Are registers of probate the ultimate bureaucrats?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not making this a poll because I want discussion.

Probate is the area of the common law dealing with wills and estates, as well as certain other things related to personal identity such as changing one's name. In Massachusetts and a few other Northeastern states, there are elected officials called "registers of probate" who administer both this process and family law processes dealing with things like domestic violence, custody of children, and divorce. Registers of probate are not judges, but assist probate judges and represent the probate court system to the public.

These are officials who have staggering amounts of power over people in some of the most delicate and traumatic moments of their lives, but ONLY in those moments. Their discretion is in many cases strictly limited by the terms of the wills or divorce/custody agreements that they enforce, what discretion they do have is normally exercised by the judges with whom they work, and one of their primary duties is to faciliate communication between the general public and The System writ large. All of these are hallmarks of modern bureaucratic rule, which some scholars have opposed to premodern tyrannical rule in which the state could do whatever it wanted to you for more or less whatever reason it wanted, but its ability to do so was limited to the immediate physical proximity of the monarch or his or her agents.

So, are registers of probate the ultimate bureaucrats, or at the very least an unusually good example of the concept among the vast archipelago of obscure elected positions that exist in this great land?