THE ARTICLE IS BASED ON AN 18-MONTH STUDY OF CASE PROCESSING IN 21 COURTS. A COMPARISON OF COURT STRUCTURE WITH SPEED OF DISPOSITION SHOWS THAT COURTS WITH LARGE BACKLOGS TEND TO HAVE LONGER DISPOSITION TIMES AND THAT COURTS WITH INDIVIDUAL CALENDARS (AS OPPOSED TO MASTER CALENDARS) HAVE SHORTER DISPOSITION TIMES. EXTENSIVE JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT IN PRETRIAL SETTLEMENT EFFORTS AND LOW PROPORTIONS OF CASES REQUIRING JURY TRIAL ARE NOT PARTICULARLY CHARACTERISTIC OF SPEEDY OR PRODUCTIVE COURTS. THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COURT SIZE AND PACE OF CIVIL LITIGATION. EXAMINATION OF THESE FINDINGS IN THE CONTEXT OF INFORMATION OBTAINED THROUGH ONSITE OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWS SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING THEORY OF CIVIL COURT DELAY: BOTH SPEED OF DISPOSITION AND SIZE OF BACKLOG ARE THE RESULT OF A STABLE SET OF EXPECTATIONS, PRACTICES, AND INFORMAL RULES OF BEHAVIOR THAT CONSTITUTE A 'LOCAL LEGAL CULTURE' THE PROCESS BY WHICH ATTORNEYS, LITIGANTS, AND JUDGES IN A GIVEN COMMUNITY INTERACT TO RESOLVE CIVIL DISPUTES. STRATEGIES COMMONLY SUGGESTED FOR ACCELERATING THE PACE OF CIVIL CASE DISPOSITION INCLUDE PRETRIAL CASE MANAGEMENT, COURT INVOLVEMENT IN PRETRIAL SETTLEMENT, CALENDARING SYSTEMS, JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY, JUDICIAL PRODUCTIVITY, AND ADDITION OF MORE JUDGES. WHATEVER STRATEGY IS CHOSEN, IT IS BOUND TO CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING LEGAL CULTURE. COURTS MUST BE PREPARED TO WITHSTAND CONSIDERABLE RESISTANCE FROM ATTORNEYS TO AN ACCELERATED PACE OF LITIGATION, AT LEAST IN THE SHORT RUN. COURTS MUST ALSO ASSUME A ROLE IN MANAGING THE ENTIRE PRETRIAL STAGE OF THE CIVIL PROCESS. OTHERWISE, ANY DELAY REDUCTION STRATEGY IS LIABLE TO RESULT IN A SHIFT THAT WILL PRODUCE IMPROVED COURT STATISTICS BUT NO REAL CHANGE IN THE LENGTH OF TIME LITIGANTS MUST WAIT FOR RESOLUTIONS OF THEIR DISPUTES. SOME INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES PROBABLY WOULD PROVIDE JUDGES WITH AN INCENTIVE TO WITHSTAND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE. HOWEVER, WITHOUT A FIRM COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF EACH JUDGE TO EXPEDITE THE PACE OF CIVIL LITIGATION, NO STRATEGY AND NO INCREASE IN COURT RESOURCES WILL EFFECT SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS. SUPPORTING DATA ARE PROVIDED. (LKM)