What Do The Initials Alj Represent In The Administrative Law Arena?

What Do The Initials Alj Represent In The Administrative Law Arena
About The Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) – The Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) was established in 1979 to create a central independent agency to conduct administrative hearings, thus promoting due process, expediting the just conclusion of contested cases, and improving the quality of administrative justice.

The Office of Administrative Law employs a corps of administrative law judges (“ALJ”) who hear contested cases for state agencies and issue initial decisions.
The Office of Administrative Law is an Executive Branch agency.
While located in but not of the Department of Treasury, it is independent of supervision or control by the Department of Treasury.

The Director and Chief and Administrative Law Judge presides over the office and reports directly to the Governor. Hearing requests are filed with the state agency having jurisdiction over the issue which determines whether to grant the hearing request.

Upon deciding that a matter should be heard as a contested case, the agency transmits the case to the Office of Administrative Law.
Litigants cannot directly file a hearing request at the OAL.* The Office of Administrative Law hears cases for most state agencies, but it does not hear cases involving the State Board of Parole, the Division of Workers Compensation, the Division of Tax Appeals, the Public Employment Relations Commission, or Department of Labor Unemployment Compensation cases.

Hearings are conducted by an administrative law judge according to the procedures established by statute and by the rules of the OAL. The rules can be found at N.J.A.C.1:1-1, and are linked to this website. The ALJ provides a neutral forum where the evidence of all parties is presented.

Administrative law judges are full time in that position and do not hold other employment. An ALJ is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the New Jersey Senate, initially for a one-year term. After the one-year term, the Governor may reappoint the individual to a four-year term. Subsequently, reappointment is to terms of five-years and requires both the Governor’s nomination and Senate confirmation.

In most cases, at the conclusion of the hearing the ALJ prepares an initial decision that is sent to the agency head. The initial decision may be affirmed, modified, or rejected by the agency head within forty-five days of receipt of the initial decision.

These time frames can be extended for good cause. Any change or modification to the initial decision must be explained in writing by the agency head and must specify in clear and sufficient detail the reason for the change or modification and the factual basis in the record for such change. If the agency head does not issue a final decision within forty-five days, unless the time frame has been extended, the initial decision becomes the final decision.

In certain cases, such as special education, the decision of the administrative law judge is the final decision. The Office of Administrative Law also implements the provision of the Administrative Procedure Act concerning rulemaking, as explained on this website under Division of Rules.

The statutes under which the OAL is granted its authority are N.J.S.A.52:14B-1 et seq. and 52:14F-1 et seq. These statutes may be accessed at http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/njstats/showsections.cgi?title=52&chapt=14B and http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/njstats/showsections.cgi?title=52&chapt=14F, respectively.

This website’s statutory database is updated daily by the Law Library of the Rutgers School of Law – Newark. The OAL checks the functionality and currency of this website on a bi-weekly basis, The rules of the OAL are set forth in Title 1 of the New Jersey Administrative Code, and may be accessed at http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/njcode/,

This website’s rules database is updated by LexisNexis concurrently with the publication of the printed updates to the New Jersey Administrative Code, which updates are published two weeks after publication of the New Jersey Register issue containing the rule changes included in the update. The OAL checks the functionality and currency of this website upon publication of a New Jersey Administrative Code update.

The OAL may be contacted concerning the nonfunctioning of either of the websites in the two preceding paragraphs at Office of Administrative Law, PO Box 049, Trenton, NJ 08625-0049; [email protected] ; or (609) 438-6310. To receive copies of rulemaking notices pertaining to rules promulgated by the OAL by e-mail, please send an email request to oal[email protected] to be added to the electronic mailing list.

What does a local administrative judge do?

Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) – The Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) program produces employment and wage estimates annually for over 800 occupations. These estimates are available for the nation as a whole, for individual states, and for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

Administrative law judges, adjudicators, and hearing officers Judges, magistrate judges, and magistrates

What is an administrative law judge California?

An administrative law judge ( ALJ ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates claims or disputes involving administrative law, ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.

In the United States, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the role of a federal administrative law judge is “functionally comparable” to that of an Article III judge,
An ALJ’s powers are often, if not generally, comparable to those of a trial judge, as ALJs may issue subpoenas, rule on proffers of evidence, regulate the course of the hearing, and make or recommend decisions.

Depending upon the agency’s jurisdiction, proceedings may have complex multi-party adjudication, as is the case with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or simplified and less formal procedures, as is the case with the Social Security Administration,

What is an administrative law judge in NJ?

New Jersey Office of Administrative Law – General Info

General Information

Overview The American structure of government provides for the separation of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and for a system of checks and balances among the branches. This structure delineates the power of any one branch of government and limits the possibilities for institutional overreaching.

In New Jersey, as in the country as a whole, the tremendous growth of the executive branch agencies and their regulatory functions has generated the development of some separation of powers, and checks and balances, within the executive branch itself. The State of New Jersey, a leader in this development, established and empowered the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (OAL) in 1979 to act as an independent arbiter of certain disputes arising from agency actions, as well as an independent arbiter of agency compliance with rulemaking procedures, P.L.1978, c.67.

The OAL is an executive branch agency located technically in, but not of, the Department of Treasury. It is independent of supervision or control by the Department of Treasury. The Director, who is also the Chief Administrative Law Judge, presides over the office and reports directly to the Governor.

The OAL implements the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A.52:14B-1 et seq.
Advising executive branch agencies on how to make rules and requiring the agencies to follow statutorily prescribed steps in rulemaking.
Further, it must ensure that the formulation of rules includes adequate opportunity for input by anyone interested and affected.

In this capacity, the OAL is also responsible for the publication of the New Jersey Register and the New Jersey Administrative Code, which are the official publications of duly proposed and promulgated rules. The OAL is also responsible for the administrative hearing functions of all but certain specifically exempted types of cases.

The exempted cases include those from the State Board of Parole, the Public Employment Relations Commission, the Division of Workers’ Compensation, and the Division of Tax Appeals.
In addition, an agency head may decide to conduct a hearing rather than transmit the matter to the OAL.N.J.S.A.52:14F-8.

Upon determining a matter to be a contested case, a state agency transmits the contested case to the OAL. Litigants do not apply directly to the OAL for a hearing. As a general rule, hearings are public, except special education and certain human services cases, where confidentiality is required by federal regulations.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) presides over a contested case, which is conducted according to hearing rules established by statute and by the OAL. The ALJ provides a neutral forum where the evidence of all parties, often including the agency with subject matter jurisdiction over the case, is presented.

The ALJ, as a full time officer of the OAL, is not permitted to hold other employment. He or she is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the New Jersey Senate for a one-year term. After this initial term, the Governor may reappoint the ALJ to a four-year term.

Any subsequent reappointment is to a five-year term and requires Senate confirmation.
The ALJ prepares an initial decision that is sent to the agency head within the time frame set by statute for the particular substantive area of the case.
The ALJ’s initial decision may be affirmed, modified, or rejected by the agency head who is empowered to make a final decision in the matter.

Any order or final decision rejecting or modifying the initial decision must specify in clear and sufficient detail the nature of the rejection or modification, the reasons for it, and the changes in result or disposition caused by the rejection or modification.

If an agency head does not adopt, reject, or modify the initial decision within forty-five days, and unless the period is extended as provided by statute, the initial decision becomes the final decision.
The ALJ issues a final decision in a special education matter that is not reviewed by the agency head.

: New Jersey Office of Administrative Law – General Info

What is an administrative judge in Florida?

Office of the Chief Judge Each of Florida’s 20 judicial circuits is administered by a Chief Judge who is elected by a majority of the judges in the circuit for a term of two years. Chief Judge Nushin G. Sayfie was elected as the chief judicial officer of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in 2021.

She acts as liaison with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in all judicial administrative matters and is responsible for the efficient and proper administration of the circuit and county courts.
As set forth in Rule 2.050, Rules of Judicial Administration, this includes developing a plan for the prompt disposition of cases; assignment of judges, other court officers and executive assistants; control of dockets; regulation and use of courtrooms; mandatory periodic review of the status of the inmates of the county jail; and, consideration of statistical data.

Is an ALJ a real judge?

Administrative law judges (ALJ) (not administrative judges) are executive judges for official and unofficial hearings of administrative disputes in the Federal government. Because they only hear administrative law issues as designated in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), administrative law judges are considered part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and ALJs are appointed by the heads of the executive agencies.

However, administrative law judges receive much of the same protections as those in the judicial branch in order to preserve their neutrality such as not being subject to bonuses or ranking systems of executive agencies. ALJs carry out determinations on both questions of fact and questions of law, like bench trials for judicial proceedings, and they have the authority to issue subpoenas, administer oaths, and issue rulings.

Given the broad scope of administrative law, ALJs participate in many different topics and for many different agencies such as the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Postal Service, The determinations of an ALJ may be appealed potentially even to a federal judicial court.

However, essentially every agency has its own appellate processes of review that must be followed before someone can access the federal courts, and sometimes in large agencies, the agency’s internal review process can be quite extensive. ALJs do not serve the same role as administrative judges. While similar in name to ALJs, administrative judges can only participate in unofficial disputes of executive agencies which constitute the majority of administrative disputes.

Only ALJs can hear official disputes heard by the agencies. Further, administrative judges are directly hired by the agencies and are subject to their employment rules and benefits, unlike the independent ALJ judges. Many states also have ALJs that serve similar roles as their Federal counterparts.

Is an administrative law judge called Your Honor?

Central Duties of Administrative Law Judges – These days, there are over 1,400 ALJs in the Social Security Administration alone, An administrative law judge, for the most part, has two main duties in the administrative adjudication process. The first one is to preside over the taking of evidence at agency hearings.

The ALJ also acts as the fact finder in the proceedings.
Therefore, ALJs have authorization to steer the course of the hearing.
They can also issue subpoenas, and make rulings on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence.
ALJs can also take depositions or have depositions taken by others, hold settlement conferences, rule on any procedural requests, ask questions of witnesses, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

An ALJ’s other chief duty is to act as a decision maker. They make or recommend an initial determination with reference to resolving the dispute. Although ALJs are technically executive branch employees, they function a lot like trial judges do in the judicial branch. You even call them ‘Your Honor’. Other federal agencies utilizing ALJs include the Coast Guard, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Do you address an ALJ as the honorable?

The following information should help you in addressing correctly your letters and envelopes to judges and justices in various courts. Outside of the Supreme Court, always use ‘The Honorable (full name)’ in your correspondence. STATE COURTS [Note: States may vary on titles of judges.

What is the difference between an administrative judge or judge?

The Roles of Administrative Law Judges – Most people consider ALJs to be part of the executive branch as opposed to the judicial branch. Despite this, the APA imbues ALJs with substantial decisional independence and provides them with immunity from any liability stemming from their judicial acts.

Contrary to popular belief, ALJs operate independently from the agencies that are involved in particular disputes. If the Department of Defense is a party to an administrative proceeding, the agency may not have any ex parte communications with the ALJ or influence the ALJ’s decision by improper means.

The APA includes many provisions to ensure that ALJs are not pressured by other parties or agency officials. In general, ALJs are afforded the same scope of authority as traditional courtroom judges. One major difference between ALJs and traditional judges is that ALJs serve as both the judge and trier of fact.

This is known as a bench trial. In civil court, the parties sometimes have the option of choosing to forgo a jury and have the judge weigh the factual evidence that the parties provide. During an administrative hearing, however, the ALJ will always weigh the evidence and make factual determinations. Most states have enacted a body of laws that mirrors the federal Administrative Procedures Act.

At the state level, the power given to ALJs varies. Some state-level ALJs function much like federal ALJs, exercising broad independent authority over the matters pending before them. In some contexts, ALJs are afforded minimal power and authority, and their decisions are treated more as recommendations.

What is the difference between a hearing officer and an administrative law judge?

What does a Hearing Officer do? – What Do The Initials Alj Represent In The Administrative Law Arena A hearing officer works through the dispute resolution process between agencies and the public. They typically preside over hearings for government agencies. For example, someone who has been denied disability may ask for an administrative hearing to exercise their rights.

The hearing officer listens to both sides of the case and then makes a decision based on what they heard.
A hearing officer acts much like a judge, but only deals with cases involving administrative agencies.
The officer’s hearings are also much less formal than a traditional court case with a presiding judge.

These hearings mostly take place in person, but can also be conducted through mailed testimony as well. The role of a hearing officer is often seen as being more just than a traditional judge. The officer takes the time to review both sides and lets everyone have their say in the matter.

The officer may also listen to testimonies and review evidence to make a judgement decision.
This allows both parties to feel that a fair decision was made and not a hasty one.
One major difference between a hearing officer and a judge is that the officer does not normally make a decision until several days or more after the hearing takes place.

Most officers make a decision within ten days of the hearing and mail the decision to both parties of the case. This gives the officer considerably more time to review all of the aspects of the case to make an informed and fair decision.

Do administrative law judges have immunity?

No Immunity for Administrative Acts. administrative acts of a judge, such as employment decisions, but there may be qualified immunity in such circumstances, just as for other public officials.

What is an administrative law judge hearing?

In California, when an individual or business disagrees with a government agency’s action, that action can be challenged. This is done by asking the agency for an administrative hearing. Administrative law hearings are less formal than court-room trials. Administrative law judges (ALJs) run the hearings.

What does administrative law deal with?

Overview : – Administrative law encompasses laws and legal principles governing the administration and regulation of government agencies (both federal and state ). Agencies are delegated power by Congress (or in the case of a state agency, the state legislature ), to act as agencies responsible for carrying out certain prerogatives from Congress.

What is the difference between judicial and administrative?

States may use a judicial or administrative process, or a combination of both, to establish and modify child support orders. Judicial process — the court sets the order. Administrative process — the state child support agency sets the order. To see your state’s modification process, go to Sign Up for, Pay, or Change Your Child Support and select your state from the dropdown box.

Who appoints ALJs?

Federal appeals court finds appointments of agency ALJs invalid (2018) – A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held on July 31, 2018, that the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission ‘s (FMSHRC) roster of ALJs was invalidly appointed.

The panel ruled that the FMSHRC’s commissioners, rather than its chief ALJ, must appoint the agency’s ALJs pursuant to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,
The panel consisted of judges Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah Cook, and Ralph Guy,
The panel issued the decision in Jones Brothers Inc., Petitioner, v.

Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration; Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, a case on appeal from the FMSHRC concerning a fine issued to Jones Brothers by the Mine Safety and Health Administration for certain safety violations.

How hard is it to become an ALJ?

March 28, 2016 • By Reading Time: 2 Minutes Last Updated: August 19, 2021 What Do The Initials Alj Represent In The Administrative Law Arena Becoming an Administrative Law Judge gives you the opportunity to improve the lives of others by ensuring everyone is treated fairly, impartially, and compassionately. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) serves as an impartial judge at regulatory and benefits-granting agencies.

There are approximately 1700 federal ALJs nationwide, and the Social Security Administration (SSA) employs about 1500 of them.
At SSA, we need dedicated individuals looking to make a difference in someone’s life by becoming Administrative Law Judges.
It is a family friendly work environment with a flexible schedule.

Our ALJs work with a nationwide support team in over 162 Hearing Offices across the country. We need ALJs in many states, including rural locations. We also need ALJs, bilingual in Spanish, in New York and Puerto Rico. To become an Administrative Law Judge:

You must be licensed and authorized to practice law; You must have seven years of experience in litigation or administrative law as a licensed attorney; and You must apply directly to a posting on the Office of Personnel Management’s USAJOBS website once available.

Sound interesting ? If so, make sure you create your USAJOBS account and set notifications to alert you when OPM announces new Administrative Law Judge vacancies. You will also need to create a Federal Resume. IMPORTANT – the announcement opened on March 29, 2016 and you must submit an application package by April 8, 2016,

Apply directly to this posting on the Office of Personnel Management’s USAJOBS website.
Click here for ALJ Examination notification : ALJ Announcement on USA JOBS By becoming an Administrative Law Judge, you serve the public by ruling on cases that have a profound impact on people’s lives.
Join our group of dedicated and committed professionals.

Visit OPM’s Qualification Standards for Administrative Law Judge Positions or our SSA ALJ Recruitment Site for more information today! See Comments

What is the highest position for a judge?

chief justice, the presiding judge in the Supreme Court of the United States and the highest judicial officer of the nation. The chief justice is appointed by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate and has life tenure,

The primary functions of the office are to preside over the Supreme Court in its public sessions when the Court is hearing arguments and during its private conferences when it is discussing and deciding cases.
Chief justices serve as chair of the Court and have authority to assign the writing of opinions when they are members of the majority; otherwise their powers are the same as those of other Supreme Court justices.

The chief justice customarily administers the oath of office to the president and vice president at the time of their inauguration. The chief justice is also the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States, an assembly of judges representing all the federal courts that reviews and investigates problems relating to the administration of justice in those courts.

When the office is occupied by a person of extraordinary intellectual capacity and dynamic personality, as was the case with John Marshall (served 1801–35), the chief justice may exert a great influence on the court’s work.
Occupants of the centre chair who are lesser figures are likely to be overshadowed by other members of the court.

The title of chief justice is also usually accorded to the presiding judicial officer within any multi-judge court, as well as to the highest judicial officer within a state of the United States. In the United Kingdom the title of lord chief justice is held by the officer presiding over the judiciary of England and Wales.

Are ALJs officers?

Lucia and Unresolved Issues for the Administrative Judiciary – The future is not yet written for how the most significant of these challenges for the administrative judiciary will be resolved by the Court, the constitutionality of 5 U.S.C. § 7521, the dual for-cause removal standard for ALJs.

This standard ensures the decisional independence of ALJs. However, the Court’s expansive view on unconstitutional intrusions on presidential removal power and its precedent in Free Enterprise places the constitutionality of this statutory provision in jeopardy.18 The role of ALJs who perform purely adjudicatory functions, as well as the role of Merit Systems Protection Board judges, who also perform purely adjudicatory functions, is fundamentally different from the duties and responsibilities of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in Free Enterprise and provides optimism for a different outcome by the Court.

Congress did not intend for ALJs to be removed at the whim of the agency or for political reasons, and the Court recognized in Free Enterprise that it was not making a general pronouncement that two levels of good-cause tenure protections are always unconstitutional.

The Court made clear in its holding in Free Enterprise that its decision did not extend to ALJs who perform purely adjudicatory functions.19 As such, I remain optimistic regarding the constitutionality of ALJ removal protections. Equally alarming is the uncertainty as it pertains to what restrictions, if any, can be placed on the appointment of ALJs.

The previous competitive hiring process for ALJs served to ensure ALJs were not subject to undue political influence and that only qualified individuals were ultimately appointed to conduct procedural due process proceedings guaranteed to the public.

Whether Congress can reinstate the competitive hiring process for ALJs, including reinstating the oral and written examination, is not yet certain. The answer will greatly depend on the Court’s evolving expansion of Presidential Appointments Clause power and the restrictions that can be placed on the president’s ultimate duty to hold officers accountable.

A legal quagmire exists. I surmise we will not be able to have our cake and eat it too—reinstating the OPM competitive examining and hiring process for ALJs and preserving for good cause removal protections. The way forward may lie outside the current construct of the federal administrative judiciary.20 In conclusion, Lucia was not the sleeper case that scholars quickly dismissed when it was initially decided.

How do you address a lady judge?

On 13th August 2020, an interesting exchange happened between the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and a lawyer on how to address the Court. A lawyer addressed the bench presided by the CJI, which was hearing the cases through video conference, as ‘Your Honour’.

“Are you appearing before the US Supreme Court?”, CJI Bobde asked the lawyer. According to CJI, the use of ‘ Your. On 13th August 2020, an interesting exchange happened between the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and a lawyer on how to address the Court. A lawyer addressed the bench presided by the CJI, which was hearing the cases through video conference, as ‘Your Honour’.

“Are you appearing before the US Supreme Court?”, CJI Bobde asked the lawyer. According to CJI, the use of ‘ Your Honour’ is not Indian, but American. The lawyer submitted before the bench that there is nothing in law that prescribes address by lawyer.

It is about the practice of the court, CJI remarked. Lawyer: “Your honour” #CJI : Are you appearing before the US Supreme Court? The use of “ʏᴏᴜʀ ʜᴏɴᴏᴜr” is in US & not Indian SC” Lawyer: Theres nothing in law that prescribes address by lawyers. #CJI : May not be the law, it is about practice of the court.

‘My Lord’, ‘Your Lordship’ Not Mandatory, Use Dignified And Respectable Way of Addressing On 6 January 2014, the Supreme Court bench comprising the then CJI Justices HL Dattu and SA Bobde heard and dismissed a PIL filed by a lawyer, Advocate Shiv Sagar Tiwari who sought a ban on using the words ‘my lord’ and ‘your lordship’.

He contended that these terms are symbols of slavery should be strictly prohibited to be used in the courts throughout India as it is against the dignity of the country.” ” “When did we say it is compulsory.
You can only call us in a dignified manner.
To address the court what do we want.
Only a respectable way of addressing.

You call (judges) sir, it is accepted. You call it your honour, it is accepted. You call lordship it is accepted. These are some of the appropriate way of expression which are accepted,”, the bench reportedly told the lawyer while it dismissed the PIL without stating any reasons. What Do The Initials Alj Represent In The Administrative Law Arena Section 49 of the Advocates Act empowers the Bar Council of India to make Rules. Exercising these powers, the Council resolved as follows: Consistent with the obligation of the Bar to show a respectful attitude towards the Court and bearing in mind the dignity of Judicial Office, the form of address to be adopted whether in the Supreme Court, High Courts or Subordinate Courts should be as follows: “Your Honour” or “Hon’ble Court” in Supreme Court & High Courts and in the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals it is open to the Lawyers to address the Court as “Sir” or the equivalent word in respective regional languages.

Explanation: As the words “My Lord” and “Your Lordship” are relics of Colonial post, it is proposed to incorporate the above rule showing respectful attitude to the Court. Thus the Rule prescribe the use of “Your Honour” or “Hon’ble Court” in Supreme Court & High Courts and “Sir” or equivalent words in the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals.

The explanation further states that the words “My Lord” and “Your Lordship” are relics of Colonial post. It is evident from the above Rule that the Bar Council of India has disapproved the use of “My Lord” and “Your Lordship” and has prescribed the use of “Your Honour” or “Hon’ble Court” or “Sir” to address judges.

Interestingly, this resolution was taken by Bar Council after considering the observations made by the Supreme Court while hearing a PIL filed by Progressive & Vigilant Lawyers Forum.
However, the judgment/order dismissing this PIL on 6 January 2006 could not be accessed.
Reportedly, the Court had dismissed the PIL observing that it was a matter to be decided by the BCI as how the Judges should be addressed.

Following this, in 2007, the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association had unanimously resolved to stop addressing judges as ‘My Lord’ or ‘Your Lordship’. Requests By Individual Judges Not To Use ‘My Lord’ And ‘Your Lordship’ Justice K. Chandru of Madras High Court had in 2009 asked the lawyers to refrain from using ‘My Lord’.

Earlier this year, Justice S Muralidhar had formally requested the lawyers that they may try and avoid addressing him as ‘your lordship’ or ‘my lord’,”.
The Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, Thottathil B.
Nair Radhakrishnan had recently addressed a letter to the officers of district judiciary including members of Registry, expressing his desire to be addressed as “Sir” instead of “My Lord” or “Lordship”.

Last year, Rajasthan High Court issued a notice requesting lawyers and those appearing before the judges to desist from addressing the Hon’ble Judges as “My Lord” and “Your Lordship”. The notice was issued following a unanimous resolution taken by the Full Court in a meeting held on 14th July.

Such move was taken “to honor the mandate of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India”. Lawyers Use ‘Your Lordships’ even in pleadings Though ‘Your Lordship’ is a common form of addressing Judges of Supreme Court and High courts even now, despite the BCI Rule disapproving it, there is a practice among lawyers to use ‘Your Lordship’ in the prayer portion of writ petitions as well.

Such a trend i s seen in some High Courts. International Practice Senior Advocate Harish Salve appeared in the International Court of Justice last year and as per the transcript available, it is seen that he had mostly addressed the court as ‘honourable President and honourable Judges’.

There is no use of terms like ‘My Lord’ or ‘Lordship’ at all.
As the Chief Justice SA Bobde pointed out, use of ‘Your Honour’ is prevalent in the Supreme Court of United States even today.
To illustrate, the argument transcripts in the case of Little Sisters of the Poor vs.
Pennsylvania uploaded in the SCOTUS portal can be referred to.

General Francisco started addressing the Court by ‘ Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,’ The word ‘honor’ was used 45 times. During the hearing of Trump vs. Vance, the word ‘honor’ was used 60 times. The Australian High Court itself has described the way to address its judges.

It states that they should be addressed as ‘Your Honour’ while they preside the benches. Federal Court judges are also supposed to be addressed as ‘Your Honour’. Judiciary.uk, an official web portal of Justice Department of United Kingdom, describes the the different ways to address members of the judiciary.

It says that the judges of Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, High Court is supposed to be addressed as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady’. Circuit judges are to be addressed as ‘Your Honour’ and District Judges and Magistrates and other judges as ‘Sir or Madam’. In Italian courts, a judge is addressed as Signor Presidente Della Corte (Mr.

President of the Court). In Saudi Arabia, it is Qazi, in Spain, it is Su Señoría, (Your Honour). In Germany, male judges are addressed as Herr Vorsitzender and female judges are referred to as Frau Vorsitzende (Mister Chairman or Madam Chairwoman). Lahore HC Dismissed A Lawyers’ Plea Challenging Use of ‘Your Lordship’ And ‘My Lord’ The practice in Pakistan is more or less same as that in India.

There is a judgment delivered in 2012 by Lahore High Court which dealt with a petition filed by a lawyer named Malik Allah Yar Khan seeking a declaration that no one is allowed to address a judge as “My Lord” or “your Lordship”. He contended that such terms are part of British Colonial System and are unslamic as the only God Almighty is the Lord and no man can be the Lord of any man.

Addressing these contentions, Justice Nasir Saeed Sheikh pointed out that no courts or judges have ever issued any command, direction or instruction to the members of the legal fraternity to necessarily address the honourable Judges of the Superior Courts with the terms “My Lord” or “Your Lordship”.

The judge, taking note of the dictionary meanings of the term ‘lord’ said that even the English Judicial System practices the use of titles as “My Lord” or “Your Lordship” in recognition of the known ability, nobility and learning of the office holders of the higher judiciary.

None of the books of literature or legal background even hinted that the honourable Judges who are addressed with the title of “My Lord” or “Your Lordship” are imagined or thought to be involving the touch of Godly attributes, the judge observed. ” If the learned members of the Bar who are not directly ordained by the honourable Judges of the Superior Courts to address them in particular manner, adopt the ceremonial and historical form of address to the honourable Judge by using the word “My Lord” or “Your Lordship”, the concept of freedom of thoughts of speech as enunciated in our Constitution of 1973, fully gives protection to such a practical exercise.

Such practice of the learned members of the Bar cannot be directed to be discontinued by an order passed by this Court as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner on religious grounds “, the judge said. Countering the petitioner’s suggestion that the word ‘Sir’ is to be used, the court observed that ‘Sir’ also has a colonial touch.

The court also dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner against the practice of bending of heads by the lawyers before the Judges.
The Court also dismissed the objection against placing of the seats of the Judges at a higher pedestal in the Courts observing that it is only for the symbolic display of the authority of Courts different from the ordinary people which the Courts enjoy with respect to the persons to whom a direction is intended to be issued by the Courts.

May It Please ‘Your Honour’ It is seen that many countries use the term ‘Your Honour’ to address the Judges of superior courts. The terms ‘My Lord’ and ‘Your Lordship’ is seen to be still used in United Kingdom and a few other countries. Though there is no absolute legal bar against usage of ‘My Lord’ and ‘Your Lordship’ in India, the Courts and the judges must encourage the hesitant lawyers to stick to the prescription of ‘Your Honour’ by Bar Council of India.

Is an ALJ decision final?

Decisions of Administrative Law Judges are binding on the parties in the particular matter but do not have precedential value. They should not be cited or relied on as precedent in any proceeding. Decisions posted here may not be final and may be subject to modification by the Appeals Board and the Courts.

What do you call a woman judge?

In person: In an interview, social event, or in court, address a judge as ‘ Your Honor’ or ‘Judge.’ If you are more familiar with the judge, you may call her just ‘Judge.’ In any context, avoid ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am.’

What is the difference between an administrative judge or judge?

Contrary to popular belief, ALJs operate independently from the agencies that are involved in particular disputes.
If the Department of Defense is a party to an administrative proceeding, the agency may not have any ex parte communications with the ALJ or influence the ALJ’s decision by improper means.

This is known as a bench trial. In civil court, the parties sometimes have the option of choosing to forgo a jury and have the judge weigh the factual evidence that the parties provide. During an administrative hearing, however, the ALJ will always weigh the evidence and make factual determinations. Most states have enacted a body of laws that mirrors the federal Administrative Procedures Act.

What usually happens to decisions of administrative law judges?

What is the difference between a hearing officer and an administrative law judge?

The hearing officer listens to both sides of the case and then makes a decision based on what they heard.
A hearing officer acts much like a judge, but only deals with cases involving administrative agencies.
The officer’s hearings are also much less formal than a traditional court case with a presiding judge.

The officer may also listen to testimonies and review evidence to make a judgement decision.
This allows both parties to feel that a fair decision was made and not a hasty one.
One major difference between a hearing officer and a judge is that the officer does not normally make a decision until several days or more after the hearing takes place.

Warren Norred