What should someone working in “Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 23% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 57% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

US dataswitch to UK

Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers

determining existence and amount of liability according to current laws, conducting hearings to review and decide claims regarding issues and researching and analyzing laws, regulations. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: researching and analyzing laws, regulations, policies and precedent decisions to prepare for hearings and to determine conclusions. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 23%
changing shape: 20%
staying human: 57%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 37 out of 100 (32–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 14 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for administrative law judges, adjudicators, and hearing officers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, monitoring and directing the activities of trials and hearings to ensure that they are conducted fairly and that courts administer justice while safeguarding the legal rights of all involved parties, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.

Your week, as this page understands it

Conduct hearings to recommend or make decisions on claims concerning government programs or other government-related matters. Determine liability, sanctions, or penalties, or recommend the acceptance or rejection of claims or settlements. The job title says “administrative law judges”, “adjudicators” or “hearing officers”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: monitoring and directing the activities of trials and hearings to ensure that they are conducted fairly and that courts administer justice while safeguarding the legal rights of all involved parties. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But administrative law judges, adjudicators, and hearing officers is not one task. It is 14 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is monitoring and directing the activities of trials and hearings to ensure that they are conducted fairly and that courts administer justice while safeguarding the legal rights of all involved parties, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 23%
changing shape: 20%
staying human: 57%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

3 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Reviewing and evaluating data on documents
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Review and evaluate data on documents, such as claim applications, birth or death certificates, or physician or employer records.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading claim forms and records for relevant facts is document review software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching and analyzing laws, regulations, policies and precedent decisions to prepare for hearings and to determine conclusions
This is reading one thing and writing another: laws, regulations, policies and precedent decisions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Research and analyze laws, regulations, policies, and precedent decisions to prepare for hearings and to determine conclusions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Searching statutes, regulations and precedent is text research, and the material is all published.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Scheduling hearings
This is reading one thing and writing another: hearings in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Schedule hearings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Fitting hearings around the parties' availability is scheduling software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

3 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Preparing written opinions and decisions
The software now makes the first pass at written opinions, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Prepare written opinions and decisions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (40–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Drafting a decision from the case record is document work, but the judge must own and sign it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending the acceptance or rejection of claims or compromise settlements
The software now makes the first pass at the acceptance, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Recommend the acceptance or rejection of claims or compromise settlements according to laws, regulations, policies, and precedent decisions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: A recommendation can be drafted from the rules and the file, with a qualified reviewer deciding.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting studies of appeals procedures in field agencies to ensure adherence to legal requirements and to facilitate determination of cases
The software now makes the first pass at studies of appeals procedures, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Conduct studies of appeals procedures in field agencies to ensure adherence to legal requirements and to facilitate determination of cases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing how field offices follow procedure is documented analysis with the records available.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

8 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Determining existence and amount of liability according to current laws
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for existence, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Determine existence and amount of liability according to current laws, administrative and judicial precedents, and available evidence.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can weigh evidence against the rules, but deciding liability is legally the judge's own act.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conferring with individuals or organizations involved in cases to obtain relevant information
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for individuals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Confer with individuals or organizations involved in cases to obtain relevant information.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting the missing facts out of parties depends on knowing what to ask and who to press.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Ruling on exceptions, motions and admissibility of evidence
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for exceptions, motions and admissibility of evidence, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Rule on exceptions, motions, and admissibility of evidence.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Rulings on motions and evidence are acts the law reserves for the presiding official.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring and directing the activities of trials and hearings to ensure that they are conducted fairly and that courts administer justice while safeguarding the legal rights of all involved parties
This work happens in the physical world: the activities of trials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Monitor and direct the activities of trials and hearings to ensure that they are conducted fairly and that courts administer justice while safeguarding the legal rights of all involved parties.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running a fair hearing is legally the judge's job and depends on presence in the hearing room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 4 tasks

Authorizing payment of valid claims and determining method of payment
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for payment of valid claims, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Authorize payment of valid claims and determine method of payment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The claim checks are routine, but authorizing payment is a decision the law reserves for the adjudicator.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Explaining to claimants how they can appeal rulings that go against them
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for claimants how they can appeal rulings, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Explain to claimants how they can appeal rulings that go against them.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Appeal rights are standard information, but a claimant who has just lost needs it explained by a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Issuing subpoenas and administering oaths in preparation for formal hearings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: subpoenas, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Issue subpoenas and administer oaths in preparation for formal hearings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Administering an oath is a formal act a person must perform, though subpoenas are standard documents.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting hearings to review and decide claims regarding issues
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: hearings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Conduct hearings to review and decide claims regarding issues, such as social program eligibility, environmental protection, or enforcement of health and safety regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Hearing and deciding a claim is legally the adjudicator's own act, done with the parties present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $117,860a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
People doing this job: 16,370in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: laws, regulations, policies and precedent decisions in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: researching and analyzing laws, regulations and reviewing and evaluating data on documents. What it cannot do is be answerable: the activities of trials need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Researching and analyzing laws, regulations, policies and precedent decisions to prepare for hearings and to determine conclusions is going; monitoring and directing the activities of trials and hearings to ensure that they are conducted fairly and that courts administer justice while safeguarding the legal rights of all involved parties is not.

So, given all that: 23% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 20% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 57% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 14 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.

This week: one thing

Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.

What you end up holding: your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
How long it takes: about twenty minutes

If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.

Over the next 90 days

Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (monitoring and directing the activities of trials and hearings to ensure that they are conducted fairly and that courts administer justice while safeguarding the legal rights of all involved parties) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.

Over the next 12 months

Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles monitoring and directing the activities of trials and hearings to ensure that they are conducted fairly and that courts administer justice while safeguarding the legal rights of all involved parties, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to administrative law judges, adjudicators, and hearing officers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was arbitrators, mediators, and conciliators: only about 34% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 35.9% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 37/100 here, with only 23% of the task list in the top band, and “prepare written opinions and decisions” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Arbitrators, Mediators, and Conciliators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already rule on exceptions, motions, and admissibility of evidence, and their equivalent is to rule on exceptions, motions, or admissibility of evidence. Across both published task lists that is about 34% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 34% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route. It is a pay cut, in those words: $75,530 against your $117,860, 35.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already rule on exceptions, motions, and admissibility of evidence, and their equivalent is to rule on admissibility of evidence and methods of conducting testimony. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Paralegals and Legal Assistants
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already schedule hearings, and their equivalent is to call upon witnesses to testify at hearings. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $62,890 against your $117,860, 46.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 23% of its task weight, across 14 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The nearest United Kingdom equivalent is Barristers and judges. It is a close match rather than an identical one: the two countries draw the boundary of the job in slightly different places.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →close match

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for administrative law judges / adjudicators / hearing officers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 23% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for administrative law judges / adjudicators / hearing officers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for administrative law judges / adjudicators / hearing officers launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for administrative law judges / adjudicators / hearing officers yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for administrative law judges / adjudicators / hearing officers existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for administrative law judges / adjudicators / hearing officers launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 14 official task statements scored for Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers (United States, SOC 23-1021), 23% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 37 out of 100 (range 32–44, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Research and analyze laws, regulations, policies, and precedent decisions to prepare for hearings and to determine conclusions” (72/100, high); “Schedule hearings” (69/100, high); “Review and evaluate data on documents, such as claim applications, birth or death certificates, or physician or employer records” (66/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers” stay human?: About 57% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Conduct hearings to review and decide claims regarding issues, such as social program eligibility, environmental protection, or enforcement of health and saf…” (6/100, minimal); “Monitor and direct the activities of trials and hearings to ensure that they are conducted fairly and that courts administer justice while safeguarding the l…” (6/100, minimal); “Issue subpoenas and administer oaths in preparation for formal hearings” (9/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 23% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 57% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 14 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

Worth knowing about these figures

Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: onet-db (im-rt)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.