I had posted earlier about the lawsuit filed by the Association of Admininstrative Law Judges (AALJ). I had not posted a copy of the complaint even though I had seen a copy of it that was floating around. I did not post it because it appeared that it might have been a draft that was never filed.
Someone on the Association of Attorney Advisors Board has retrieved and posted the complaint off the Pacer system used in the federal courts. However, you will have to register to read it on that board. You can register ever if you are not a member of that organization.
I have retrieved the document, extracted the text and posted it on the second blog that I established as a group blog. So far, I have only gotten one response indicating an interest in the group blog, so, for now, I will use it as a place to post lengthy documents. It is in very rough shape there. There are problems because the document has segments in it which, accidentally, replicate HTML language. It seems almost impossible to get all of this out and reformat it properly, so I have just left it very raw.
The complaint does go into two subjects -- requiring current Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to be fully licensed to practice law and the short notice given for applicants for the new register from which new ALJs will be hired. The point has been raised by others that the ALJ Association does not have standing to raise the issue about the application period for the new examination. However, the complaint has a couple of named plaintiffs who are not ALJs, but attorneys in private practice who did not find out about the application period in time to apply. They should not have a standing problem. There may be an issue of misjoinder, that is of two issues being raised by one lawsuit that are too disparate to be raised in one lawsuit, but that is a technical matter which would not defeat the case in and of itself. Joinder and misjoinder is an obscure byway of civil procedure with which I am unfamiliar.
The bigger issue here is the wisdom of the ALJ Association bringing this lawsuit at all, especially the part of it having to do with the application period. The lawsuit may be causing dissension among ALJs. Although ALJs may have a point about being misled on the necessity of maintaining bar membership, for the vast majority of ALJs who are now merely inactive bar members, becoming active again should not be much of a problem -- get a little continuing legal education and fill out a state bar form. Those who allowed their bar membership to lapse completely were taking a chance that most lawyers would find astonishing. Few other than ALJs are sympathetic to any part of the lawsuit. I do not think anyone, especially current ALJs, wants to delay hiring more ALJs. This lawsuit does has the potential to cause delay.
Someone on the Association of Attorney Advisors Board has retrieved and posted the complaint off the Pacer system used in the federal courts. However, you will have to register to read it on that board. You can register ever if you are not a member of that organization.
I have retrieved the document, extracted the text and posted it on the second blog that I established as a group blog. So far, I have only gotten one response indicating an interest in the group blog, so, for now, I will use it as a place to post lengthy documents. It is in very rough shape there. There are problems because the document has segments in it which, accidentally, replicate HTML language. It seems almost impossible to get all of this out and reformat it properly, so I have just left it very raw.
The complaint does go into two subjects -- requiring current Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to be fully licensed to practice law and the short notice given for applicants for the new register from which new ALJs will be hired. The point has been raised by others that the ALJ Association does not have standing to raise the issue about the application period for the new examination. However, the complaint has a couple of named plaintiffs who are not ALJs, but attorneys in private practice who did not find out about the application period in time to apply. They should not have a standing problem. There may be an issue of misjoinder, that is of two issues being raised by one lawsuit that are too disparate to be raised in one lawsuit, but that is a technical matter which would not defeat the case in and of itself. Joinder and misjoinder is an obscure byway of civil procedure with which I am unfamiliar.
The bigger issue here is the wisdom of the ALJ Association bringing this lawsuit at all, especially the part of it having to do with the application period. The lawsuit may be causing dissension among ALJs. Although ALJs may have a point about being misled on the necessity of maintaining bar membership, for the vast majority of ALJs who are now merely inactive bar members, becoming active again should not be much of a problem -- get a little continuing legal education and fill out a state bar form. Those who allowed their bar membership to lapse completely were taking a chance that most lawyers would find astonishing. Few other than ALJs are sympathetic to any part of the lawsuit. I do not think anyone, especially current ALJs, wants to delay hiring more ALJs. This lawsuit does has the potential to cause delay.
No comments:
Post a Comment