PSYCHIATRISTS HAVE ASSISTED JUDGES AND JURIES FOR YEARS IN MAKING LEGAL DECISIONS WHEN THE MENTAL STATUS OF A LITIGANT IS AN ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. HISTORICALLY, THE INSANITY DEFENSE BROUGHT THE PSYCHIATRIST INTO COURT. TODAY PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY IS FREQUENTLY REQUIRED ALSO IN THE AREAS OF CIVIL COMMITMENT, COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL, TORT AND CHILD CUSTODY CASES. IN SPITE OF INCREASING UTILIZATION OF MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN THE COURTS, NEITHER THE PSYCHIATRIC NOR LEGAL PROFESSION FINDS THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS SATISFACTORY. CRITICISM OF THE CURRENT STATUS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING COMPLAINTS: THE MEDICAL MODEL IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR UNDERSTANDING AND DEALING WITH PROBLEM BEHAVIOR; PSYCHIATRIC EXPERTS OFTEN FAIL TO REVEAL THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THEIR TESTIMONY; MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS OFTEN OFFER TESTIMONY THAT GOES BEYOND THE EMPIRICAL DATA CURRENTLY AVAILABLE; THE PSYCHIATRIST OFTEN SHOWS BIAS IN JUDGMENT; AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS BLUR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LEGAL AND MEDICAL CONCEPTS AND LACK EXPERTISE BEFORE THE COURTS. CRITICISM OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IS EQUALLY STRONG. COURTS ARE SEEN AS FAILING TO SCREEN OUT THE PSEUDOEXPERT. ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO CHALLENGE THE CREDENTIALS OF MENTAL EXPERTS, AND THE ADVERSARY SYSTEM MAY NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO FAIR EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVE TESTIMONY. THE REPORT CONCLUDES BY SUGGESTING THAT AN EFFECTIVE WAY OF DEALING WITH THE NEED FOR CHANGE IN CURRENT METHODS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY WOULD BE TO IMPLEMENT AN EXTENSIVE INTERDISCIPLINARY EDUCATION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND LEGAL EXPERTS. TABULAR DATA ARE INCLUDED AND FOOTNOTES ARE APPENDED. (MJW)