The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to eliminate the licensure requirements for incumbent administrative law judges who are covered under the Administrative Law Judge Program.
However, OPM is proposing no amendment to part 930, as it concerns applicants. OPM remains convinced that active licensure at the time of application and appointment is vital as an indicator that the applicant presenting himself or herself for assessment and possible appointment has been subject to rigorous ethical requirements right up to the time of appointment.
You are misreading it. The purpose of this regulation was to relieve the requirement of INCUMBENT ALJs from having to maintain active law licenses. Often the requirement was expensive and difficult if not impossible to fulfill. The "practice of law" does not really apply to the administrative judiciary. New ALJs are required to have an active license at time of appointment.
However, OPM is proposing no amendment to part 930, as it concerns
ReplyDeleteapplicants. OPM remains convinced that active licensure at the time of
application and appointment is vital as an indicator that the applicant
presenting himself or herself for assessment and possible appointment
has been subject to rigorous ethical requirements right up to the time
of appointment.
Although non-attorney ALJs would be a decided improvement, they're just making it easier for the shisters.
ReplyDeleteYou are misreading it. The purpose of this regulation was to relieve the requirement of INCUMBENT ALJs from having to maintain active law licenses. Often the requirement was expensive and difficult if not impossible to fulfill. The "practice of law" does not really apply to the administrative judiciary. New ALJs are required to have an active license at time of appointment.
ReplyDeleteWhy does an ALJ have to have a law license. You can be on the Supreme Court without being a lawyer, so why not an ALJ.
ReplyDelete