Special Master: Can They Control A Law Firm?

A special master is an independent party appointed by a court to help with a case. They are frequently but not necessarily attorneys and are often former judges. Special masters can be appointed in complex litigation to help manage disputes, ensure compliance with orders, and supervise those falling under a court order. They can also make rulings on evidence and make recommendations to the judge about factual findings. In the federal judiciary of the United States, a special master is an adjunct to a federal court. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a federal court to appoint a special master with the consent of the parties involved. Given this information, it is unlikely that a special master can take over a law firm.

Special masters are adjuncts to federal courts

Special masters can be appointed in complex litigation to help manage the case and benefit the parties and the court. They can be used strategically to save time and resources. For example, they can be appointed to make rulings on evidence and resolve disputes between parties about documents. They can also make recommendations to the judge about factual findings. Special masters are often appointed as facilitators in child custody cases, where they help manage disputes and ensure compliance with custody arrangements.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed a special master to oversee the dispensation of an $11 billion victims' compensation fund. Special masters also often play crucial roles in original jurisdiction cases decided by the Supreme Court, especially in disputes involving state boundaries. In such cases, special masters resolve questions of geography or historical claims.

The appointment of special masters can be controversial and has been cited by critics as an example of judicial overreach. The role of the special master is to act as an independent party to help with a case, but their appointment can interfere with ongoing criminal investigations.

They are appointed by federal courts to conduct proceedings

A special master is an independent party appointed by a federal court to help with a case. They are frequently, but not always, former judges or attorneys. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a federal court to appoint a special master, with the consent of the parties, to conduct proceedings and report to the Court.

The role of the special master is to supervise those falling under the order of the court to ensure that the court order is being followed and to report on the activities of the entity being supervised in a timely manner to the judge or the judge's designated representatives. They can make rulings on evidence and resolve disputes between parties about documents. They can also make recommendations to the judge about factual findings. Courts appoint masters when they cannot effectively or timely deal with a case. For example, cases that involve complex scientific or technical issues that an expert may be in a better position to handle than a judge or lawyer.

Special masters have been appointed in several high-profile cases. For example, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Kenneth Feinberg as a special master to oversee the dispensation of an $11 billion victims' compensation fund. In the Uber lawsuit, Judge William Alsup appointed a special master to determine whether Uber violated discovery rules by not disclosing the "Richard Jacobs letter".

In summary, a special master is an adjunct to a federal court, appointed to conduct proceedings, supervise those under court orders, and report back to the court. They are appointed to help with the effective and timely management of cases, particularly those with complex or technical issues.

Special masters are independent parties appointed by courts to help with a case

A special master is an independent party appointed by a court to help with a case. They are often former judges or attorneys, but this is not always the case. Special masters are appointed with the consent of the parties involved in the case and are tasked with conducting proceedings and reporting to the court. They can do many of the things a judge can do, such as making rulings on evidence and resolving disputes between parties. They also supervise those under a court order to ensure compliance and report on the activities of the entity being supervised to the judge or their designated representatives.

The appointment of a special master is particularly useful in cases with complex scientific or technical issues, where an expert may be better equipped to handle certain aspects of the case than a judge or lawyer. They are also beneficial in cases with large numbers of documents that a busy judge might not have time to review. Special masters are often appointed as facilitators in child custody cases to help manage disputes and ensure compliance with custody arrangements. Additionally, they play crucial roles in original jurisdiction cases decided by the Supreme Court, especially in disputes involving state boundaries.

The use of special masters can be strategically employed to benefit both the parties and the court in complex litigation. They can act as referees and help manage disputes and ensure compliance with court orders. In certain instances, special masters are appointed to advise the court on technical issues and investigate specific claims. For example, in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft, Judge Jackson appointed Professor Lawrence Lessig as a special master to advise the court on technical matters and examine certain claims made by Microsoft.

The role of the special master has been controversial in some cases, with critics citing it as an example of judicial overreach. One notable instance of controversy surrounding the role of a special master was in the aftermath of the FBI search of former US President Donald Trump's residence, Mar-a-Lago. Trump requested the appointment of a "neutral" special master to review the highly sensitive documents seized during the search for potential attorney-client privilege. This appointment was granted but was appealed by the Department of Justice, arguing that it would "irreparably harm the government and the public" by requiring the sharing of highly classified materials with the special master.

They are often former judges

A special master is an independent party appointed by a court to help with a case. They are frequently former judges, but they are not always. In the federal judiciary of the United States, a special master is an adjunct to a federal court. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a federal court to appoint a special master, with the consent of the parties, to conduct proceedings and report to the court.

The role of the special master is to supervise those falling under the order of the court to ensure that the court order is being followed and to report on the activities of the supervised entity to the judge or the judge's designated representatives. They can do many of the things that a judge can do, such as making rulings on evidence and resolving disputes between parties about documents. They can also make recommendations to the judge about factual findings.

Special masters are often appointed as facilitators in child custody cases, where they help manage disputes and ensure compliance with custody arrangements. They also play crucial roles in original jurisdiction cases decided by the Supreme Court, especially in disputes involving state boundaries. In such cases, special masters resolve questions of geography or historical claims.

Special masters have been involved in several high-profile cases. For example, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Kenneth Feinberg as a special master to oversee the dispensation of an $11 billion victims' compensation fund. In the Uber lawsuit, Judge William Alsup appointed a special master to determine whether Uber violated discovery rules by not disclosing the "Richard Jacobs letter."

Special masters can be appointed in complex litigation

In the federal judiciary of the United States, a special master is an adjunct to a federal court. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a federal court to appoint a special master, with the consent of the parties, to conduct proceedings and report to the Court. The role of the special master, who is frequently but not always an attorney, is to supervise those falling under the court's order to ensure compliance and to report on the supervised entity's activities to the judge or their designated representatives. Special masters can be appointed in complex litigation, sometimes called referees in New York state courts, and can be strategically utilized to benefit the parties and the court.

Special masters are often appointed as facilitators in child custody cases, where they help manage disputes and ensure compliance with custody arrangements. They can also play crucial roles in original jurisdiction cases decided by the Supreme Court, especially in disputes involving state boundaries. In such cases, special masters resolve questions of geography or historical claims. For example, in U.S. v. Microsoft, Judge Jackson appointed Professor Lawrence Lessig as a special master to advise the court on technical issues and investigate certain claims.

Special masters can make rulings on evidence and resolve disputes between parties about documents. They can also make recommendations to the judge about factual findings. Courts appoint special masters when they cannot effectively or timely deal with a case, such as when a case involves complex scientific or technical issues that an expert may be better equipped to handle. Additionally, some cases involve large numbers of documents that a busy judge might not have time to review, particularly if there are multiple lawyers involved. In these situations, a court might appoint a special master to assist.

The appointment of a special master can be controversial and has been cited by critics as an example of judicial overreach. For instance, the appointment of a special master in the case of former President Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago interfered with the government's ongoing criminal investigation. The Department of Justice appealed the appointment on the grounds that it would "irreparably harm the government and the public by unnecessarily requiring the sharing of highly classified materials with a special master".

Frequently asked questions