Today, it is common to point to the dramatic growth in the business of federal courts over the last fifteen years.' While growth in court business is nothing new,2 the increase in the workload of the federal courts of appeals during the last two decades has been unprecedented.3 Demands for the services of the federal appellate courts seem to have outstripped the available supplies. In an effort to deal with the problem, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, under the direction of Chief Judge Irving R. Kaufman, decided to experiment with an idea that might avoid both the Scylla of taking appellate shortcuts 4 and the Charybdis of increasing the number of judges beyond its present, and perhaps optimal, level 6 of nine active appellate judges. In Judge Kaufman's experience, many of the civil cases appealed to the Second Circuit seemed amenable to resolution short of a decision on the merits by a panel of appellate judges. Although no court of appeals had ever made efficacious and systematic use of preheating conferences to encourage informal dispute resolution, rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure seemed to provide sufficient authority for court-ordered settlement discussions at the appellate level.6 Judge Kaufman reasoned that intervention