To accommodate the increase in Federal litigation that has occurred in recent years, the number of Federal judges has dramatically increased at both the trial and appellate levels, as has the number of law clerks and staff attorneys employed in the courts of appeals. In addition, an increasing number of cases that are deemed lacking in merit are now decided without oral argument, formal opinion, or even a terse statement of reason. The article suggests that these changes, which have been made in the hope of increasing judicial productivity, have not been made without significant costs to the quality of justice. Depersonalization of the judicial function was prompted by Federal caseload increase. In 1980, 23,200 appeals were filed in the Federal courts, more than 6 times the number filed in 1940. However, attempts to deal with the increased volume of litigation have focused upon treating the symptoms rather than the cause. The system cannot continue to simply increase the number of active judges as caseloads increase. Many individuals who are qualified to serve as judges decline the position because of relatively low pay and the demanding work. Also, the expansion of the number of judgeships increases administrative problems, such as the potential for intracircuit conflicts. Moreover, delegation of the judge's work to law clerks is a questionable practice in terms of quality of the resultant decisions. The article suggests that a more appropriate solution to the caseload problem is to emphasize that Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Congress should determine where the bulk of the Federal caseload originates and determine where the jurisdiction of the Federal courts can best be cut back. The article provides 118 footnotes.