THE EXPLOSION OF LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM IN RECENT YEARS HAS CREATED A VARIETY OF PROBLEMS AT ALL LEVELS, BUT THE CONGESTION, DELAYS, AND BACKLOGS THAT HAVE ARISEN AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL ARE PARTICULARLY ACUTE. PROCEDURES LIMITING ORAL ARGUMENT AND OPINION WRITING HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INTRODUCED IN SOME U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS TO DEAL WITH CONGESTION AND RELATED PROBLEMS. THIS SURVEY WAS MADE TO DEVELOP DATA ON THE ACCEPTABILITY TO PRACTICING ATTORNEYS OF THESE LIMITATIONS, AND TO ASCERTAIN BOTH THE REASONS FOR OBJECTION AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY ARE FOUND ACCEPTABLE. DATA WERE OBTAINED ON THE ATTORNEY'S VIEWS ON THE NEED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT; THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ORAL ARGUMENT, WRITTEN OPINIONS, AND THE SPEED OF DISPOSITION; ATTITUDES TOWARD ORAL ARGUMENT AND OPINION WRITING; AND CRITERIA FOR LIMITING ORAL ARGUMENT AND OPINION WRITING. THE SURVEY SHOWED THAT WHILE THERE IS SOME OPPOSITION TO THESE PROCEDURES, IT IS FAR FROM UNIVERSAL; THAT WHILE THERE IS SOME ACCEPTANCE, IT IS FAR FROM UNCONDITIONAL; AND THAT IN FACT THE MAJORITY OF ATTORNEYS ACCORD THEM A QUALIFIED AND PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)...DMC