STUDIES, WHICH INCLUDED INTERVIEWS WITH JUDGES AND KNOWLEDGEABLE CITIZENS, INDICATED THAT THE ADVANTAGES OF CONSOLIDTION WERE MORE APPARENT THAN WERE ANY DISADVANTAGES. THE EXPRESSED FEARS OF A LOSS OF JUDICIAL SENSITIVITY TO LOCAL ISSUES, OF A SUBVERSION OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTONOMY, AND OF TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES FOR JURORS AND WITNESSES WERE LARGELY DISPELLED. THE ARGUMENT THAT CONSOLIDATION WOULD ELIMINATE SOME POSITIONS AND FORCE THE CLOSING OF EXISTING COURT FACILITIES WAS ALSO REFUTED BY THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF THE STUDY OF STRUCTURAL UNIFICATION. THE PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD PROVIDE A FOUNDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND GIVE GUIDANCE TO REFORMERS OF THE COURT SYSTEM. REFORM OF THE STATE COURTS IS SEEN AS NECESSARY FOR THE REDUCTION OF INEFFICIENCY AND INJUSTICE CAUSED BY THE FRAGMENTATION OF COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION USING DIFFERING PROCEDURES. A PREFERRED COURT STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE ALL STATE COURTS UNIFIED AND SUBJECT TO A CENTRAL STATE AUTHORITY. THE ADVOCATED SYSTEM WOULD UTILIZE UNIFORM RULES OF PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRTION, WITH CONCURRENT JURISDICTION BY ALL COURTS AT EACH LEVEL OF THE SYSTEM. ALSO FUNDAMENTAL TO THE PROCESS OF COURT UNIFICATION IS THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF EXISTING COURTS. UNIFICATION IS IDENTIFIED AS A GROWING TREND WITHIN STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS. THE HISTORY OF THE PROCESS IS TRACED FROM ITS START IN THE WRITINGS OF DEAN POUND TO THE MODEL JUDICIAL ARTICLE AND STANDARDS RELATING TO COURT ORGANIZATION PROMULGATED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING CONSOLIDATION IS LIKELY TO CONTINUE BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF DEFINITIVE STATISTICAL DATA ON THE EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS STATE COURT SYSTEMS. TABULAR DATA AND FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK).