THE SURVEY ATTEMPED TO DETERMINE WHY SOME ATTORNEYS SEEK JUDICIAL OFFICE AND RETAIN THAT POSITION WHILE OTHERS DO NOT. COMPARISONS WERE DRAWN AMONG SITTING JUDGES, ATTORNEYS ASPIRING TO JUDICIAL CAREERS, AND ATTORNEYS NOT INTERESTED IN HOLDING JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE PERSONAL AND LEGAL CAREER CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS WERE EXAMINED, AS WERE THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SEEKING AND HOLDING JUDICIAL OFFICE. MOST SITTING JUDGES CAME FROM CIVIL OR GENERAL LEGAL PRACTICES, BUT MOST ATTORNEYS ASPIRING TO A JUDICIAL POSITION WERE FROM CRIMINAL AND GOVERNMENT PRACTICES. FORTY-SIX PERCENT OF THE SITTING JUDGES SERVED AS A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AT SOME POINT. THE DATA ALSO INDICATE THAT SOLO PRACTITIONERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SEEK JUDICIAL OFFICE THAN ARE OTHER LAWYERS (MEMBERS OF FIRMS, CORPORATE ATTORNEYS). RESPONDENTS CITED INCOME FACTORS (MANY ATTORNEYS HAVE INCOMES DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THAT OF JUDGES) AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPAIGNING FOR OFFICE AND WITH ACQUIRING THE LABEL 'POLITICIAN' AS RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH BECOMING A JUDGE. THE MAJORITY STATED A PREFERENCE FOR MERIT SELECTION AND RETENTION. THE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH BEING A JUDGE TENDED TO BE INTANGIBLE: FEELINGS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT, ABILITY TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM, PRESTIGE. ONE IMPLICATION OF THE SURVEY FINDINGS IS THAT IMPROVING JUDICIAL SALARIES AND REMOVING THE NECESSITY FOR CAMPAIGNING WOULD ENLARGE THE POOL OF POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR THE BENCH. SUPPORTING DATA ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)