The government, however, argued to Andersen lawyers that the policy was ambiguous, was not followed and provided inadequate oversight, people involved in the case said.

But things did not work out the way the Andersen lawyers had hoped.

The Andersen lawyers disputed the contention that any crimes had occurred, but they felt confident that if prosecutors disagreed, only individuals would face indictment.

Second, Ms. Temple said she would consult with other Andersen lawyers to see "whether we should do anything more to protect ourselves from" securities-law liability.

Andersen lawyers tried to gain support for their appeal, and in the process effectively eliminated it as an issue.

However, his lawyers have said that he was following the instruction of an Andersen in-house lawyer, which were consistent with the firm's longstanding policies.

Rusty Hardin, an Andersen lawyer, said yesterday that no new talks between the sides were planned.

Prosecutors said they were opposed to a delay, arguing that Andersen lawyers were the ones who had requested a speedy trial.

The Andersen lawyers responded that they had found the final document only the previous night, after a reporter's inquiry about the bill introduced by the government.

The reply from the Andersen internal lawyer, which came on Oct. 12, permitted the destruction of many documents, investigators say.