Not all litigation takes place in a courtroom. Many adversarial proceedings are administered by specialized agencies that have authority over a specific subject matter. And although these hearings are technically not “court,” they often have characteristics that resemble courtroom proceedings. As a result, clients retain litigators or other lawyers who specialize in that particular proceeding to represent them in connection with those hearings.

Why should you read this post about administrative hearings?

You think courtroom drama is too dramatic and not technical enough.
You’re interested in a debate about how much courts should defer to bureaucrats/experts in their decisions.
You wonder about how allegations of certain technical violations get decided.

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safety_Board#/media/File:NTSBheadquarters.jpg

What Types of Cases Have Administrative Hearings

Municipalities, states, and the federal government pass laws that regulate certain conduct. And some of those laws state that an administrative agency is responsible for either investigating or hearing complaints about violations of those laws.

One classic area where administrative agencies govern is employment law. Various government entities have enacted laws, among other things, requiring a minimum wage and prohibiting discrimination. These same entities have often also created agencies to enforce those laws, such as the U.S. Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the New York State Department of Labor, and the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

Other areas where administrative agencies govern are ones where very technical rules apply, such as in antitrust law, where the Federal Trade Commission hears cases, patent law, where the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office conducts hearings, or broadcasting rules, where the Federal Communication Commission hears cases.

Administrative Procedures Vary

Just like different court systems have different procedural rules, different administrative agencies have different rules for how disputes are commenced and decided.

But often, either the government or an individual files a complaint with the agency, which prompts the agency to notify the other side that a complaint was filed against them. Then the agency often allows the other side to submit a response and then may conduct a hearing in an office building to decide the dispute. The presiding officer at the hearing is usually not a judge, someone elected or appointed by the chief executive, but someone called an “administrative law judge” or “ALJ.” An ALJ is an employee of the agency who decides matters on behalf of the agency. Many agencies also have procedures for appeals within the agency.

There have been some efforts to make administrative agencies consistent in how they conduct hearings. The federal Administrative Procedure Act sets certain standards for federal agency hearings. And in New York City, multiple city agency hearings are conducted by a single office, the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings.

Although many litigators are able to represent their clients in many kinds of administrative hearings, some attorneys specialize in certain types of hearings because they are very familiar with the procedures of the agency and with what kinds of arguments will persuade the ALJs there.

Challenging The Result of the Hearing

Typically, when one side loses at an administrative hearing, they want to challenge the agency’s decision. They can do so by going to court, but it is often hard to win.

Courts often defer to the decisions of an agency on questions of fact so long as they are supported by “substantial evidence,” and, in certain instances, defer to the agency on questions of law as well.

That doesn’t mean that litigants always lose when they challenge an agency decision. Instead, they often need to show that the agency exceeded its statutory authority, or that the agency acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner when it rendered its decison. While many litigants that lose at the hearing level feel that the adverse agency decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” that standard is often hard to meet, especially if valid grounds existed to support the agency’s decision.