If We Simply MUST Discuss Robes Again...

Here is the best piece of advice I heard when my class was being interviewed and selected: Do not get black robe fever. Black robe fever is that condition peculiar to judges where they begin to believe that they are special. They are not: they are very lucky. Although I consider that NOT buying a robe helps, the only preventative is to remind yourself that you are appointed not anointed, you are fallible (vis: your remands) and you do not walk on water but are a perfectly ordinary mortal being asked to do a difficult job.

Incidentally, robes are NOT mandatory, I understand newer ALJs are more likely than ones of long vintage to wear one. Some offices are, from what I hear "robier" than others. These are informal hearings, and as long as you dress professionally so that it is clear you respect how important this is to the claimants (I cannot recommend blue jeans and a sweatshirt) you can dress as you wish

Black robe fever is an attitude of arrogance and superiority.

To me, it is proof that the individual is not worthy of the position.

I completely agree with judicature, and am sorry I did not make myself clearer. While it is called black robe fever, a robe is not required to contract it. Awareness is the first step to prevention.

I agree with the previous posts regarding the "black robe syndrome." Avoid arrogance at all costs. There is a need for judicial demeanor both in the hearing room and in your office but do not carry that to the point of thinking/believing that you are a monarch of some fiefdom. Robes-I have tried it both ways, with and without. One experience several years ago gave me guidance. A guard in the waiting area overheard a claimant ask his representative when she was going to get to see a judge. This was after we had just completed a hearing with me, dressed in a nice suit and white shirt with tie. You see, these claimants for the most part, may have attended many "meetings" and "hearings" since becoming disabled including DDS reviews, workers' compensation hearings, etc. The first time they get to tell their story to a judge (like they see on tv) is when they appear at our hearings and, I believe, they need to know that a real judge, as they perceive a judge, has heard them. The robe provides a validity to the process for the claimant. I do not like wearing a robe in hearings but I do it for that reason. As to the comment above about these hearings being informal, I have found that to be only a policy statement and not a truth in reality. A better description would be semi-formal. I have found a need to become more formal with regard to procedures than informal. I do this to keep control of the process. If you don't maintain a degree of formality in a hearing, you will have attorneys/reps interrupting witnesses, witnesses and reps interrupting you, long-winded argumentative questions by the reps, and a whole host of other issues that just delay the process and that may cause you to lose control. I have hearing room rules that all the reps know and follow. I am more informal with unrepresented claimants but the number of those I see anymore is down to less than 10%. Good luck to all of you. I look forward to meeting you next year at our annual conference in Portland.

::)I was an ALJ for 30 years, and never wore a robe. When I first started, no one did. Then sometimes in the late 80s or early 90s it started. When a bunch of the new ALJs started strolling into the hearings all robed up, a lot of the old reps kinda snickered to themselves. Us old ALJs just let them do their thing, who cares. We were not of the judicial branch of government, but the administrative, hence our title, Administrative Law Judges. I took that to heart. One poster mentioned that the robe added another layer to the appeal process, somehow adding a different slant to the process. I don't think so. The claimant's for the most part are scared to death, and the robe is not going to give them any comfort, represented or not. I think an individual ALJ who wears a robe is doing so for his own vanity.

There are several different ways to look at this issue--which by now is really a non issue. I'm not taking a position, but just throwing out another way to look at it.

In looking at it from the Claimant's perspective, he has already been turned down twice by a faceless bureaucrat who issued a cursory opinion that didn't discuss the real problems that he faces on a day to day basis. He has now waited two years for a hearing. He wants to know that a judge who will give him a fair hearing and decision is going to hear his case, and not another bureaucrat. Bureaucrats wear suits. Judges wear robes. Just another perspective to consider. Pix.

Most claimants want their case reviewed carefully and seriously by a judge. Some claimants do not understand that a judge has heard their case if the judge is dressed like their tax preparer. So yes, it does help some people if the judge wears a robe. Having said that, if I ever get an offer, you will not be seeing me in a robe.

Going to disagree with you. It adds another quality to the hearing not otherwise present. I saw the same thing happen to state circuit judges. When I first started most wore suits. Within 5 years almost all did, and the state S.C. made wearing robes mandatory. Too many studies supported the use. I was on a state law enforcement board once. I learned that the officer's best aid is not a gun, but a uniform. There is something deep in the human mind that recognizes symbols. The black robe is a powerful symbol. I encourage new judges to obtain a judicial robe. But don't buy the expensive ones people will try to sell you at training. Ask your mentor. Most sites have places that sell choir robes and rent graduation robes. Most of the local state judges will buy their robes there and they are cheaper than those sold at training.

I have practiced a fair amount in the Eastern District of New York, where several district judges do not wear robes (although all the magistrate judges do). It always struck me as odd, and certainly did not prevent "black robe disease." Is there not a standard ODAR policy on this?

I wore a robe for the first couple of years. I found that it helped me deal with the transition into the role and offset insecurites. As time went on, the robe was hot and uncomfortable and I no longer felt I needed it to establish my control over the hearing room. I no longer wear it. However, if I were to need to hold hearings in unofficial locations, I think it is helpful to instill a sense of importance to the proceedings. A hearing in a hotel room needs all the pomp and circumstance you can bring to it.

All of the younger (ALJ for 10 years or less) ALJs in my office wear a robe. All of the "real judge" vs "administrative law judge" and claimant comfort vs respect arguments aside (they probably balance out), I think wardrobe consideration is the primary factor for the ALJs I know. The robe eliminates the need for a large wardrobe of several suits--more of a "robe" versus "wardrobe" question. With the robe, a shirt and tie with slacks is the basic necessary wardrobe. Because my size has changed since I owned more than one good suit and one additional appropriate jacket, the robe appeals to me. Though I would be reluctant to be the first to wear a robe in an office with a different ALJ culture.
By the way, a couple of the robe wearers are our best judges in every way: in terms of their ego management, decision making, interactions with reps and ODAR staff, as well as the really great way they treat unrepresented claimant's. These are the judges I would try to emulate if appointed.
I have been at OHA/ODAR for a long time, and I admit to some snickering thoughts about the ego of the first ALJ to wear a robe at my office. Over a short period of time, I came to the realization that wearing a robe or suit will not be a deciding factor in how the claimants, reps, or ODAR staff react to the ALJ. If you are a good judge in all the ways discussed on this board, you will have good relationships and be well thought of.

All who don't wear a robe in my experience, wear a suit or equivalent--both men and women. I do love the seersucker summer suits worn by our 85 year old judge, but I don't expect to ever own one. With the robe, only the tie and top of the collar are visible above the bench. Another thought -- Would you rather take one robe or multiple suits/jackets along for a five day hearing trip with 5-6 hearings per day? I haven't tried one on, but I assume a robe would not be much warmer than a suit jacket. Maybe they make multiple fabric weights for different climate situations.

I have been an ALJ for 2 1/2 yrs and I think the robe is appropriate for several reasons other than fashion practicalities. I'm in an office where a few old-timers don't wear one but where the rest, about 80% of the office including some of the vets, do.

First, I'm in a state where my salary is greater than any of the state judges, including those on the supreme court. And I didn't get this job by kissing the governor or spending my personal "fortune" on bogus I'm-against-crime, etc. election ads--I 'd like to think I got the job on personal merit alone. You can also appear here in any of great number of municipal courts where some $9000/yr, one-night-a-month, non-attorney will adjudicate your $75 wrong-turn violation while. . .wearing a robe! So I feel no reason to feel bashful about wearing it.

Second, if you're not arrogant to start, the robe isn't going to make you that way.

Third, it's all about respect. It shows respect for the adjudication process (deeply flawed as it may be). More important, those of you who become new judges are going to learn pretty quickly that while you typically get respect from the claimant/reps (after all, you mean $$ to them), you'll get little from the agency, the Appeals Council (god--that's a massive subject in and of itself) and the federal courts. In the end, the least you can do is respect yourself.

I also confess that robes are cheaper than suits. I was not going to mention it, since it seemed point out my basic cheapness. We wear khakis and knit shirts or casual button shirts on nonhearing days and simply wear a dress shirt and tie for hearings. Since we don't make a grand entrance you can wear whatever shoes you like. The female judges that have been here wore robes as well, with a blouse. I am not competent to describe the kind of blouses worn.

Since over 60% of our cases are in remote sites, most of us buy two robes and keep one in a hanging bag at home or in the trunk for the road.

In response to one question above, there is no dress code. ODAR will not buy you a robe. On days without hearings dress for comfort, you don't meet the public. It is like casual Friday every non hearing day.

Regarding Robes - here is what my insider source said:

"In XXXXX, ALL of the judges where robes during their hearings. On travel dockets in remote sites, it is usually a business suit. We have fewer and fewer travel dockets these days in light of video teleconferencing. I think that if you did a quick survey, you would find that most SSA ALJs where robes. We can get you the names of several folks that supply these if you like (from the cheapo depot folks right up to the cadillac edition)--we do not recommend church choir robes (unless you also pass the plate). . ."

That individual went on to say:

"Baby judge school will teach you the first two (2) rules right away (and the rest will fall into place after that):

(1) Don't be an ___hole!
(2) Don't be dumb in a no-dumb zone!

The issue about robes is not about the individual (never was). While it true that we provide only justice, not salvation, it is also true that robes are about the OFFICE you hold and the institution and the quasi-judicial process it stands for --business suits do not convey that meaning--robes do. Casual attire sets the tone for a casual hearing.

To the average claimant and his attorney, these are the same as courtroom hearings. If folks want to "dumb it down" to a casual chat around the dinner table, that is the kind of hearing you get.

The ALJ sets the tone and the demeanor for the hearing--in light of the fact that we are headed in a direction of more formal hearings (with some new rules to govern those procedures in the federal register), I think the "casual" crowd is backing the wrong horse--although I am an "old" judge in that I have been doing for XX+ years, I am still relatively young by ALJ standards ).

..."

Again, with ducking head, I remind you that I am merely passing on observations I have received, not condemning nor condoning.