The American Bar Association (ABA) has made a formal request to the federal judiciary to discontinue the usage of the term “court-appointed master” from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The ABA believes this term carries potentially negative connotations due to societal changes in the understanding and implications of certain words and phrases.
Historically, the role of a “court-appointed master” is to assist a federal court in carrying out its duties. These responsibilities can range greatly from overseeing complex litigation matters to ensuring compliance with court orders. The phrase “master” in this context pertains to the expertise and authority of the individual, not a relation of dominance or servitude.
However, in a world increasingly attuned to language, its pervasiveness and power, the ABA is concerned that the term could inadvertently project an image of hierarchy or domination that is not representative of the judiciary’s mission or the role of “master” itself. A term that reflects the more sensitive understanding of words in our society can support the general public’s trust in the justice system.
In the recommendation submitted by the ABA to the federal judiciary, the association did not propose a specific replacement for the term. The selection of an acceptable alternative would require consideration, discussion, and agreement among relevant stakeholders, including legal professionals and judges working in federal and state court systems.
As legal professionals who use these terms daily in our lines of work, the potential change necessitates important reflection. How does the language we use in our profession reflect societal attitudes and shifts? Profit from this moment not only as a time of change but also as an opportunity for self-review and adaptation to a world that continues to evolve.
For more detailed information, you may refer to the original document submitted by the ABA here.