THE EXPERIMENT HAD TWO MAIN COMPONENTS: (1) A SINGLE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP IN WHICH ELIGIBLE CASES UNDERWENT BOTH SCHEDULING ORDERS AND RULE 33 CONFERENCES UNDER A SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, KNOWN AS THE STAFF COUNSEL; AND (2) A CONTROL GROUP OF ELIGIBLE CASES IN WHICH BOTH SCHEDULING ORDERS AND PREARGUMENT CONFERENCES WERE WITHHELD. JUDGE PARTICIPATION IN THE PREARGUMENT CONFERENCES WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE EVALUATION. FOR A 12-MONTH PERIOD, 302 CASES WERE RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO EXPERIMENTAL OR CONTROL CATEGORIES TO TEST THREE PROPOSITIONS: THAT CAMP WOULD REDUCE THE PROPORTION OF APPEALS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BURDEN THE JUDGES, AND THAT CAMP WOULD IMPROVE THE QUALITY AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE APPEALS THAT WOULD BE BRIEFED AND ARGUED. BASED ON THE COLLECTED DATA, CAMP WAS SEEN AS IMPROVING OVERALL PERFORMANCE, BUT THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPROVEMENT WAS JUDGED TO BE TRIVIAL. IN ADDITION, IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED THAT CAMP REDUCED THE BURDEN ON JUDGES. ALTHOUGH IT WAS DIFFICULT TO FIND EVIDENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE VALUE FOR THE PLAN DURING THE EVALUATION PERIOD, FURTHER ANALYSIS MAY SUGGEST CONDITIONS THAT COULD IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS. FACTORS OF JUDGE PARTICIPATION, ADVERSARY COMMUNICATION IN LITIGATION, PHYSICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND ADVERSARY, AND CONFOUNDING OF STAFF COUNSEL WITH PROCEDURES SHOULD ALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DRAWING ANY FUNDAMENTAL CONCLUSIONS. FURTHER EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO TEST THE UTILITY OF PREAPPEAL CONFERENCES AND SCHEDULING ORDERS UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. TABULAR DATA AND NOTES ARE INCLUDED FOR EACH CHAPTER. APPENDIXES CONTAIN CAMP RULES, ATTORNEY AND JUDGE QUESTIONNAIRES, AND NOTICE OF EXCLUSION. (AOP)