The subject of limited publication of judicial opinions has generated controversy among students and practitioners of the law. Originally this tool was perceived as a viable method for providing some relief to judges from the burden of increasing caseloads. Because of the lack of uniformity and subjectivity of the publication, distribution and citation rules in the federal appellate circuits, the limited publication scheme can have a detrimental effect on the perception of equity in the law, judicial accountability and responsibility and overall judicial fairness. The authors explore these problems by examining recent data on the federal courts of appeals and offer proposed modifications to the use of this popular judicial tool.