Although most courts still use the traditional in-person approach, a 1980 study found that of the approximately 50 judges using telephone conferencing, most were enthusiastic about telephone conferencing. They felt it saves court time, it has little or no effect on the nature of court hearings, and it saves attorneys' time by reducing both travel and waiting times. A survey of civil attorneys in Colorado and New Mexico found the lawyers' acceptance of conferencing was linked to their sense of whether telephone hearings were satisfactory substitutes for in-court hearings. Most attorneys surveyed in Colorado and New Jersey found telephone conferencing to be a suitable method of resolving court business. The degree of their satisfaction depended on how telephone hearings compared to in-court hearings along three criteria: the ability to present an effective oral argument, the ability to answer the judge's questions, and the judge's understanding of the issues. Footnotes and data tables are supplied.