In a transformative move for the legal field, the American Bar Association (ABA) has called for an end to the use of the term ‘court-appointed master.’ Their request threads on three key points: alignment with state practices, precision, and associations with slavery. This step, if taken, would bear significant implications for nomenclature within legal circles.
Prompted by a resolution passed by the ABA in August 2023, it now urges the federal judiciary to substitute the terms ‘master’ and ‘special master’ with ‘court-appointed neutral.’ The ABA emphasized in its letter dated February 12, 2024, and addressed to the Administrative Office of the US Courts, that the term ‘master’ implies a decision-making or recommending role to the court, which may not always be accurate. ‘Court-appointed neutral,’ the ABA suggests, is a more precise descriptor of their role.
Further, the term ‘master’ has a deeply historical and societal connotation linking it to slavery, particularly denoting a male with authority or control over another person. The ABA contends that this is another reason to do away with the term. A ‘court-appointed master’ is typically tasked with management of elements within complex litigation cases, examples being the hearing and determining of discovery motions and disputes.
The stellar examples of organizations such as the National Association of Women Judges, and states like Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, where the term ‘master’ has been discarded, were pointed out by the ABA. It is now on federal courts to follow this leading precedent.
Despite the active discussion, the Administration Office of the US courts has not commented on these suggested changes. The decision may be debated at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, scheduled on April 9 in Colorado.
The ABA’s request urges the legal world to reflect on the language used within legal institutions and challenges it to strive for more inclusive and accurate terminology.
Read more about the topic here.