As evidenced by the Kentucky experiment, the process of revising procedural court rules entails two rather broad phases: policy making and implementation. At both levels, the organized bar's role is crucial. Making judicial policy to effect court reform requires acknowledgment of the serious consequences resulting from the cost of delay of litigation, analysis of possible solutions to litigation delay and cost problems, and rule making. Successful procedural reform requires active involvement of the bar in introducing the new program and in monitoring its performance. Typically, most bar associations are limited both by their structure and by their differing perceptions of the bar's role in the reform process. The few State bar associations that have begun taking a more active part in the reform process share several characteristics. Such associations tend to be headed by a bar leadership that financially and politically supports a comprehensive and durable effort to reduce court costs and delay. Most have an education program and a judicial or civil committee within the bar organization that works with the judiciary to effect court reform and sponsors ongoing problem-raising sessions with the bar membership. These bar organizations can serve as models.