Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Procedural rights: States that permit lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings (2020)
| This survey is part of a series of 50-state surveys examining the five pillars key to understanding the administrative state |
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| •Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
Disclaimer:
The research presented on this page was completed in 2020. It has not been regularly updated since its completion. This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.
This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
This page contains information from a Ballotpedia survey about administrative due process and procedural rights. Ballotpedia reviewed all 50 state constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to determine which states permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings as of August 2020.
Because state administrative agencies are not part of the judicial branch of government, adjudication proceedings before them do not necessarily afford the same procedural protections as in a courtroom trial. Ballotpedia conducted this survey to see whether states allowed lawyers to represent those who come before state agencies to help them navigate adjudication procedures.
Understanding the procedural protections available during adjudication provides insight into procedural rights of citizens at the state level. Procedural rights is one of the five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state.
According to the Ballotpedia survey, 30 state APAs had provisions that explicitly permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings and 14 other state APAs had provisions that implied that lawyers were permitted as of August 2020. Thus, most states allowed parties to have legal representation help during adjudication proceedings.
This page features the following sections:
- Background and methodology
- Summary of key findings
- Table showing states that permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings
Background and methodology
Background
For this survey, Ballotpedia examined whether states permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings. Adjudication proceedings include agency determinations outside of the rulemaking process that aim to resolve disputes between either agencies and private parties or between two private parties. The adjudication process results in the issuance of an adjudicative order, which serves to settle the dispute and, in some cases, may set agency policy.
As administrative agencies are not part of the judicial branch but rather the executive branch, adjudication proceedings do not necessarily have all of the procedural protections associated with a trial in front of a state court.
Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs), which govern the procedures state administrative agencies must follow to issue regulations and adjudicate disputes, vary among the 50 states, but many offer fewer procedural protections for those accused of wrongdoing than a defendant would have in a courtroom.
Ballotpedia learned that 30 state APAs explicitly permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings, and 14 state APAs implied that parties may have representation.
Methodology
Ballotpedia examined all 50 state constitutions and Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) to see whether states permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings as of August 2020. Ballotpedia reviewed each provision involving agency orders, penalties, hearings, or appeals to see whether states allowed lawyers to represent parties and help them navigate adjudication procedures.
Other state laws might have permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings, but those were beyond the scope of this survey.
To see the specific legal provisions Ballotpedia used to categorize each state, click here.
Summary of findings
Ballotpedia's survey of state constitutions and APAs produced the following key takeaways (as of August 2020):
- 30 states had APAs with provisions that explicitly permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings.
- 14 states had APAs with provisions that implied lawyers may represent parties during adjudication proceedings.
- 6 states had APAs and constitutions that did not mention whether lawyers may represent parties during adjudication proceedings.
Results: States that permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings
The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates those with specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs permitting lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings.
means that the state explicitly permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings
means that the state APA or constitution implied that the state permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings
means that the state APA and constitution did not mention whether lawyers may represent parties during adjudication proceedings
Other state laws that might have permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings were beyond the scope of this survey.
| State | Constitution or APA provisions that permitted lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings |
|---|---|
| Alabama | 
|
| Alaska | 
|
| Arizona |
|
| Arkansas |
|
| California |
|
| Colorado |
|
| Connecticut | 
|
| Delaware |
|
| Florida |
|
| Georgia |
|
| Hawaii |
|
| Idaho |
|
| Illinois |
|
| Indiana |
|
| Iowa |
|
| Kansas |
|
| Kentucky |
|
| Louisiana |
|
| Maine |
|
| Maryland |
|
| Massachusetts |
|
| Michigan |
|
| Minnesota |
|
| Mississippi |
|
| Missouri |
|
| Montana |
|
| Nebraska |
|
| Nevada |
|
| New Hampshire |
|
| New Jersey |
|
| New Mexico |
|
| New York |
|
| North Carolina |
|
| North Dakota |
|
| Ohio |
|
| Oklahoma |
|
| Oregon |
|
| Pennsylvania |
|
| Rhode Island |
|
| South Carolina |
|
| South Dakota |
|
| Tennessee |
|
| Texas |
|
| Utah |
|
| Vermont |
|
| Virginia |
|
| Washington |
|
| West Virginia |
|
| Wisconsin |
|
| Wyoming |
|
See also
Footnotes
