Chief among these is the Ninth Circuit's unique rules concerning the composition of an "en banc" court. In other circuits, "en banc" courts are composed of all active circuit judges, plus (depending on the rules of the particular court) any senior judges who took part in the original panel decision. By contrast, in the Ninth Circuit it is impractical for 29 or more judges to take part in a single oral argument and deliberate on a decision en masse. The court thus provides for a limited "en banc" review by the Chief Judge and a panel of 10 randomly selected judges. This means that "en banc" reviews may not actually reflect the views of the majority of the court and indeed may not include any of the three judges involved in the decision being reviewed in the first place. The result, according to detractors, is a high risk of "intracircuit" conflicts of law where different groupings of judges end up delivering contradictory opinions. That is said to cause uncertainty in the district courts and within the bar. However, "en banc" review is a relatively rare occurrence in all circuits and Ninth Circuit rules provide for full "en banc" review in limited circumstances.