THE ESSAY'S CRITICISM OF THE QUALITY OF RESEARCH IN COURT ADMINISTRATION IS SAID NOT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ADEQUATELY THE FACT THAT PROFESSIONAL COURT ADMINISTRATION IS A RELATIVELY RECENT PHENOMENON. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE ESSAY REFLECTS A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION AND WORKINGS OF THE COURTS AND IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY LAWYERS, JUDGES, AND OTHER COURT PERSONNEL GENERALLY ARE SUSPICIOUS OF RESEARCHERS FROM NONLEGAL FIELDS. THE ESSAY IS SAID TO BE BIASED IN FAVOR OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS, LOSING SIGHT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF COURT MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS FOR CIVIL PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS. THE ESSAY'S CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF COURT ADMINISTRATORS APPEARS TO HAVE NO BEARING ON CASE DISPOSITION RATES IS COUNTERED WITH EXAMPLES OF WAYS IN WHICH COURT ADMINISTRATORS CAN HELP TO EXPEDITE COURT PROCEEDINGS (E.G., SERVING AS AN INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN JUDGES AND THE BAR IN DEVELOPING STRICTER POLICIES ON CONTINUANCES). IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE ADVENT OF PROFESSIONAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS IS A NATURAL RESPONSE TO THE COMPLEXITIES OF COURT ADMINISTRATION AND TO PUBLIC PRESSURE ON THE COURTS TO 'CATCH UP ' WITH MODERN MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT FUTURE ANALYSES OF COURT ADMINISTRATION SHOULD ATTACK THE PROBLEMS COURT ADMINISTRATORS FACE, NOT COURT ADMINSTRATORS THEMSELVES. SEE ALSO NCJ-48466-48468. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (LKM)