LITIGATION CONCERNING CONDITIONS IN SUCH INSTITUTIONS AS PRISONS AND MENTAL HOSPITALS HAS INCREASED IN THE PAST DECADE. INCREASINGLY, THE COURTS ARE RESORTING TO SPECIAL MASTERS TO ASSIST IN IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONAL REFORM. WHILE THE USE OF MASTERS BY COURTS IS A FIRMLY ESTABLISHED TRADITION, THE ROLE ASSIGNED TO MASTERS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT IS AN EXTRAORDINARLY BROAD AND INTRUSIVE ONE. AS A RESULT, SERIOUS QUESTIONS HAVE ARISEN ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE TRADITIONAL RATIONALES AND RESTRAINTS. TYPICALLY, SPECIAL MASTERS ARE BROUGHT INTO CASES TO EXAMINE THE TOTALITY OF INSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATIONS OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT IS OFTEN INVOLVED. THE USE OF SUCH PERSONNEL STEMS FROM THE OLD ENGLISH EQUITY PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE 14TH AND 15TH CENTURIES. TODAY, TERMS DESIGNATING SUCH PERSONS INCLUDE STANDING MASTERS, MAGISTRATES, MARSHALLS, MONITORS, AND OMBUDSMEN. RULE 53 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCUDER PRESENTS THE MODERN FORMULATION AND ESSENCE OF THE MASTER CONCEPT. THE LANDMARK CASE CONCERNING THE MASTER FUNCTION IS KIMBERLY V. ARMS (1889). IN ADDITION, A FEW SUPREME COURT CASES INDICATE THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR MASTER INVOLVEMENT. NEVERTHELESS, THE PRECISE CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT THE MASTER MAY DO REMAIN VAGUE. RECEIVERSHIP AND CIVIL RIGHTS CASES FREQUENTLY INVOLVE SPECIAL MASTERS. AREAS THAT MERIT FURTHER EMPIRICAL STUDY INCLUDE THE REQUISITE CIRCUMSTANCES, KINDS OF CASES, POWERS, STANDARDS, AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF SPECIAL MASTERS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LWM).