UNLIKE LEGISLATURES, ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONMAKERS MAY EXERCISE ONLY LIMITED DISCRETION. FACED WITH THE TASK OF REGULATING THE ACTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONMAKERS, THE COURTS FOUND THEIR OWN DECISIONMAKING PROCESSES A CONVENIENT AND FAMILIAR MODEL. HOWEVER, A COUNTERVAILING MOVEMENT HOLDS THAT THE JUDICIAL MODEL IS INAPPROPRIATE WHEN APPLIED TO ADMINISTRATION AND THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONMAKING SETS AGENCIES APART AS DISTINCT ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT SERVING DIFFERENT VALUES AND USING NONJUDICIAL MODES OF ANALYSIS. THIS MOVEMENT HAS FOSTERED PROCEDURES UNIQUE TO ADMINISTRATION AND HAS LED TO A PARTNERSHIP RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COURTS AND THE AGENCIES IN SOME AREAS. THIS RELATIONSHIP RECOGNIZES THE AGENCIES AS PRIMARY FACT FINDERS OVER WHOM THE COURTS PERFORM A RESTRAINED SUPERVISORY FUNCTON. HOWEVER, REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS OF LAW REMAINS HIGHLY JUDICIALIZED. THE COURTS VIEW THE AGENCIES' EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON LEGAL QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING MODEL, UNDER WHICH THE COURT MAY DEFER TO AN AGENCY'S CONCLUSION OR REVIEW THE CONCLUSION AS THOUGH THE POWER OF DECISION RESTED WITH THE JUDICIARY, NOT THE AGENCY. THUS JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THIS AREA MAY RANGE FROM ESSENTIALLY NO REVIEW AT ALL TO STRICT SCRUTINY IN WHICH THE COURT SUBSTITUTES ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE AGENCY. IT IS ARGUED THAT ALL LAWMAKING INVOLVES THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION AND THAT THE COURTS SHOULD APPLY THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION REVIEW CUSTOMARILY APPLIED TO AGENCY DETERMINATONS OF FACT TO AGENCY DETERMINATIONS OF LAW AS WELL. IN THAT THEY APPEAR TO DEFER REGULARLY TO THE AGENCIES' JUDGMENT, THE COURTS ALREADY ARE DOING THIS IN A SENSE. THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE CONTINUED AND STRENGTHENED BY STRUCTURING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY DETERMINATIONS OF LAW AROUND ELEMENTS OF THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION REVIEW ESTABLISHED IN OTHER AREAS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)