The results of a survey of 292 federal district judges concerning how they interpret and apply the 1983 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (before the 1993 amendments). Based on the judges' hypothetical reactions to actual cases in which Rule 11 sanctions were requested, the study outlines the judges' standards and rationales for imposing sanctions, the kinds of sanctions imposed, and the relationship between the judges' opinions and their expectations of how their colleagues would rule on the same issues.

An informal discussion, adapted from a lecture at a Center workshop, of the amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 11, 16, and 26. The author, then a member of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, explains the reasons for the changes and the responsibilities the amendments impose on both lawyers and judges.

A survey of the current state of the law with respect to sanctions for violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as reported in both the case law and the secondary literature. The report examines sanctions under Rules 47, 41(b), 55, 36, 11, and 16; several local rules; and rules permitting sanctions against attorneys rather than clients. The authors conclude that there is considerable laxity in the imposition of sanctions for violation of the rules, and they suggest several amendments to the rules.

An analysis of statutory procedures proposed in the early 1980s, and which continue to arise, that would allow federal litigants to challenge, on a peremptory basis, the federal judge or magistrate judge assigned to their case. Prepared at the request of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, the report discusses the proposals that have been offered on the federal level, analyzes the procedures then in effect in seventeen state court systems, and considers the possible administrative consequences of a federal peremptory challenge procedure.