The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions.

The ultimate task of a judge is to settle a legal dispute in a final and publicly lawful manner in agreement with substantial partialities.

They can order police, military or judicial officials to execute searches, arrests, imprisonments, garnishments, detainment, seizures, deportations and similar actions.

However, judges also supervise that trial procedures are followed, in order to ensure consistency and impartiality and avoid arbitrariness.

Judges are often assisted by law clerks, referendaries and notaries in legal cases and by bailiffs or similar with security.

Judges must be able to research and process extensive lengths of documents, witness testimonies, and other case material, understand complex cases and possess a thorough understanding of the law and legal procedure, which requires excellent skills in logical reasoning, analysis and decision-making.

Judges work with people all the time; by the nature of the job, good dispute resolution and interpersonal skills are a necessity.

In contrast, in common law countries (UK, Ireland, Malta and the United States) the situation is reverse: over 70% of judges of the first instance are men.

[5] The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the office in 2020 and suspension of Pauline Newman in 2023 reinvigorated the discussion about mandatory retirement age for federal judges, but such change would require a constitutional amendment and is unlikely to be implemented soon.

[6] States have more flexibility in establishing a mandatory retirement age for judges, as was confirmed by the SCOTUS in its 1991 decision Gregory v. Ashcroft.

[7][8] A 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found significant positive effects on the performance of state Supreme Courts with mandatory retirement age for judges.

In many parts of the world, judges wear long robes (often in black or red) and sit on an elevated platform during trials (known as the bench).

However, in some of the Western United States, like California, judges did not always wear robes and instead wore everyday clothing.

The long wig often associated with judges is now reserved for ceremonial occasions, although it was part of the standard attire in previous centuries.

Judges of Hong Kong retain many of the English traditions such as wearing wigs and robes in trials.

'Judge, your lordship') before the transfer of sovereignty from the United Kingdom to China, and as Fat Goon Gok Ha (Hong Kong Cantonese: 法官閣下, romanized: faat3 gun1 gok3 haa6, lit.

The Bar Council of India had adopted a resolution in April 2006 and added a new Rule 49(1)(j) in the Advocates Act.

If it is a subordinate court, lawyers can use terms such as sir or any equivalent phrase in the regional language concerned.

Explaining the rationale behind the move, the Bar Council had held that the words such as My Lord and Your Lordship were "relics of the colonial past".

However, in an unprecedented move in October 2009, one of the judges of Madras HC, Justice K Chandru had banned lawyers from addressing his court as My Lord and Your Lordship.

In Malaysia, judges of the subordinate courts are addressed as Tuan or Puan ("Sir", "Madam"), or Your Honour.

[citation needed] Judges in Vietnam are addressed as Quý tòa (literally the "Honorable Court").

There is no special form of address; ordinary politeness is sufficient and the procedure lacks arcane rituals.

[12] In a district court (käräjäoikeus), ordinary judges work with the title käräjätuomari and the chairman is laamanni (lawspeaker).

[15] For civil, commercial and criminal cases presided over by a panel of judges the right address is Honorable Court.

Regardless of the specific term employed (judge or justice), the formal title is reduced to the postnominal abbreviation "J."

Individuals with judicial responsibilities who report to an executive branch official, rather than being a part of the judiciary, are often called "administrative law judges" (ALJs) in US practice.

Historically, such officials were previously known as hearing examiners or referees before American English settled on the ALJ title.

Judges who derive their authority from a contractual agreement of the parties to a dispute, rather than a governmental body, are called arbitrators.

They typically do not receive the honorific forms of address nor do they bear the symbolic trappings of a publicly appointed judge.