NCJ Number
79962
Journal
UCLA Law Review Volume: 28 Issue: 3 Dated: (February 1981) Pages: 438-462
Date Published
1981
Length
25 pages
Annotation
This article discusses official responsibilities that do not fall within the courts' adjudicatory role of dispute solver and outlines a model for assessing the appropriateness of a court performing a particular task.
Abstract
An historical review of the courts in England and the United States emphasizes that judicial activity was never limited to the bare adjudication of cases but included administrative tasks such as warrants, rulemaking, probate and trust administration, and marriage ceremonies. Even in contested case proceedings involving both criminal and civil offenses, judges are responsible for selecting administrators who run the system, monitoring attorneys' professional behavior, issuing court orders, holding ex parte hearings, supervising the jury, and imposing sentences. A survey of the United States Code as well as the codes of California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas shows that judges promulgate legislation pertaining to the handling of clients' funds, conflicts of interest, bankruptcy rules, and codes of judicial conduct. Judges are often appointed to nonjudicial positions as trustees of law libraries or board members for institutions and in turn make a variety of appointments. Appraisers, prison inspectors, tax collectors, election boards, and road commissioners are a few examples of jobs that are filled by the court. In an administrative context, judges supervise the settlement of estates; bankruptcy proceedings; and even schools, jails, and railroads. As ceremonial officiators, judges perform marriages, naturalize aliens, and administer oaths of office. To develop criteria to determine the proper activities courts should undertake, the following characteristics that distinguish courts from other institutions are analyzed: special competence, impartiality, fair procedures, and moral authority. Factors which mitigate the allocation of nonadjudicatory activities to the courts are also examined, principally inefficiency, social and political undesirability, and judicial overburden. These considerations are applied to the promulgation of rules, judicial appointment of noncourt officials, probate administration, and performance of marriages. The analysis concludes that judges should retain their rulemaking and ceremonial functions but that appointments and probate matters are probably inappropriate. The article provides 80 footnotes.