NUMEROUS STUDIES CONCLUDE THAT THE BUREAUCRATIC INTERESTS OF COURT PERSONNEL IN THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER COMMITMENT TO THE ADVERSARIAL PROCESS DESIGNED TO RENDER JUSTICE TO THE CITIZENS INVOLVED IN A GIVEN CASE. THIS GENERAL PERSPECTIVE WAS TESTED IN OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAWYER-JUDGE RELATIONSHIPS APPARENT IN THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, WHICH DEALS WITH THE AWARDING OF COMPENSATION IN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS UNDER CIVIL LAW. TWO OF THE FOUR JUDGES ON THE BOARD WERE INTERVIEWED, ALONG WITH FOUR LAWYERS, TWO BOARD MEMBERS, FOUR SOLICITORS, TWO INSURANCE CLERKS, AND ONE INSURANCE INVESTIGATOR. FIVE DAYS WERE SPENT OBSERVING THE PROCESSING OF CASES BEFORE THE BOARD. BOTH LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE INVOLVED IN THE DAY-TO-DAY RUNNING OF THE BOARD AND CONSEQUENTLY HAVE AN INTEREST IN ITS SMOOTH FUNCTIONING. FROM THIS REGULAR INTERACTION BETWEEN THE SAME JUDGES AND LAWYERS A 'SHARED MEANING' SYSTEM HAS DEVELOPED. INTERVIEWS FOLLOWING CASE OBSERVATIONS REVEALED THAT LAWYERS AND JUDGES RESPOND TO CERTAIN FAMILIAR WORDINGS OR FORMATS OF PRESENTATION DESIGNED TO PRODUCE AN OUTCOME DETERMINED BY TRADITIONAL PATTERNS OF DEALING WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF CASES. CERTAIN LEVELS OF COMPENSATION ARE GENERALLY ASSUMED FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF CASES, AND SHOULD A CLIENT PERSIST IN ARGUING A CASE BEFORE THE BOARD WHEN A SETTLEMENT WAS EXPECTED, THE JUDGE WILL USUALLY AWARD LESS THAN THE SETTLEMENT OFFERED. THIS ASSURES SOME PREDICTABILITY IN THE PERCENTAGE OF CASES SETTLED OUT OF COURT AND THOSE GIVEN A FORMAL HEARING. THESE FINDINGS SUGGEST THAT THE MORE PERMANENT RELATIONSHIPS WHICH LAWYERS DEVELOP WITH COURT PERSONNEL IN THE ONGOING PROCESSING OF CASES MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TRANSIENT LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IN A GIVEN CASE. FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)