PRIOR TO RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, INMATES GENERALLY WERE PROHIBITED BY PRISON OFFICIALS FROM INQUIRING INTO LEGAL MATTERS. THE SITUATION CHANGED ABRUPTLY, HOWEVER, IN 1969, WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN JOHNSON V. AVERY. THE COURT RULED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF A PRISONER TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE COURTS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO HAVE ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE WITH TRAINING IN THE LAW, INCLUDING OTHER INMATES. IT OVERTURNED A TENNESSEE PRISON REGULATION THAT FORBADE INMATES TO 'ADVISE, ASSIST OR OTHERWISE CONTRACT TO AID ANOTHER' IN THE PREPARATION OF LEGAL MATERIALS. THE BATTLE THEN SHIFTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO WHAT RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, A PRISON COULD IMPOSE ON INMATES SEEKING ACCESS TO THE COURTS. THROUGH THE YEARS, THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD VERY FEW LIMITATIONS, EXCEPT FOR SETTING REASONABLE LIMITS ON TIME, PLACE, AND PAYMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES. A DEFINITIVE DECISION CAME IN 1977 IN THE CASE OF BOUNDS V. SMITH, WHERE THE HIGH COURT RULED THAT IN ORDER FOR INMATES TO HAVE EFFECTIVE ACCESS TO THE COURTS, PRISONS WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO BRING A SUCCESSFUL LAWSUIT. IT GAVE THE STATES TWO OPTIONS--EITHER PROVIDE OUTSIDE LAWYERS TO ASSIST INMATES OR ESTABLISH ADEQUATE LAW LIBRARIES. GIVEN THE CHOICE, MOST STATE OFFICIALS HAVE OPTED TO INSTALL LIBRARIES. WHILE IT IS GENERALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF INMATE-FILED LAWSUITS ARE SO HOPELESSLY FRIVOLOUS OR POORLY WRITTEN THAT THEY DON'T LAST FIVE MINUTES IN COURT, THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF INMATES WHO HAVE TAUGHT THEMSELVES TO BE EFFECTIVE LAWYERS. JERRY ROSENBERG, JAMES POTTS, EDDIE NEAL, AND OTHER INMATE LAWYERS WHO HAVE PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE AS 'JAILHOUSE LAWYERS' ARE DISCUSSED AS TO PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND ACHIEVEMENTS AS 'WRIT-WRITERS.' QUOTES FROM INTERVIEWS WITH THEM ARE PROVIDED. THEY GENERALLY AGREE THAT IMPROVED INSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES COULD AID GREATLY IN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF EFFORTS BY INMATES TO GAIN ACTION IN PRISON REFORM THROUGH THE COURTS. IT IS EXPECTED THAT 'JAILHOUSE LAWYERS' COULD BE EFFECTIVE ADVOCATES FOR INMATES IN SUCH GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES. (RCB)