THE OVERBURDENED COURT SYSTEM COULD BE IMPROVED AND CASE DISPOSITION EXPEDITED IF LESS TIME WERE SPENT ON THE FORMALIZATION AND PUBLICATION OF INESSENTIAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS. RULE 52, GOVERNING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DOES NOT PRECLUDE FINDINGS AND DECISIONS BEING MADE ORALLY IN OPEN COURT. WHILE THE PRACTICE IN MOST STATE COURTS USUALLY REQUIRES THAT FINDINGS AND DECISIONS BE IN WRITING, NO FEDERAL CASE HAS FOUND ORAL DECISIONS TO BE INADEQUATE. CONTRARY TO THE USUAL RATIONALES GIVEN FOR REQUIRING WRITTEN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT (1) WRITTEN DECISIONS ARE UNNECESSARY FOR REVIEW PURPOSES AND ARE GENERALLY INESSENTIAL; (2) JUDGING FROM THE BRITISH EXPERIENCE, THE PRESTIGE AND INFLUENCE OF THE COURT WOULD NOT BE DAMAGED AND MIGHT BE ENHANCED BY MORE EFFICIENT DISPOSITION; AND (3) JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING WOULD NOT SUFFER, BUT MIGHT BE IMPROVED BY THE GREATER IMMEDIACY OF THE ORAL JUDICIAL PROCESS. THE AUTHOR'S OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE USE OF ORAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS INDICATED THAT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS NOT ONLY WOULD BE EXPEDITED, BUT ALSO CLARIFIED BY ADVANCE PREPARATION OF THE JUDGE, ADVANCE SUBMISSION BY COUNSEL OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DILIGENT ATTENTION TO EVIDENCE AS IT COMES INTO THE RECORD, READING OF ALL SIGNIFICANT EXHIBITS AS THE TRIAL PROGRESSES, AND CONTINUING RESEARCH INTO DOUBTFUL LEGAL POINTS DURING THE TRIAL. DESPITE THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF ORAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, THEY ARE NOT BEING FULLY UTILIZED. THEREFORE, CLARIFICATION OF RULE 52 MAY BE DESIRABLE. IT IS PROPOSED THAT THIS RULE BE AMENDED TO MORE OVERTLY ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ORAL DECISIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN OPEN COURT AND TO INVITE ORAL MOTIONS TO AMEND COURT FINDINGS. (JAP)