Today’s Wall Street Journal features an interesting piece on the use of “judges for hire” — Inside the Little-Known World of Private Judging.

When I first saw the headline, still a bit blurry-eyed before morning caffeine, my mind immediately went to Judge Judy and other courtroom-style TV shows — which, of course, are really just arbitrations dressed up for entertainment. But that’s not what this article is about.

Though not well-known even in the legal profession, it is true: In many states you can hire a private party to serve as a judge. And unlike arbitration or mediation, the proceedings are typically public and the rulings are broadly appealable in the courts. The practice isn’t common, but it is seeing an uptick among civil litigants who can’t stomach lengthy delays and want to ensure they have a judge with relevant expertise.

* * *

Private judging is on the books in about 30 states, according to a Florida task force that has studied the practice. Some require anyone hired as a judge to have served in the public court system. Others require only experience as a lawyer.

Count me among those in the legal profession who had no idea this was even a thing. Thirty states? Really? How long has this been going on?

As I think about it more, I do recall hearing the term “private judging” tossed around – though rarely – and always assumed it was just another name for arbitration. Having spent my professional life in states that (apparently) don’t offer it, I never realized it was a distinct process. Frankly, I’m surprised it’s not used more often, especially for high-stakes cases. The WSJ article notes that it has, in fact, been used in several celebrity divorces.

So, for those of you who are already well-acquainted with private judging — enjoy your morning eye roll, go ahead and make fun of this hayseed in the comments. For the rest of us, consider this your introduction to a fascinating and little-known corner of the justice system.