THESE STUDIES ADDRESS NOT ONLY THE ISSUE OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE BUT ALSO A BROADER RANGE OF CONCERNS ABOUT CURRENT JUDICIAL SYSTEMS, SUCH AS COURT CASELOADS, DELAYS, COSTS TO GOVERNMENT, INACCESSIBILITY FOR MANY DISPUTANTS, LACK OF EQUITY, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES FROM THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. THE SCHIEDSMANN INSTITUTION IN GERMANY APPEARS TO EFFECTIVELY REDUCE COURT CASELOADS; ITS RELIANCE ON UNCOMPENSATED MEDIATORS HAS ALSO REDUCED COSTS. THE STUTTGART MODEL OF COURT PROCEDURE HAS SUCCESSFULLY LESSENED DELAYS BY REDUCING THE NUMBER AND LENGTH OF STEPS IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION. THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE GERMAN RECHTSPFLEGER APPEAR TO OFFER A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF EXCESSIVE COSTS. IN TERMS OF ENHANCING ACCESSIBILITY FOR DISPUTANTS AND DISPUTES, THE SWEDISH PUBLIC COMPLAINTS BOARD AND THE AUSTRALIAN SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS OFFER DIFFERING MODELS OF MORE GENERAL APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS THAN THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURES IN ENGLAND AND WALES, WHICH USE THE REGULAR COURT SYSTEMS. ADVICE CENTERS IN HAMBURG, WEST GERMANY, AND SOME OF THE SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURES ATTEMPTED IN ENGLAND MAY OFFER MODELS FOR REDUCING THE INEQUITY RESULTING FROM LACK OF COUNSEL FOR THE LESS AFFLUENT PARTY TO A DISPUTE. IMPROVING PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES MAY BE BEST ACCOMPLISHED BY ADOPTING THE PERSONAL CONCILIATORY APPROACH OF THE GERMAN SCHIEDSMANN OR THE ACTIVE MEDIATING APPROACH OF THE POLISH SOCIAL CONCILIATORY COMMISSIONS. IN ALL AREAS OF REFORM, PLURALISM AS WELL AS EXPERIMENTATION USING PILOT APPLICATIONS OF THE MODELS PRESENTED ARE NEEDED. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)