| Abstract: | The dominant theme in court reorganization has been to state judiciaries by consolidating trial courts and centralizing their administration in a state level office. This article suggests that the debate over the relative merits of a centralized vs. a decentralized (or fragmented) court system ignores the rich variety of organizational structures used in other fields. The potential judicial implications of three models-franchise, corporate, and federal-are examined in detail. Their underlying assumptions are compared with those of the centralization approach. The argument is made that none of the models is appropriate for all circumstances. Each approach to court organization emphasizes a particular set of objectives at the expense of another set. An effort is made to identify what each approach has to offer. |
