The various applications of telephone conferencing grew out of situations where the procedure could save time for at least one participant. For example, in Cumberland and Atlantic Counties (New Jersey), a primary application was municipal court appeals; in most instances, these hearings involved private defense counsel and a defendant on bond. These two factors gave rise to potential time savings, because defense counsel were generally located several miles from the court, and the defendant could avoid both travel and waiting times. In Colorado, the size of the 12th district played a key role, primarily because of the lawyers' reluctance to avoid traveling great distances for perfunctory, 3-minute initial appearances by the defendant in the district court. In all cases, the requisite steps to implementation of telephone conferencing were (1) determining matters that were appropriate for telephone conferencing, (2) designing procedures for conducting the hearing, and (3) notifying the bar. Consensus as to suitable matters and procedures in the New Jersey and Colorado civil sites was always in terms of judicial consensus. In the criminal court setting, the decisionmaking group was expanded to include the prosecutor and the public defender. Most attorneys were satisfied with the way in which the telephone hearings were conducted; civil and criminal court judges agreed that telephone conferencing resulted in scheduling flexibility and time savings. Four tables and 20 references are included.