The conference audience consisted of judges, lawyers, court administrators, public interest representatives, academics, and the media. Conference panelists discussed how accreditation has evolved and functions in the fields of health care, legal education, law enforcement, and corrections. Panelists concurred that any State court accreditation system should be national in scope rather than local to avoid parochialism and lack of objectivity. They also agreed that the creation of an accreditation system takes many years and that accreditation systems have succeeded with broad-based and interdisciplinary support. The concern was raised that accrediting State courts could violate the separation of powers by unduly influencing the judicial branch of government. Other possible constitutional challenges to State court accreditation dealt with due process violations and the argument that since individuals cannot choose the court in which they are to be criminally tried, they cannot be forced to appear in an unaccredited court. Panelists determined, however, that none of the preceding arguments had any merit. Conference participants envisioned that State court accreditation standards could be developed in such areas as physical facilities, research and clerical personnel, word processing, case management systems and computer use, inservice staff training, continuing education for judges, leave and sabbatical policies, court libraries, and the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. 34 references.