea against you, which they can with a "nolo contendere".)
But ultimately, it has to be the client's decision whether or not to accept the plea. An an attorney who insists that you take the plea without running you through all that procedure first is simply trying to get out of the courtroom quickly and doesn't care what happens to you. Remember that you always have the right to tell the judge what's going on, what's happening to you, and to state an objection. You can tell the judge that your lawyer is trying to railroad you and that you want another opportunity to get a decent lawyer; you have a Constitutional right to effective representation of counsel, and if your lawyer is drunk, lazy, careless, or just stupid, you can tell the judge that and demand your right to a fair trial. There is magic language that you have to use: "May I please address the Court?" - you have to ask permission to talk - and you do this before anything else happens - when things go too fast, and they will if you let them, stop the process, do a time-out, and ask to speak to the judge yourself. Be persistent, because your only chance to get a fair trial is before sentence is pronounced. After that, well, make sure you leave your wallet and keys with someone you trust.
while at the same time exercising your right to remain silent until such a time as you are comfortable waiving that right with your attorney present. It's a stalling tactic, if you will.