James G. France


[R]eform suggestions are bold, sometimes to the point of brashness. Many of them are urgently needed, but few are new. They bear a curious resemblance to those offered by the National Conference on the Judiciary in its Concensus Report, and to some of the more recent reports and recommendations of state court studies, all financed by L.E.A.A. grants, some of them quite substantial. It is as if the real source of the proposals was in the Department of Justice in Washington, all for the benefit of the untutored provincials. These suggestions are of three types: Those which are untried and radical; those which have been tried on a limited basis with results not yet tested or documented with statistical studies as to their usefulness, and those which have been unsuccessfully advocated for years by reformers and management consultants.