ASPECTS OF COURT UNIFICATION ARE CONSOLIDATION AND SIMPLIFICATION OF COURT STRUCTURE; CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT, RULEMAKING, AND BUDGETING; AND STATE FINANCING OF THE COURTS IN CONTRAST TO TRADITIONAL FUNDING AT THE LOCAL AND COUNTY LEVELS. IN SURVEYING MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGE OF PROBATE JUDGES REGARDING THE PROS AND CONS OF COURT UNIFICATION, 186 (28 PERCENT) USABLE RESPONSES WERE OBTAINED FROM JUDGES SERVING IN 16 STATES. OVERALL, 56 PERCENT OF THE PROBATE JUDGES OPPOSE CONSOLIDATING THE PROBATE COURTS INTO A UNIFIED SYSTEM. OPPOSITION COMES DISPROPORTIONATELY FROM NONLAWYER JUDGES, PART-TIME JUDGES, AND JUDGES SERVING IN SEPARATE PROBATE COURTS. THE GREATEST SUPPORT FOR UNIFICATION IS AMONG JUDGES ALREADY SERVING ON PROBATE COURTS THAT ARE DIVISIONS OF GENERAL OR LIMITED JURISDICTION TRIAL COURTS. LAWYER JUDGES AND FULL-TIME JUDGES ARE ABOUT EVENLY DIVIDED IN THEIR SUPPORT FOR AND OPPOSITION TO UNIFICATION. THOSE FAVORING UNIFICATION CLAIM IT PROMOTES EFFICIENCY, EQUITY, AND THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE. THOSE OPPOSING UNIFICATION ARGUE THAT IT PREVENTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXPERTISE NECESSARY FOR DEALING WITH COMPLEX LEGAL ISSUES, INCREASES BUREAUCRACY THROUGH CENTRALIZATION, REDUCES JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE BY MAKING JUDGES SUBSERVIENT TO THE COURTS SUPERIOR TO THEIR OWN, AND INCREASES COURT COSTS THROUGH AN INCREASE IN ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAUCRACY. THERE IS LITTLE EMPIRICAL DATA TO SUPPORT EITHER THE PRO OR CON ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS. THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG THE RESPONDENTS THAT EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IS NEEDED BEFORE RATIONAL DECISIONS CAN BE MADE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO PURSUE THOROUGHGOING COURT UNIFICATION. TABLES AND 20 REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED.