ABA Resolution 100A: A Victory in the Fight for Procedural Justice, Fairness, and the Independence of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
A Victory in the Fight for Procedural Justice, Fairness, and the Independence of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs): ABA Resolution 100A, August 12, 2019
In February of 2019, we released a report entitled The Need for a Central Panel Approach to Administrative Adjudication: Pros, Cons, and Selected Practices. The report was based on research conducted by Chicago Appleseed and Chicago Council of Lawyers Executive Director, Malcolm Rich – who has been researching and writing about the central panel system of administrative adjudication since the 1980s – with Alison Goldstein, pro bono assistance from Goldberg Kohn, and oversight by the Collaboration’s Access to Justice Committee. The central panel system of administrative adjudication, where Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are independent of (i.e. not employed by) the agencies whose cases they preside over, has been evolving since the 1970s. Our February 2019 report concludes that the benefits of the central panel approach include increased efficiency and cost effectiveness; “enhanced public trust and perceived impartiality among lawyers and the broader community;” an opportunity for more transparency into our justice system, which will “attract higher-quality lawyers” to becoming ALJs; and more.
A central panel system wherein ALJs are impartial is essential to ensuring procedural justice. Procedural justice, also known as procedural fairness, encapsulates that the way in which legal authorities (police, prosecutors, ALJs, the judiciary, and the like) interact with their constituencies directly shapes how the public views them. Procedural justice is based on the principles of “treating people with dignity and respect, giving citizens [a] ‘voice’ during encounters, being neutral in decision making, and conveying trustworthy motives.”[1] If the public perceives that these principles are being adequately achieved during their individual and collective interactions, communities will confidently trust that these legal authorities are honest, unbiased, fair, and lawful, which then ultimately obliges the community to follow laws and the dictates of legal authorities.[2]
Since The Need for a Central Panel Approach to Administrative Adjudication: Pros, Cons, and Selected Practices was published, Malcolm and our collaborators have advocated tirelessly for procedural justice by way of increased professionalism and independence through centralizing the pool of ALJs. Because of these efforts, the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates unanimously adopted Resolutions 100A encouraging state legislatures to adopt recommendations aimed at increasing the fairness and effectiveness of central panels on Monday, August 12, 2019. The February 2019 Collaboration for Justice report was cited extensively throughout the ABA’s decision.
Because of the hard work and dedicated advocacy of Malcolm, Goldberg Kohn, Alison Goldstein, and other members of the Access to Justice Committee, the ABA recommends the following: (1) the allocation of independent funding to central panels, directly from state legislatures; (2) “the creation of an advisory council to review, analyze, and advise on current and proposed central panel practices;” (3) working to balance the system of both generalist and specialized Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) within the central panels; (4) developing a complaint process that will allow for parties to voice concerns; and (5) “more training for adjudicating cases involving pro se litigants, addressing implicit bias, and increasing ALJ diversity.” These Resolutions are another step toward ensuring fairness, justice, and equity in our court systems throughout Cook County, Illinois, and the nation as a whole.
Read the full ABA Report on Resolution 100A, August 12, 2019.
[1] See https://trustandjustice.org/resources/intervention/procedural-justice
[2] See http://www.proceduralfairness.org/Theory-and-Research/Theory.aspx