Do an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and a hearing officer typically perform the same functions?

Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and hearing officers generally perform similar functions in that they both preside over administrative hearings, conduct fact-finding, and make decisions on disputes involving government agencies, regulations, and the parties involved. Their primary role involves ensuring that the due process of law is followed during these hearings, which may include ruling on the admissibility of evidence, overseeing witness testimonies, and ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.

Both ALJs and hearing officers are tasked with assessing the credibility of witnesses and the overall merits of the cases presented to them, with the authority to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. They may be relied upon to draft proposed decisions or recommendations to the agency or other authority responsible for final decisions.

While the terminology and organizational contexts may differ—ALJs are commonly linked with federal or state agencies following specific statutory provisions, while the term "hearing officer" might be used more broadly across various governmental levels and contexts—the core functions they perform are largely consistent across both roles. This shared functionality reinforces the understanding that both positions aim to ensure a fair, impartial, and orderly process in administrative proceedings.