THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR, THE BARRISTERS OF THE BEVERLY HILLS BAR, AND BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN ATLANTA, GA., CLEVELAND, OHIO, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., AND DALLAS, TEX., ARE AMONG THE MANY GROUPS THAT HAVE QUERIED LOCAL ATTORNEYS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF FEDERAL JUDGES. THESE SURVEYS HAVE FOLLOWED THE LEAD OF THE CHICAGO COUNCIL OF LAWYERS POLL CONDUCTED IN 1971. THE STYLES AND QUESTIONS OF THE SURVEYS VARY, AS DO OPINIONS REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE USES OF SURVEY RESULTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE WASHINGTON BAR DOES NOT MAKE ITS SURVEY RESULTS PUBLIC, PREFERRING TO CONSULT INDIVIDUALLY WITH EACH JUDGE. THE NEW YORK CITY BAR HAS BEEN REJECTING CALLS FOR A POLL, BUT KEEPS FILES OF ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS FROM LAWYERS AND THE PUBLIC. THE BEVERLY HILLS POLLING PROJECT, WHICH WON ITS ORGANIZERS THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ACHIEVEMENT AWARD, USED AN 8-PAGE QUESTIONNAIRE TO OBTAIN EVALUATIONS ON 18 DISTRICT JUDGES. OF 2,710 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS SENT TO ATTORNEYS WHOSE NAMES HAD APPEARED ON FEDERAL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS, 268 USABLE RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED. MOST RESPONDENTS WERE CIVIL PRACTITIONERS. MOST JUDGES WERE EVALUATED FAVORABLY; ONE RECEIVED POOR APPRAISALS ON EVERY QUESTION; AND SEVERAL WERE CRITICIZED FOR HAVING BAD TEMPERS. THE POLL CAME UNDER HEAVY CRITICISM, PARTICULARLY FROM JUDGES. MANY CRITICS CITED THE LOW RESPONSE RATE AND CLAIMED THAT THE ATTORNEYS WHO RESPONDED WERE UNINFORMED. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE POLLS ARE NOT GEARED TO MAKING RADICAL CHANGES IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, BUT RATHER GIVE LAWYERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR FRUSTRATIONS AND CRITICISMS. (LKM)