T THE I94I session of the Illinois General Assembly, Section 582 was added to the Civil Practice Act. It reads as follows: Subject to such rules as the Supreme Court may promulgate the court in any action may in its discretion direct the attorneys for the parties to appear before it for a pre-trial conference to consider any matter as may aid in the disposition of the action.' This simple permissive statute is not so feeble as it appears to be at first glance. True, it is not mandatory, and only emphasizes a discretion inherent in the courts, but it does achieve the following objectives: (i) by giving legislative sanction to pre-trial conferences the practice became clothed with a garb of respectability; (2) responsibility for non-action is placed upon the courts; and (3) the courts which desire to promote the practice are enabled to do it effectively. No such legislative action was necessary to authorize holding pre-trial conferences. Each court could by rule provide for them, and each judge could with or without rules hold a pre-trial conference in any case. In fact, some judges have for many years followed the practice of calling the contending lawyers into chambers for an informal discussion of the case before proceeding with the formal trial. But without legislation the practice would not have reached the position of importance it now holds, primarily for these reasons: (i) the bar is slow to accept change, and the courts were powerless to compel attendance of representatives authorized to act for the mere purpose of conferring; (2) the courts were without power to bind the parties to the results of any conference; and above all (3) many judges scoffed at the procedure, looked upon it as lacking legal sanction, and regarded it as something beneath the dignity of the court. Even long after the practice had gained acceptance in other jurisdictions and received the blessings of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,2 many judges in Illinois took (and some still take) the position that participation