Although the general public tends to view the courts as too lenient with criminals and an obstruction to effective police work, data indicate otherwise. The public must be educated about the court's mission and the principles upon which it is based, so public perceptions of court performance may be grounded in accurate data and constitutional principles. Litigants tend to measure court and judicial performance by the fairness of the process more than the case outcome. Attorneys measure judicial performance by such criteria as judicial demeanor, management skills, and legal ability. Lawyers generally give judges high marks. Objective criteria for measuring court performance typically relate to the speed with which cases are processed. The National Center for State Courts is embarking on a major, multiyear Large Court Capacity project to develop detailed performance standards for large general jurisdiction trial courts. These standards will encompass measures of justice as well as efficiency. 1 table, 43 footnotes.