IN THE SPRING OF 1977, EACH FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT CASE REPORTS AND LAWYER EVALUATIONS OVER A 1-MONTH PERIOD. APPELLATE JUDGES DID THE SAME THING IN THE FALL OF 1977. LAWYERS WERE ASKED TO FILL OUT QUESTIONNAIRES DURING THESE SAME PERIODS TO PROVIDE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON THEMSELVES. A TOTAL OF 1,969 LAWYER PERFORMANCES IN 848 TRIALS WERE EVALUATED DURING THIS PROCEDURE. A GROUP OF JUDGES EVALUATED LAWYERS ON THE BASIS OF VIDEOTAPED PERFORMANCES. BOTH JUDGES AND LAWYERS WERE GIVEN QUESTIONNAIRES TO ELICIT OPINIONS ABOUT THE STATE OF ADVOCACY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. THE FINDINGS OF THESE SURVEYS SHOWED THAT ONE-TWELFTH OF THE LAWYER PERFORMANCES WERE JUDGED TO BE INADEQUATE, WITH THESE INADEQUACIES OCCURRING IN ABOUT ONE-SIXTH OF ALL THE CASES. HOWEVER, THE JUDGES DID NOT SEEM TO THINK THAT THERE WAS ANY GREAT PROBLEM WITH THESE INADEQUACIES. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO MAKE A CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PERFORMANCE RATING OF THE LAWYER AND HIS OR HER PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS. THE RESEARCH REVEALED THAT THE LAWYER'S ROLE IN THE CASE, THE SIZE OF THE LAW OFFICE, AND THE LAWYER'S AGE, PREVIOUS TRIAL EXPERIENCE, AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND ALL HAD PROBABLE CORRELATIONS WITH THE LAWYER'S PERFORMANCE IN COURT. THE REASONS FOR INADEQUATE LAWYER PERFORMANCES WERE CITED AS A LACK OF SPECIAL SKILLS OR KNOWLEDGE NEEDED FOR TRIAL WORK AND A FAILURE TO PREPARE CASES TO THE BEST OF THE LAWYER'S ABILITY. THE SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE APPELLATE COURTS SHOW FEWER INADEQUACIES THAN THE FEDERAL COURTS. OTHER STATISTICS FOR THE APPELLATE COURTS ARE ABOUT THE SAME AS THE FEDERAL COURTS. APPENDIXES PROVIDE COPIES OF THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS, SPECIAL NOTES ON THE RESEARCH METHODS, AND THE OPINIONS OF THE VARIOUS JUDGES AND LAWYERS ON WHAT TYPES OF IMPROVEMENT ARE NECESSARY. STATISTICAL TABLES ARE SUPPLIED THROUGHOUT THIS EVALUATION. (BAC)