THE CLAIM THAT TRIAL JUDGES SHOULD NOT TAMPER WITH COURT CALENDARS AND SHOULD LEAVE THE PACING OF LITIGATION TO COUNSEL IS COUNTERED WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT, WHILE JUDGES MUST BE TRULY NEUTRAL IN DECIDING CASES, THEY NEED NOT REMAIN ALOOF FROM THE LITIGATION PROCESS. STATISTICS INDICATING THAT EFFECTIVE CASE MANAGEMENT BY JUDGES ENABLES LITIGANTS TO DISPOSE OF THEIR DISPUTES MORE PROMPTLY ARE CITED. THE FOLLOWING ADVANTAGES OF JUDICIAL ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CASE CONTROL ARE OUTLINED: EARLIER AND MORE FAIR DISPOSITION OF CASES SETTLED BY COMPROMISE; MORE EFFICIENT HANDLING OF MOTIONS, DISCOVERY, AND OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS; SHORTER TRIALS AND MORE CLEARLY DEFINED ISSUES; LESS INCONVENIENCE TO WITNESSES AND JURORS; THE ABILITY OF JUDGES TO HANDLE GREATER CASELOADS; IMPROVEMENTS IN THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL DISPOSITION; AND CASE PROGRESS THAT REFLECTS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CASE RATHER THAN THE IDIOSYNCRACIES OF LAW OFFICES. PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD GUIDE JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ARE DISCUSSED. MATTERS TO BE COVERED IN THE INITIAL CONFERENCE AND IN THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ARE OUTLINED, AND GUIDELINES FOR USING THESE CONFERENCES TO THE GREATEST ADVANTAGE ARE OFFERED. THE CASE MANAGEMENT METHODS OUTLINED ENHANCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AND, ABSENT SUCH A SETTLEMENT, ASSURE A BETTER TRIAL. (LKM)