THE COURT'S ROLE IN ANTITRUST LAW IS SHAPED BY STATUTORY PROVISIONS, BY THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER, AND BY THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LAW AND ECONOMICS. THE SUCCESS OF THE COURT PROCESS DEPENDS IN ITS ABILITY TO ASSEMBLE EVIDENCE, DETERMINE FACTS, ESTABLISH RULES OF LAW, AND APPLY RULES OF LAW TO THE FACTS. ALTHOUGH SOME ANTITRUST CASES, SUCH AS PRICE FIXING CASES, HAVE CHARACTERISTICS SUITABLE FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS, THE COURTS' COMPETENCY IS SOMETIMES STRAINED BY THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF ANTITRUST CASES: (1) THE DEGREE OF POLICYMAKING REQUIRED IN INDIVIDUAL ADJUDICATION, (2) THE NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOMETIMES REQUESTED, AND (3) THE NATURE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF LAW ARE OFTEN UNHELPFUL TO COURTS IN ESTABLISHING AND APPLYING ANTITRUST LAW. MAJOR ISSUES IN ASSESSING THE COURTS' ROLE INCLUDE THEIR ROLE IN DEVELOPING ANTITRUST LAW, ANTITRUST PROOF, ANTITRUST RELIEF, PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS, LENGTH OF LITIGATION, AND THE ROLE OF JURIES. MUCH OF THE FAILURE IN ANTITRUST ACTION IS A FAILURE TO ARTICULATE A CLEAR SET OF LEGAL STANDARDS CAPABLE OF BEING ADDRESSED IN AN ADVERSARY SETTING. THE EXPERIENCE OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SHOWS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION IS NOT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COURT ADJUDICATION. CLEAR DOCTRINE SHOULD BE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE COURTS. ADJUDICATION ON THE DESIRABILITY AND FEASIBIITY OF STRUCTURAL RELIEF SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THE APPOINTMENT OF AN IMPARTIAL MEDIATOR-NEGOTIATOR TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF THE RELIEF WITH THE PARTIES AND FRAME ANY ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADJUDICATED. WHERE CURRENT LEGAL DOCTRINE IS IMPRECISE, CASES CAN BE FORCED INTO AN ACCEPTABLE MOLD DESPITE THE STRAIN ON THE COURTS' COMPETENCY. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)