The statistical data were divided into two broad headings: profile data and outcome data. The findings showed that both Leeds and Bradford courts gained from their use of a PTR system in reducing the numbers of cases originally destined for contested trials. Approximately 63 percent of all cases in which there had been a PTR eventually settled without a contested trial, compared to 45 percent of non-PTR cases. The nonsettled PTR cases took slightly longer to reach a final disposition, even though, in terms of their profile data, they were no more complex or serious than non-PTR cases. The authors concluded that the efficiency gains which can be claimed for the PTR are limited in scope, and, in fact, PTRs add something to the cost of operating the courts. When PTR is adopted, court officials should use advance disclosure whenever possible, gauge the suitability of a case for PTR using a matrix of indicators, leave control of the proceedings in the hands of an experienced court clerk rather than a lay magistrate, and use the lawyers at the PTR who will control the case if it comes to trial. 6 notes