This article analyzes a survey of attorneys' motivations in choosing federal or state courts in diversity cases in four judicial districts. The study examines the importance of lawyers' perceptions of (1) local bias based upon residency, (2) the comparative efficiency and quality of state and federal courts, and (3) familiarity with and partiality for state or federal court procedures. It is shown that the rural versus urban setting of the court influences the perception of local bias and quality of the courts. Relative efficiency and differences in procedure between state and federal courts are also important factors affecting forum choice. The survey offers some insight into the potential impact of proposed reforms of the federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The variation in motivations for forum choice among the districts provides little support for nationwide abolition of diversity jurisdiction.