1. The beneficial effects of promptly fixing these dates even in smaller, routine matters are now clearly documented. See, e.g., Sipes et al., supra note 9; Test Project in Delay Reduction Favorable, supra note 9, FJC, Case Management, supra note 34.
2. Brazil, Civil Discovery, supra note 2, at 811–12.
3. See, e.g., ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 7–101, EC 7–1, EC 7–3, in American Bar Association, Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Model Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct, at 36 & 32 (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1980). The ABA's Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards (also known as the Kutak Commission because chaired by Robert J. Kutak) has published Proposed Final Draft of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct ([Chicago]: American Bar Association, May 30, 1981) (cited hereinafter as Kutak Commission, Model Rules). I describe the proposed changes that most directly affect attorneys' responsibilities in civil discovery infra, at pp. 888–90, 928–30.
4. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). During an interview with the author, former United States District Court Judge Charles B. Renfrew expressed grave doubts about the feasibility of the doubt-resolution rule I propose in the text. Renfrew believes that lawyers would find it next to impossible to follow the rule I suggest during pretrial of civil matters and to follow diametrically opposed directives while representing criminal defendants. He noted that this “double standard” could create especially severe strains for an attorney representing a client who was simultaneously a defendant in civil and in criminal proceedings.
5. I describe some of the criteria developed for this purpose by different authorities infra, at pp. 902–3.