ALTHOUGH NEARLY EVERY STATE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT AND STRUCTURE OVER THE PAST DECADE, LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT COURT REFORM. A STUDY CITED INVOLVING 11 STATES AND A WIDE VARIETY OF LEGISLATIVE AND COURT OFFICIALS UNCOVERED FOUR BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION. IMPLEMENTORS LACK INFORMATION. FOR EXAMPLE, ALTHOUGH A 1975 KENTUCKY LAW MANDATED NEW COURTS, IMPLEMENTORS COULD NOT GET ADEQUATE INFORMATION ON PAST COURT PRACTICES; OFTEN RECORDS HAD NOT BEEN KEPT. EXECUTIVES AND LEGISLATORS OFFICIALS ARE UNCOOPERATIVE, SINCE COURT REFORMS USUALLY INCREASE COURT AUTONOMY. IMPLEMENTORS ARE NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME; THE KENTUCKY STUDY SHOWED THAT MAJOR CHANGES HAD TO BE EFFECTED WITHIN A MERE 60 DAYS. AND FINALLY, STARTUP AND IMPROVEMENT COSTS IN GENERAL ARE LIKELY TO BE HIGH, BUT FUNDS ARE OFTEN INADEQUATE. THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTIONS; (1) CONSULTING FIRMS CAN BE HIRED TO CONDUCT SPECIAL STUDIES OF JUDICIAL SYSTEMS; (2) EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE OFFICIALS SHOULD BE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN IMPLEMENTING REFORM AS A WAY TO WIN THEIR SUPPORT AND COOPERATION; AND, (3) GRADUAL REFORMS SHOULD BE MANDATED TO OVERCOME TIME PROBLEMS. THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS THAT A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF STATE-LEVEL JUDICIAL REFORM BE UNDERTAKEN TO PROVIDE IMPLEMENTORS WITH INFORMATION ABOUT JUDICIARY HISTORY, CURRENT STATUS, AND FUTURE REQUIREMENTS. OTHER BENEFITS OF SUCH A STUDY WOULD INCLUDE VALUABLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OFFICIALS LIKELY TO BE KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT JUDICIARY STATUS AND NEEDS, AND POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ONGOING COMMISSION TO CONTINUALLY STUDY THE JUDICIARY AND RECOMMEND REFORMS. (PAP)