tonight I was arrested for solicting an undercover police officer, I was taken to the police station..finger printed and all that stuff.
I have never been arrested before in my life and have nothing on my record.
I have a court date in June, what can I expect from all this?

Which are you: prostitute or client?

In either case, assuming you're in California where I practice, a first offender is usually fined only.  Last case I had, the prostitute was fine $405, less than an hours's work for her so it wasn't a big deal.

If a client, around the same though those fines vary more.

In both cases, the arrest and any subsequent conviction are permanently on your record.  After a time, you may have them "expunged" (again, this is CA law) but that means you don't need to report them on a job application unless it's LE, security or government.  But the file is always a public record; it cannot be sealed or destroyed unless you are a minor.  

If you wish and can, pm me with your phone and I'll call you.

I wish I knew....I'm kind of curious myself. What was the situation?? How did you wind up soliciting an undrercover police officer if you don't mind me asking?

Where does this happen? What is the story?

In Florida if this is your first offense then you will get 6 month probation and slapped with at $500 fine and a misdemeanor. If you used your car then can impound your car and/or take your license away.  But first offense they go lightly on you.  Then you will visit probation officer for 6 months and pay them another $300.

get a lawyer that has done many cases like this, he will represent you and go to court for you.
You need to write down everything you could remember as soon as possible, make him read it, on your court date, he will go to court and pleade not guilty and get the police report, then you two could sit down together and talk.

at least the lawyer can lower the conviction to somethign like trespassing.

Unbelievable! Doesn't it bother you that your taxes are paying for this crap?

I recently  went throught the same thing in California, and as a first time offender I was eligible for a pre trial diversion which meant if I completed the the terms of the agreement I would not even be charged. I went to the session and was informed that they had the whole conversation on tape and a conviction was just a mere formality. I called a few lawyers and their rates were more than I was willing to pay, so I rolled the dice and got a $500 fine plus 24 hrs of community service and the city attorney will not attmept to prosecute the case once i complete all these conditions.

I'll help you. PM me.

But I think that I know what the answer is.

the loss of tax revenues from providers.  But, frankly, that's the least of it for me -- what really pisses me off is that providers do not enjoy the status and respect that they deserve.  What they do is roughly equivalent to what shrinks, social workers and physical therapists do.   Why should they be treated differently?

it's a great little earner for them.  So let's hope they pay THEIR taxes.

The lawyers probably get $3,000 to $5,000 a shot for copping a plea or getting a reduced penalty.  Its nasty work -- got to sit around a courtroom on a hard bench waiting for the case to be called.  Not intellectually stimulating or even interesting.  Clients may or may not be interesting.  Unfortunately, very few lawyers get really rich, but there are loads of ways to make more money as a lawyer than doing low-grade criminal work -- such as high-profile criminal work (eg, Martha Stewart), securities law, corporate law, some personal injury....

If the matter is really settled, then it would be great if you could tell us more about the nature of that conversation they had on tape, particularly how much was explicit vs implied.

I doubt there are very many lawyers making much money off
of providers getting charged.  DWI's, yes.  Traffic cases.
You name it.  But if you sit in court hearing cases called,
usually 0% of the cases are prostitution related, maybe
1% on the rare, rare day.

The argument implied that lawyers want to keep it illegal.
I doubt that is true.