This argument is developed first by indicating the way in which much of the work in the field has been informed by the procedures and assumptions of Durkheimian social science. It notes some of the weaknesses of this tradition, especially when used to explain the phenomenon typically under investigation in the longitudinal study of courts. The article then argues for an action theory alternative that integrates macro-law and micro-law processes. The suggestion for improved micro-level research borrows from recent work on building micro-macro links in social science, notably the work of James Coleman. Coleman proposes an analysis in which theories begin at a macro level, move down to a micro level of individual actions, and then go back to the macro level. The dependent variable is ultimately an aggregation of individual behaviors. In addition to the need for a focus on individual behaviors, there is a need for improved organizational theory. Litigation studies are hampered by a still underdeveloped understanding of courts as organizations. To understand micro-to-macro relationships, such as the effect of disputing and litigation choices on the structure of courts and their alternatives, research must move beyond litigation rates and toward new dependent variables.