Let's say you're a teacher in a school and there's an administrative claim against you. The first thing I point out, they don't tell you if you want to file a motion to dismiss; it has to be done within 20 days of the court appointing the judge in your state's division of administrative hearings. Second, they have a nasty habit of ignoring requests for live hearings; they want everything on zoom. The problem with that, if a witness is lying; it's harder to lie to someone's face and zoom court takes away that advantage. There's also the judges responsibility to assess credibility, that's more challenging in a zoom environment.
Here's a good thing, you may have 'clear and convincing' as the standard of evidence rather than preponderance. Clear evidence means their memories are fresh, free from bias, thinking logically and not contradictory; of course that's a textbook answer and you need to experience it in the real world. Convincing means it needs to be credible, corroborated and fulfill the charges. If a judge hesitates to state the petitioner did not meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence then they haven't.
The statutes should be interpreted narrowly, and these are broad statutes; strongly consider how that should be used.
If the material allegations are poorly worded, you can do a motion to dismiss within 20 days of the start (it's either from initial order or from when the judge is assigned, check with your state.) The issue is, do you want to keep this wording or try to get it tossed and they rewrite it. It's very unlikely the judge will add 'with prejudice' so getting it tossed on MTD is unlikely, they might not bring it back but likely will; the goal is to force them to clarify the allegation if you do that here.
The ALJ doesn't really have a right to dismiss a case during the hearing like a judge does, even though they could say "I agree, I'm issuing a recommended order finding for the respondent." they won't and they'll say they don't have the authority.
Learn cross examination, 2 sources: Trying cases to win in one volume (easier to find than the much larger cross examination alone book) and watch Irving Younger's 10 commandments of cross examination.
make an 'objections cheat sheet.'
The way this goes, motions before hearing, a brief opening statement/argument (3 min), they call their witnesses (cross examination on each should be a brief commando raid like Irving Younger states, impeaching each witness against you.) then you're statement, they may or may not choose to cross examine you, then you do your summation/closing argument. This is followed by both parties submitting their recommended order suggestions, the alj makes a final recommended order; you can plead exceptions if needed.