ROLE OF TRIAL JUDGE

Roles Performed by the Trial Judge

[Name of the teacher / instructor]

Roles Performed by the Trial Judge

Trial Judge

It makes little sense to debate the worth of any role without defining its purpose and past performance. Also, it should be recognized at the outset that the field of administrative law has grown, as have other fields of law, in direct proportion to the growth of government and the need to provide fair alternatives to ever growing court dockets. No such alternatives have realistically presented themselves without simultaneous recognition that disputes which cannot be settled by agreement require a resolution process which is both perceived as fair and is productive of a record which will permit the most effective and least burdensome court review. The individual judge who presides is given latitude in important matters such as discovery and admissibility of evidence and in the conduct of the evidentiary hearing which directly affects the record upon which the decision will ultimately be based. No trial lawyer would regard these powers lightly in consideration of the fact that later court review will be based on that record. It is therefore of great interest to the practicing bar and to the public at large that this function is faithfully and competently discharged.

The English government has consistently maintained high qualification standards to insure, insofar as possible, the appointment of individual trial judges based on experience and merit and to afford a level of independence not associated with other executive department positions, in recognition of the unique nature of the position and to instill public confidence in the system. According to the English law trail judge does not have the independence or stature of the high court judiciary since he or she is still an employee of the Executive Department and subject to its jurisdiction and appropriate control and supervision in most matters, although not in the exercise of his honest and independent judgment in ruling on matters before him or deciding cases, except insofar as he is bound by lawful agency regulations. This does not, however, alter the judicial nature of the adjudicatory function involved.

Much has been written about the role of administrative law judges in relationship to the agency's superior authority and about congressional policy and intent. It is not the purpose of this article to address these issues. Certainly there has been a trend toward judicialisation in the administrative process and this tends to create an appearance of separation of interests but there is little question that the agency retains ultimate authority to accept or reject an administrative law judge's decisions to issue English regulations which have the force and effect of law, and, in many cases, to issue precedential decisions binding on an administrative law judge. This article starts with the reality that trial judges exist and that they exist to hear and decide cases without bias or interference. Due process does not require in every instance a formal evidentiary hearing or require a decision maker possessing the qualifications ...