In the AWB program, counsel in cases were to file preargument statements rather than briefs. Cases were given priority in calendaring, and no fixed time limits were placed on oral arguments. The evaluation of AWB, based on questionnaires completed by participating circuit judges and attorneys, indicated that, with specific improvements, the program would be valuable despite judges' objections. Nearly 70 percent of the attorneys rated the program favorably in regard to their case, and over 90 percent rated the program a good or promising idea. An Expedited Appeal Program undertaken by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, however, was favorably perceived by both judges and counsel. However, judges complained about the absence of briefs, saying that counsel who had not gone through this written process had either poorly prepared statements or off-target arguments. They also felt the AWB program significantly increased the time cases demanded of them, whereas counsels felt the program reduced the time cases demanded of them. Another problem was the inclusion of cases ill-suited for argument based only on a short preparation. The Sacramento project avoided these difficulties by allowing counsel to submit briefs of no more than 10 pages and selecting cases on an individual basis. Many AWB cases were handled with complete satisfaction to both groups. Survey responses suggested that the potential success of the program was undermined by misunderstandings in several cases, along with severe caseload problems and initial bias on the part of judges. Elements needed for program improvement are identified, and details on the evaluation methodology and data are appended.