I know that uauslly we do not think of judging as 'labour', but if we wished to do so, would you prefer saying "judiciary labour" or rather "juridicial labour"? Do both of them sound just too odd?

  • I'd call it "judging", or if you really want to include the word labor, then "judicial labor"; but labor has overtones of manual labor, and law is not a physical profession. It causes cognitive dissonance.
    – Dan Bron
    Commented May 4, 2016 at 16:49
  • I am well aware of this cognitive dissonance, this is exactly what I want to achieve by thinking of judging in terms of 'labour'. Should it then be 'judging labour'? Does it sound better than the other two options? Commented May 4, 2016 at 17:01
  • Intellectual labor can still be treated as labor, and it is valid and important so to treat it in certain contexts, e.g., where professors are unionized, and where judges may protest their case-loads. And then, of course, there is Peter Cook's immortal comparison of judging with mining. Of the two adjectives, I'd favor *juridical (with only 2 i's, though). Commented May 4, 2016 at 17:02

1 Answer 1


I'd say the two are not exactly the same.

Judiciary labour means labour pertaining to the established judiciary, whereas juridicial labour is simply labour relating to the process or administration of law.

It depends entirely on what you're trying to say.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.