THE INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER'S DISTRICT COURT STUDIES PROJECT. ALL OF THE JUDGES INTERVIEWED ENGAGE IN CASE MANAGEMENT. NONE ACCEPTS THE TRADITIONAL VIEW THAT LAWYERS ALONE SHOULD DETERMINE THE PACE OF LITIGATION. BUT THE JUDGES DISAGREE ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH CASES SHOULD BE MANAGED, ABOUT HOW FAR ATTORNEYS SHOULD BE PUSHED, AND ABOUT JUDICIAL PROMOTION OF PRETRIAL SETTLEMENTS. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE VARIATION IN THE JUDGES' ATTITUDES TOWARD THE PRACTICING BAR, IN THEIR FEELINGS ABOUT JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION (THE CIVIL COUNTERPART TO THE DEBATE OVER JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION IN PLEA BARGAINING IN CRIMINAL CASES), AND IN THEIR CONCERNS REGARDING THE THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE VARIATIONS IN JUDICIAL ATTITUDES HAS BEEN LARGELY OVERLOOKED IN THE LITERATURE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, WITH ITS EMPHASIS ON LEGALISTIC AND MECHANISTIC APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM OF COURT DELAYS. IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED THAT SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF COURT REFORMS REQUIRES SENSITIVITY OF VARIATIONS IN JUDGES' ORIENTATIONS. THESE VARIATIONS HELP TO EXPLAIN WHY SOME COURTS ADOPT INNOVATIVE PROCEDURES WHILE OTHERS ARE RELUCTANT TO DO SO, AND WHY REFORMS SUCCEED IN SOME COURTS AND FAIL IN OTHERS. THE INTERVIEWS ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE COMMON VIEW OF THE ACTIVIST JUDGE AS ONE WHO BOTH SETS DEADLINES FOR CASES AND ROUTINELY ENGAGES IN SETTLEMENT ACTIVITIES IS PREMATURE. THESE ARE SEPARATE DIMENSIONS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND SHOULD BE STUDIED AS SUCH. (LKM)