THE EXPERIMENT WAS CONDUCTED FROM 1974 TO 1977 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT THAT HEARS AND DECIDES CASES ARISING FROM THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURTS IN NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, AND VERMONT. THE COURT USES TWO PREAPPEAL PROCEDURES, GENERALLY IN COMBINATION: (1) A CONFERENCE IN WHICH THE ADVERSARIES, AND SOMETIMES THE CLIENTS, MEET WITH A COURT-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY, AND (2) AN ORDER ISSUED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS THAT ESTABLISHES DEADLINES FOR CRITICAL EVENTS. ONLY CIVIL CASES DEEMED ELIGIBLE BY THE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR BOTH PROCEDURES WERE INCLUDED IN THE EXPERIMENT. A TOTAL OF 225 CASES WERE THEN RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO AN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP IN WHICH BOTH PROCEDURES WERE APPLIED, AND 77 CASES TO A CONTROL GROUP IN WHICH BOTH PROCEDURES WERE WITHHELD. EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED TO TEST WHETHER THE PROCEDURES WOULD REDUCE THE PROPORTION OF APPEALS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BURDEN THE JUDGES, IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF APPEALS, OR IMPROVE THEIR EFFICIENCY. DATA UNIFORMLY AND CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED THE JUDGMENT THAT INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF CIVIL APPELLATE LITIGATION FAILED. HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS LIMIT THE GENERALITY OF THESE FINDINGS: (1) ONLY ONE ATTORNEY SUPERVISED THE NEW PROCEDURES (THAT PERSON MAY HAVE BEEN UNSKILLED), (2) THE PROCEDURES WERE SUPERVISED BY AN ATTORNEY RATHER THAN A JUDGE (ATTORNEYS MAY NOT HAVE THE STATUS TO ACHIEVE COMPROMISE AMONG ADVOCATES), AND (3) ATTORNEYS MET TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT POSSIBILITIES WITH THEIR ADVERSARIES (AN EXPERIENCE UNIQUE TO NEW YORK ATTORNEYS THAT MAY LIMIT FURTHER DISCUSSIONS). FURTHER RESEARCH SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE THE UTILITY OF THESE PROCEDURES IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (AOP)