All year long, legislators have been hearing witnesses describe the problems and the solutions. The following arguments have surfaced to challenge unification. They are wholly without substance. Given flexibility and relief from the constraints of today's rigid barriers to productivity, judges, courts and attorneys can devise the LOCAL system which will properly address the LOCAL needs of the CURRENT docket demands within the constraints of LOCAL budgets, facilities, personnel and equipment.

THE SYSTEM ISN'T BROKEN?

The Chief Justice told the Legislature that ''there is no longer any doubt from the point of view of an objective observer that our trial court system needs revitalizing....

the structure simply wasn't built for the demands of these times.'' His dramatic special appearance before a joint session of the Legislature and his call for assistance to the other two branches and to all the citizens of the state speaks louder than any words.

Some have suggested that the system doesn't have any real problems and a simple band-aid approach will work. They say all we need do is ''merely'' send more remanded cases to the district courts, ''easily'' dump more civil cases on the district courts; ''simply'' redefine crimes to make huge (but indeterminate numbers of) felonies into misdemeanors so that those can be heard by the district courts instead of the circuit courts and, finally, assign some divorces to probate judges. Replacing the old, inefficient, arbitrary, rigid divisions with new arbitrary, rigid divisions will solve nothing. All the modern literature on Re-Inventing Government and Re-Inventing the Corporation suggest that success is found, not in a rigid system, but in a flexible system which can respond to changing LOCAL needs and can take the greatest advantage of personnel.

INADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR UNIFICATION?

Some suggest we should design a system based upon current facilities rather than design the best system possible. Clearly the implementation of a new system will not happen overnight. Its initial implementation must acknowledge current facilities but we should not deny our citizens the best possible design because the facilities in some counties may hinder full implementation. Should the counties who are eager and ready to move into the 21st Century be denied that because some other county isn't yet ready? Nineteen counties have applied to be unified systems for demonstration pilot projects in 1996 and 1997! Clearly any new system will be logical. For example, it makes the most sense for the current district courts to continue to handle traffic cases. Certainly, no new buildings would be required by the Legislature's allowing the flexibility of a unified bench. But some local communities might decide to save taxpayers' money by consolidation of some redundant services_that's an opportunity they do not have today. If, in one county they decide no changes should be made, such a flexible system would empower the local community to make its own local decisions.

CONVENIENT LOCATION?

It has been suggested that only a two-tiered system would make the locations of the courts convenient. Most court matters are not in the litigant's neighborhood anyway. We live in a very mobile age and in many communities the litigants are not local. Ask people how often they visit their local court (most say ''never.'') By their analysis, the once-in-a-lifetime local appearance is more important than the divorce where everyone travels to the county seat for weekly motions over many months. Again, flexibility is the key! No one is calling for closing or changing any buildings, unless, like now, the local community wants to do so.

For example, we have many very expensive one-judge courts which are very close together (especially with freeway linkage) and the local communities may decide that it would be more convenient, efficient and cost-effective to combine some_that would be their choice. Unification of the courts means better use of existing judges, not physically moving everyone into a single building.

APPEALS?

No one is suggesting that matters currently in the district court be appealed to the Court of Appeals. There are several easier and more efficient ways of handling appeals. The Legislature could determine that such cases be assigned to another judge in the same county for appeal OR to the chief judge OR to a judge from a neighboring county OR to a retired visiting judge OR to a three-judge panel. The appeal could be by leave only (rather than by right). It could be on briefs only without oral argument or argument could be held on telephone conference calls. An appeal is really just asking for a ''second opinion'' by someone with the time and staff to do the research. Even today we have such systems.

In Kent County, for example, one district judge is sitting as a circuit judge and overrules what another district judge did in a preliminary exam. The next week it may go the other way. The judges there have no problem with this, as they understand that the trial judge had to make an instant decision and the appeals judge had the luxury of briefs and research. Whatever system the Legislature selects for review will work_and maybe even better than the current system. This argument is not worth creating a very cumbersome two-tiered system; not with all the easier solutions available.

CURRENT CASELOAD?

One size does NOT fit all! If one designs a system based upon current caseloads, it will be wrong: we have learned that a rigid system cannot address changing needs. For example, the much applauded system in Washtenaw County is addressing high levels of divorce and major civil cases, but when those numbers are reduced by this plan, the new priority may be felonies, or drugs or drunk driving or domestic violence. If, for example, one designed a system a year ago, you would not have included the personal protection orders (PPO). They didn't exist a year ago and some circuit judges say they now comprise 20% of their docket. Flexibility will allow the local community to address its local priorities as they change from time-to-time.

Courts don't control the intake of cases; that is controlled by the legislative and executive branches. The Legislature can make something a priority (drunk driving), establish a new crime (retail fraud) or invent a new remedy (PPO). The police can decide to put on extra traffic units, crack down on drugs, arrest more in domestic violence. The courts must be ready and flexible to handle the changing docket from time-to-time.

MONEY?

Many critics envision the most expensive changes possible and then explain that we cannot possibly afford them. On the contrary, change may be phased in slowly for anything that may cost more, but over-all there will be considerable savings. Not all the savings will be seen directly in the courts' budgets. For example, all the counties which have ''experimented'' with giving district judges authority to handle pleas and sentences on felonies have found major savings for police and sheriffs in transporting prisoners for several extra hearings, savings in paying assigned counsel for several extra hearings and these same defendants then spend far fewer days in jail while ''presumed innocent'' and awaiting disposition. The faster disposition of cases frees up jail spots for those actually sentenced to jail and eliminates the overcrowding in the county jails. Combining some functions of neighboring one-judge courts may well also result in savings. Also, greater authority to courts for collecting fines, costs and related fees will produce more revenue. Many more savings are possible by streamlining functions, reducing redundancies and eliminating unnecessary hearings and overlapping authority.

DELAY?

It has been suggested that the Legislature do only the easy part of the job by eliminating the artificial barriers between circuit and probate judges and leave the district court issue to some other Legislature to deal with sometime in the future after some ''experimentation.'' We have learned two things from YEARS OF EXPERIMENTATION: First, that flexibility works and judges are co-operating all over the state in unprecedented numbers, and second, that no county's experiment can be implemented in another county. Every local community must find its own solutions to its own problems and its own priorities. Not everything can be solved in Lansing! Each community has different facilities, talents, resources and needs_each solution must be unique.

When we are all done waiting for the delay, we will have learned nothing new. A future Legislature will not revisit that ''court issue which we dealt with back in 1995.'' If they did, they would have to start all over again to educate the new legislators, and our citizens would have lost valuable opportunities. As it is, nothing dramatic will happen until the Constitutional election in a year and, even then, a phase-in period will be required.

Pick a reasonable target date, grant authority now, and allow the Supreme Court to oversee implementation. Some counties are already functioning as ''unified courts,'' and others are ready. Still others need to wait longer; Allow for flexibility at the local level but provide for accountability, too.

Hon. Carolyn A. Archbold, 1974 graduate of Wayne State Law School, is currently the judge of the 29th District Court. She is president of the Michigan District Judges Association and an active member of the National Association of Women Judges, American Judges Association and Women Lawyers Association. In 1994 she was appointed by the Supreme Court to represent the district courts on a committee to develop recommendations and implementation strategies for improving the state judiciary.

Hon. Patrick C. Bowler has served in the 61st District Court in Grand Rapids since his election in 1985 and is chief judge of that court. He was a cum laude graduate of the Detroit College of Law in 1975. He is presently vice-chairperson of the Michigan State Bar's Judicial Conference. Judge Bowler has served as a faculty member of the Michigan Judicial Institute for several years.

Hon. Stephen C. Cooper was the 1995 president of the Michigan District Judges Association. He was first elected to the 46th District Court in 1986. He was elected to a second six-year term and has completed a term as chief judge. He was educated at Brandeis University and Wayne State University.