Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T06:08:40.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Professional Project of Parajudges: The Case of U.S. Magistrates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Carroll Seron
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Magistrate Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-578, tit. I, § 101, 82 Stat. 1113) introduced a new tier of judicial officers into the federal district courts. As a result of this act and two amendments (Pub. L. 94-577, § 1, 90 Stat. 2729 (1976); Pub. L. 96-82, § 2, 93 Stat. 643 (1979)), magistrates may now work on a wide variety of civil and criminal pretrial tasks at the discretion of Article III judges; indeed, with the consent of both parties, magistrates may hold jury trials in civil cases. In addition, the act and the amendments encourage courts to delegate “additional duties” to magistrates with a view toward developing innovative work relations between two tiers of judicial officers.

Since both groups are lawyers, magistrates and Article III judges share the same formal training and professional expertise. Organizationally, however, magistrates work for federal judges. There is the potential, therefore, for a wide variety of work relations between these two tiers of judicial officers. The history of magistrates' “professional project” (Larson, 1977) to expand their formal duties, their autonomy and control over decision making, and their organizational status provides a useful entry point for analyzing recent developments in judicial work relations, the subject of this article.

I will first report the results of a study of U.S. magistrates. These findings suggest a typology of three distinct patterns of response to these new judicial officers: additional judge, bureaucrat, and team player. I next consider why courts opt for the occupational models they do. Finally, I speculate about the implications of the variations for understanding contemporary developments in judging and judicial process.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , 1988 , pp. 557 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by The Law and Society Association

References

References

ABEL, Richard (1982) “The Politics of Informal Justice,” in Abel, R. (ed.), The Politics of Informal Justice. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
ALSCHULER, Albert (1986) “Mediation with a Mugger: Concerning the Shortage of Adjudicatory Services and the Need for a Two-Tier System in Civil Cases,” 99 Harvard Law Review 1808.Google Scholar
BLAU, Peter (1955) The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
BENDIX, Reinhardt (1956) Work and Authority in Industry. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
BLEDSTEIN, Barton J. (1976) The Culture of Professionalism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
CHAYES, Abram (1976) “The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,” 89 Harvard Law Review 1281.Google Scholar
DANIELS, Stephen (1985) “Continuity and Change in Patterns of Case Handling: A Case Study of Two Rural Counties,” 19 Law & Society Review 381.Google Scholar
DANIELS, Stephen (1984) “Ladders and Bushes: The Problem of Caseloads and Studying Court Activities over Time,” 1984 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 751.Google Scholar
DERBER, Charles (1982) Professionals as Workers: Mental Labor in Advanced Capitalism. Boston: G.K. Hall.Google Scholar
FISH, Peter (1973) The Politics of Federal Judicial Administration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
FISS, Owen (1981) “Against Settlement,” 93 Yale Law Journal 1073.Google Scholar
FREIDSON, Eliot (1975) Doctoring Together. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
FREIDSON, Eliot (1971) The Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Dodd, Mead.Google Scholar
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M. (1985) Total Justice. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M., and Robert V., PERCIVAL (1976) “A Tale of Two Courts: Litigation in Alameda and San Benito Counties,” 10 Law & Society Review 267.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1983) “Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) About Our Allegedly Litigious Society,” 31 UCLA Law Review 4.Google Scholar
HAUG, Marie (1973) “Deprofessionalization: An Alternate Hypothesis for the Future,” 20 Sociological Review Monograph 195.Google Scholar
HEINZ, John P., and Edward O., LAUMANN (1982) Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
HEYDEBRAND, Wolf (1983) “Technocratic Corporatism: Toward a Theory of Occupational and Organizational Transformation,” in R. Hall and R. Quinn (eds) Organizational Theory and Public Policy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
HEYDEBRAND, Wolf (1979) “The Technocratic Administration of Justice,” 2 Research in Law and Sociology 29.Google Scholar
HEYDEBRAND, Wolf (1977a) “The Context of Public Bureaucracies: An Organizational Analysis of Federal District Courts,” 11 Law & Society Review 749.Google Scholar
HEYDEBRAND, Wolf (1977b) “Organizational Contradictions in Public Bureaucracies: Toward a Marxian Theory of Organizations,” 18 Sociological Quarterly 83.Google Scholar
HEYDEBRAND, Wolf and Carroll, SERON (1987a) “The Organizational Structure of U.S. District Courts,” 2 International Journal of Sociology 63.Google Scholar
HEYDEBRAND, Wolf and Carroll, SERON (1987b) “The Rising Demand for Court Services: A Structural Explanation of the Caseload of U.S. District Courts,” 11 The Justice System Journal 303.Google Scholar
HEYDEBRAND, Wolf and Carroll, SERON (1981) “The Double Bind of the Capitalist Judicial System,” 9 International Journal of the Sociology of Law 407.Google Scholar
HIGGINBOTHAM, Patrick E. (1980) “Bureaucracy—The Carcinoma of the Federal Judiciary,” 31 Alabama Law Review 261.Google Scholar
KANTER, Rosabeth Moss (1983) The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
LARSON, Magali S. (1977) The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LINDBLOOM, Charles E. (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision-Making Through Mutual Adjustment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
LIPSEY, Michael (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
LOWI, Theodore (1979) The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
McCABE, Peter (1979) “The Federal Magistrates Act of 1979,” 16 Harvard Journal on Legislation 343.Google Scholar
MANNHEIM, Karl (1936) Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
MENKEL-MEADOW, Carrie (1985) “Portia in a Different Voice: Speculations on a Women's Lawyering Process,” 1 Berkeley Women's Law Journal 39.Google Scholar
MENKEL-MEADOW, Carrie (1984) “Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving,” 31 UCLA Law Review 754.Google Scholar
MERTON, Robert K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
OPPENHEIMER, Martin (1973) “The Proletarianization of the Professional,” in Halmos, P. (ed.), Professionalization and Social Change, vol. 20, Sociological Review Monograph.Google Scholar
POSNER, Richard (1985) The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
PROVINE, D. Marie (1987) “Managing Negotiated Settlement: Settlement Procedures in the Courts,” 12 Justice System Journal 91.Google Scholar
PROVINE, D. Marie (1986) Settlement Strategies for Federal District Judges. Washington, D.C.: The Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
PROVINE, D. Marie, and Carroll, SERON (1987) “Settlement as Usual.” Paper presented at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
RESNIK, Judith (1985) “The Mythic Meaning of Article III Courts,” 56 University of Colorado Law Review 581.Google Scholar
RESNIK, Judith (1982) “Managerial Judges,” 96 Harvard Law Review 376.Google Scholar
RESNIK, Judith (1984) “Tiers,” 57 Southern California Law Review 837.Google Scholar
ROLPH, Elizabeth, and Deborah, HENSLER (1984) “Court-Ordered Arbitration: The California Experience,” 3 Civil Justice Quarterly 97.Google Scholar
ROTHMAN, Robert (1984) “Deprofessionalization: The Case of Law in America,” 11 Sociology of Work and Occupations 183.Google Scholar
SCHWARZER, William (1978) “Managing Civil Litigation: The Trial Judge's Role,” 61 Judicature 401.Google Scholar
SERON, Carroll (1986) “Magistrates and the Work of the Federal Courts: A New Division of Labor,” 69 Judicature 353.Google Scholar
SERON, Carroll (1985) The Roles of Magistrates: Nine Case Studies. Washington, D.C: The Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
SERON, Carroll (1983) The Roles of Magistrates in the Federal District Courts. Washington, D.C: The Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
SERON, Carroll (1978) Judicial Reorganization: The Politics of Reform in the Federal Bankruptcy Court. Lexington, Mass.: D.C Heath.Google Scholar
SILBERMAN, Linda (1975) “Masters and Magistrates, Part II: The American Analogue,” 50 New York University Law Review 1297.Google Scholar
SKOWRONEK, Stephen (1984) Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1968) Economy and Society, Volume 1. New York: Bedminister Press.Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1946) “Bureaucracy,” in Gerth, H. and Mills, C.W. (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
WHEELER, Russell R., and Howard R., WHITCOMB (1976) Judicial Administration: Text and Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
WOLFE, Alan (1977) The Limits of Legitimacy: The Political Contradictions of Contemporary Capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
WOLIN, Sheldon (1960) Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

Case Cited

Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1984).Google Scholar

Rule Cited

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.Google Scholar

Statute Cited

Magistrate Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-578, tit. I, §101, 82 Stat. 1113 (1968); amended by Pub. L. 94-577, § 1, 90 Stat. 2729 (1976), Pub. L. 96-82, § 2, 93 Stat. 643 (1979).Google Scholar