The American Bar Association (ABA) has urged the federal judiciary to revise its terminology, advocating for the discontinuation of the term “court-appointed master.” According to the ABA, the term carries negative connotations and fails to accurately represent the role of individuals assisting in litigation proceedings.
In a formal letter addressed to the judiciary’s rulemaking bodies, the ABA recommended replacing “court-appointed master” with the term “court-appointed neutral” within the Federal Rules of Procedure. The proposed alteration is set to be deliberated upon by the judiciary’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules during its upcoming meeting on April 9.
The ABA’s letter highlights concerns regarding the term “master,” noting its historical association with control or authority, particularly within the context of slavery. Moreover, it underscores the declining usage of the term in academic and real estate spheres, citing the growing preference for alternatives such as “primary bedroom.”
Shift in Terminology and Legal Practice
Several states, including Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, have already implemented changes in their court rules to replace “master” with different terms. Maryland and Delaware have opted for “magistrate,” while Pennsylvania has adopted “hearing officer.” Additionally, the American Arbitration Association has ceased the use of “master” in arbitration appointments, aligning with the ABA’s stance.
Court-appointed masters, also known as special masters, play pivotal roles in managing various aspects of legal cases, particularly in complex litigation scenarios. Apart from making decisions, they often facilitate dispute resolution and offer expertise in specialized areas such as science, forensics, or accounting.
The ABA contends that the term “master” may imply a unilateral decision-making authority, overshadowing the collaborative and multifaceted nature of the role. By advocating for the term “court-appointed neutral,” the ABA aims to underscore the role’s diverse functions in guiding litigation processes.
Expanding Role and Efficiency in Legal Proceedings
In addition to proposing terminology changes, the ABA has suggested lifting restrictions on court-appointed neutrals in U.S. bankruptcy cases. According to the ABA, allowing bankruptcy judges to appoint court-appointed neutrals could enhance case management efficiency. These neutrals could assist in resolving discovery disputes, investigating contested issues such as claims valuation, and providing expert insights on technical or specialized subjects like U.S. patent law.
Through these recommendations, the ABA seeks to modernize legal terminology and practices, ensuring alignment with evolving societal norms and enhancing the efficacy of legal proceedings.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.