Administrative law judge disqualification

An administrative law judge may withdraw by giving notice on the record directed to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. This is stated in 1955.13(a).

• The withdrawal must be made by a notice entered on the record and addressed to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
• Once the judge withdraws, further action on the motion to disqualify is for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to manage as appropriate under the regulation.

A party must file a motion to disqualify the administrative law judge before the judge files his decision and support that motion with affidavits stating the grounds for disqualification. See 1955.13(a).

• The motion must be filed prior to the time the administrative law judge files his decision.
• The motion must be supported by affidavits that set forth the alleged ground(s) for disqualification.
• The Chief Administrative Law Judge will rule on the motion.

The motion to disqualify must be supported by affidavits that set forth the alleged grounds for disqualification. This requirement is set out in 1955.13(a).

• Affidavits should describe the facts or reasons the party believes the judge is disqualified.
• The standard requires these affidavits but does not prescribe a specific affidavit format; make the facts clear and sworn.

The motion to disqualify must be filed before the administrative law judge files his decision. This timing rule is stated in 1955.13(a).

• If the judge has already issued a decision, the standard does not permit filing the motion under this provision.
• Make sure to file early enough to allow the Chief Administrative Law Judge to consider the motion prior to the decision being entered.

The Chief Administrative Law Judge rules on motions to disqualify an administrative law judge. This authority is specified in 1955.13(a).

• The administrative law judge in the case does not decide the motion; the Chief Administrative Law Judge makes the ruling.
• The Chief Administrative Law Judge may accept the judge's withdrawal or decide the motion based on the affidavits and record.

Contumacious conduct—meaning willful disobedience, disrespectful or obstructive behavior at a proceeding—can be grounds for the administrative law judge to summarily exclude the person from the proceeding. This remedy is provided in 1955.13(b).

• Examples include serious disruptive behavior, refusing to follow court orders, or deliberately obstructing the proceeding.
• The regulation allows the judge to remove (exclude) the contumacious party or witness immediately (summary exclusion).

If a witness refuses to answer a question after being directed, the administrative law judge may issue orders that are just and proper, including striking all testimony previously given by that witness on related matters. See 1955.13(b).

• The judge has discretion to fashion appropriate sanctions; striking prior related testimony is an explicit option.
• The judge may also impose other remedies deemed "just and proper" based on the circumstances.

If a party refuses to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the administrative law judge may make orders that are just and proper, including striking all testimony previously given by a witness on related matters. This authority is spelled out in 1955.13(b).

• The rule gives the judge broad discretion to impose sanctions tailored to the refusal.
• One explicit sanction listed is striking related testimony; others may be used if the judge finds them appropriate.

Yes; contumacious conduct at a proceeding is expressly stated as grounds for summary exclusion from the proceeding. See 1955.13(b).

• "Summary exclusion" means the judge can order the immediate removal of the disruptive person without a separate hearing on that exclusion.
• The exclusion is limited to conduct at the proceeding that the judge deems contumacious.

No; the regulation requires that a motion be supported by affidavits setting forth the alleged grounds but does not enumerate specific disqualification grounds. This is stated in 1955.13(a).

• Because the standard does not list specific grounds, the affidavits must explain the factual reasons the party believes disqualification is warranted.
• Typical factual grounds (not listed in the rule) might include bias, prior involvement in the case, or a conflict of interest, but the regulation itself requires only that the alleged ground be set forth in affidavit form for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to review.

The regulation does not limit the number of motions, so a party may file motions to disqualify prior to the judge filing his decision, each supported by affidavits stating the grounds. See 1955.13(a).

• Each motion must still meet the timing requirement (filed before the judge's decision) and be supported by affidavits.
• Repetitive or frivolous motions may be addressed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge under the same standard.

A motion to disqualify must be filed prior to the time the administrative law judge files his decision, so filing after the decision is outside the timing requirement in the regulation. See 1955.13(a).

• The regulation does not provide for post-decision disqualification motions under this paragraph.
• If a party believes disqualification after decision is necessary, they should consult other applicable appeal or post-decision procedures (not provided in this specific section).