Increasingly, the remedy to deficiencies in jail conditions, such as overcrowding or lack of medical care, includes the appointment of a monitor. Such appointments are viewed as a necessary step in the remedial process and have been justified on the basis of Rule 653 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in the courts' inherent equity powers. Monitors remove from the courts the heavy burden of oversight and can help overcome the institution's inertia and resistance to compulsory change. In theory, a harmonious relationship between monitor and facility should bring an efficient resolution of the jail's problems. In practice, the benefits of monitorship can be more elusive. Problems can arise from a monitor's overinvolvement in day-to-day operations, resulting in adverse consequences for jail administration, staff morale, and control over the facility and its inmates. In addition, there may be financial problems: Monitors may be insensitive to the cost-effectiveness of their recommendations, and their fees can be huge. In addition, monitors may violate the defendant's due process rights and interfere with the defendant's attorney-client privilege. It also is often difficult to challenge the monitor's conduct. Further, monitorships may hamper resolution of problems, result in protracted litigation, and increase the costs of litigation. Some of these problems can be reduced through self-monitoring, setting limits on the monitor's powers, or establishing a special office for Federal monitors. 15 footnotes.