|
Post by rov on Aug 14, 2013 12:20:51 GMT -5
I just finished paying $375 for my biennial NY State bar dues. Is there any movement in ODAR to do away with ALJ's having to remain active with their State Bar and continue paying these dues? I remember some time back there was a discussion regarding this. Any info would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Aug 14, 2013 12:27:59 GMT -5
I just finished paying $375 for my biennial NY State bar dues. Is there any movement in ODAR to do away with ALJ's having to remain active with their State Bar and continue paying these dues? I remember some time back there was a discussion regarding this. Any info would be appreciated. The State bars probably decide that. My state bar just dropped our fee from $450 annually to $50 for a Federal ALJ, though we're still required to do CLE.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 14, 2013 12:28:40 GMT -5
I thought it depended on the requirements of the state(s) involved, as to whether one needed to maintain active membership. Meantime, those dues are tax deductible as a nonreimbursed employee business expense. On a side note-- you pay 375 every TWO years? My state bar charges more than that for one year. EDIT: Here's the thread about the proposed CFR change: www.aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/1656/cfr-proposal-remove-license-requirement
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Aug 14, 2013 13:04:39 GMT -5
I just finished paying $375 for my biennial NY State bar dues. Is there any movement in ODAR to do away with ALJ's having to remain active with their State Bar and continue paying these dues? I remember some time back there was a discussion regarding this. Any info would be appreciated. As far as I know, the requirement of active bar membership for ALJs has been suspended since 2008. 5 CFR § 930.204, as modified on July 18, 2008, provides as follows: Appointments and conditions of employment. (a) Appointment. An agency may appoint an individual to an administrative law judge position only with prior approval of OPM, except when it makes its selection from the list of eligibles provided by OPM. An administrative law judge receives a career appointment and is exempt from the probationary period requirements under part 315 of this chapter. An administrative law judge appointment is subject to investigation, and an administrative law judge is subject to the suitability requirements in part 731 of this chapter. (b) Licensure. (1) At the time of application and any new appointment and while serving as an administrative law judge, the individual must possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law under the laws of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territorial court established under the United States Constitution. Judicial status is acceptable in lieu of “active” status in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining “active” status to practice law. Being in “good standing” is also acceptable in lieu of “active” status in States where the licensing authority considers “good standing” as having a current license to practice law. (2) The requirements contained in paragraph (b)(1) are suspended until further notice with respect to incumbents serving as administrative law judges. * * * * * * * * * * In suspending the requirement of active Bar membership for ALJs, OPM explained its rationale as follows in the Federal Register: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing an interim rule suspending the requirement set forth in 5 CFR 930.204(b) that requires incumbent administrative law judges (``ALJs'') to ``possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law.'' This provision requires ALJs to maintain ``active status,'' (or ``judicial status'' in States that prohibit sitting judges from maintaining ``active status'' to practice law), or to be in ``good standing'' where the licensing authority considers ``good standing'' as having a current license to practice law. This licensure requirement set forth in section 930.204(b) henceforth will not apply to incumbent administrative law judges.
ALJ applicants are unaffected by this suspension, and the requirement that applicants possess a professional license to practice law and be authorized to practice law continues to apply. We remain convinced that active licensure at the time of application and appointment is vital as an indicator that the applicant presenting him or herself for assessment and possible appointment has been subject to rigorous ethical requirements right up to the point of appointment. We have reconsidered comments received during the notice and comment period, however, about the burdens imposed by the active licensure requirement, as it applies to incumbents, the potential differences between the ethical requirements that pertain to an advocate and those requirements that pertain to someone asked to adjudicate cases impartially, and the variations in what States require as to lawyers serving as ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by rov on Aug 14, 2013 13:43:44 GMT -5
By the way, I just checked the fine print of the New York State Attorney Registration Requirements, and discovered that ALJ's do not have to pay any fees. For those of you who are bared in NY, under the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge Part 118. Registration Of Attorneys, Section 118.1(g) Filing Fee requirement; a full time State or Federal judge is deemed “retired” from the practice of law and exempt from registration fees.
I hope I can get a refund...
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 14, 2013 13:59:13 GMT -5
By the way, I just checked the fine print of the New York State Attorney Registration Requirements, and discovered that ALJ's do not have to pay any fees. For those of you who are bared in NY, under the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge Part 118. Registration Of Attorneys, Section 118.1(g) Filing Fee requirement; a full time State or Federal judge is deemed “retired” from the practice of law and exempt from registration fees. I hope I can get a refund... Does that include state ALJs or federal ones, or just "judges" at those levels?
|
|
|
Post by rov on Aug 14, 2013 14:14:50 GMT -5
Although it does not mention ALJ's specifically, the rule states: "No fee shall be required from an attorney who certifies that he or she has retired from the pracice of law.... For purposes of section 468-a of the Judiciary Law, a full-time judge or justice of the Unified Court System of the State of New York or of a court of any other state or of a federal court, shall be deemed 'retired' from the practice of law." Here is the link: www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/118.shtml Let me know if you have a different interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Aug 14, 2013 14:20:07 GMT -5
Since I know nothing according to several on here, I hesitate to post, but... The interim suspension of the requirement to possess an active license is B.S. Several Judges got caught in that years ago and had to renew licensure in various states, or lose their ALJ position, requiring big bucks and many CLE hours. Some states do not require fees or CLE of some Judges to remain active. Each state may be different. Believe me if you wish...
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 14, 2013 14:34:36 GMT -5
Although it does not mention ALJ's specifically, the rule states: "No fee shall be required from an attorney who certifies that he or she has retired from the pracice of law.... For purposes of section 468-a of the Judiciary Law, a full-time judge or justice of the Unified Court System of the State of New York or of a court of any other state or of a federal court, shall be deemed 'retired' from the practice of law." Here is the link: www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/118.shtml Let me know if you have a different interpretation. I think the words like "court" and "unified court system" take ALJ's out of the exemption. They don't qualify for judicial status in my state, either.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 14, 2013 15:14:43 GMT -5
I frankly would not want to take the risk of not paying the minor fee (yes, I think a few hundred dollars a year is minor compared to the vast amount of money / time/ sacrifice it took to get the license in the first place) in case the requirement changed. Heck, I still keep my RN license and do the continuing education for it! Licenses are too hard to get and totally not worth losing. You never know what might happen some day in the future and that kind of regret is not worth a few hundred dollars a year.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 14, 2013 15:20:32 GMT -5
Since I know nothing according to several on here, I hesitate to post, but... The interim suspension of the requirement to possess an active license is B.S. Several Judges got caught in that years ago and had to renew licensure in various states, or lose their ALJ position, requiring big bucks and many CLE hours. Some states do not require fees or CLE of some Judges to remain active. Each state may be different. Believe me if you wish... Exactly. No way would it be worth getting caught trying to scramble and renew a license! Some things are not worth the risk, and this ranks way up there IMHO!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 14, 2013 15:21:12 GMT -5
I frankly would not want to take the risk of not paying the minor fee (yes, I think a few hundred dollars a year is minor compared to the vast amount of money / time/ sacrifice it took to get the license in the first place) in case the requirement changed. Heck, I still keep my RN license and do the continuing education for it! Licenses are too hard to get and totally not worth losing. You never know what might happen some day in the future and that kind of regret is not worth a few hundred dollars a year. I am with you 100% sratty. The cost is minimal to keep the license. If you are having that much trouble paying those dues, maybe you need to do a monthly budget to check on how your money is being spent that you cannot afford those dues.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 14, 2013 16:08:14 GMT -5
Plus if you ever went back to practice some states are not at all forgiving about lapses in licensure.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 14, 2013 17:30:43 GMT -5
Federal ALJs have to be liscensed. Some have Bars that excempt them from CLE. Some ALJs get duty or admin time to do CLE.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 14, 2013 18:07:57 GMT -5
Federal ALJs have to be liscensed. Some have Bars that excempt them from CLE. Some ALJs get duty or admin time to do CLE. We get admin leave for CLE every year at SSA (as an attorney in general, not just for ALJs). We do not get the cost of the CLE reimbursed, but of course the tax deduction is available. My state exempts the occupation tax if you are a government attorney or a state or federal judge. There are not many perks available in government work, but I think the job security is a pretty good trade off. Not to mention all the other benefits that have been discussed at length elsewhere on the board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 21:14:18 GMT -5
My home state, Mississippi, altered their rules a few years ago to allow ALJ's to be on "judicial" status. No bar dues, no CLE. I might give someone in your State Bar a call. Hate to pay the dues and do the CLE if you don't have to.
R
|
|
|
Post by minny on Aug 14, 2013 22:48:02 GMT -5
On a side note-- you pay 375 every TWO years? My state bar charges more than that for one year. Just what I was thinking - I'm licensed in two states and pay this in each annually.
|
|
|
Post by rov on Aug 15, 2013 6:15:15 GMT -5
robg, I'm with you. Why pay for something if you don't have to. However, just to double check, I e-mailed my State Br with the question and here is their response: "Thank you for writing - Part 118 provides that any "...full-time judge or justice of the Unified Court System of the State of New York or of a court of any other state or of a federal court, shall be deemed "retired" from the practice of law," and therefore exempt from paying the biennial fee. The rule does not unfortunately extend to judges of administrative agencies. For an administrative law judge to be exempt from paying the fee they would need to qualify under the primary definition of "retired" as defined in the rule - see: www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/118.shtml Quasi-judicial officers, are not automatically deemed "retired", as are judges, for purposes of exemption from the registration fee. However, your services as an ALJ is also not considered to be the practice of law as defined in the rule. Thus, if you do not intend to engage in the paid practice of law in the future, then you may qualify to certify as retired from the practice of law, and are exempt from the fee requirement. Your status as "retired" will turn on your intent to ever practice law. If you can provide such a statement and certification you may qualify for a refund of your recently paid biennial fee and for any future fees. But please read the definition carefully to ensure that you understand the definition of "retired" as defined in the rule. Sam Younger Deputy Director Office of Court Administration Division of Administrative Services 212-428-2809 fax - 212-428-2819" So it appears ALJ's fall within a gray area. Under these cirumstances, I would agree it is not worth the risk and would be best to pay the dues and stay active. Thanks everyone for all the feedback.
|
|
|
Post by statman on Aug 15, 2013 9:13:31 GMT -5
I actually queried the NY authority responsible for answering questions and they would not say one way or another whether US ALJs are exempt. They told me to read the statute and decide for myself. After consulting with another ALJ, I decided that I was exempt and that being a US ALJ was within the meaning of the statute. It is certainly within the spirit of the statute because US ALJs cannot otherwise practice law, at least for money and probably even pro bono.
I do not think there is any risk in this at all, because the issue will never be raised by anybody and because I am convinced that the above interpretion is correct.
|
|
|
Post by ruonthelist on Aug 15, 2013 11:36:56 GMT -5
I agree with the approach of checking with your state bar before you take any steps that affect your membership. In states that have a judicial membership category (not all of them do) you should treat the word “judge” in the bar regulations as a term of art. Your federal job title of “judge” may or may not bring you within the definition that the state bar uses.
There is a huge variety in state practice on this. Some states have no judicial status, others have judicial status but restrict it to judges of state courts, or state and federal courts of general jurisdiction. Others allow ALJs and other adjudicatory officers to be judicial members. Still others have a variety of categories with names like “inactive” “associate” or “retired” that are available to administrative adjudicators who do not practice law.
OPM attempted, in the regulation that SSAER quoted, to enact a single bright-line, one-size-fits-all approach several years ago without attempting to incorporate, or even research, the different rules in the different states. The proposed rule proved to be unworkable and they ended up suspending it in 2008. They could in theory revive the attempt, which is all the more reason not to take any steps with regard to your status until you have thoroughly researched the rules in your state(s) of licensure.
|
|