The privilege and the pressure: judges' and magistrates' reflections on the sources and impacts of stress in judicial work.

There is growing evidence that judges and magistrates experience both high stress and high satisfaction in their work; however, the subjective experience of judicial stress and the cultural and professional factors shaping that experience remain largely unexamined. This qualitative study builds upon earlier quantitative research with the Australian judiciary, by exploring judges' and magistrates' perceptions of the sources and impacts of judicial stress and their ideas for court responses. Thematic analysis of 59 in-depth interviews with judicial officers from five Australian courts revealed eight themes pertaining to the better understanding and management of occupational stress within the judiciary. Implications for courts and individual judicial officers are discussed.

Where stress presides: predictors and correlates of stress among Australian judges and magistrates.

Recent research on the nature, prevalence and severity of judicial stress in Australia has revealed a considerable burden of stress placed upon the judicial system. This article builds upon this research by exploring the demographic and workplace factors associated with elevated stress among Australian judicial officers. A survey of 152 judicial officers from 5 Australian courts found that judicial stress - operationalised as non-specific psychological distress, depressive and anxious symptoms, burnout and secondary traumatic stress - was predicted by satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. The only demographic variable found to be reliably associated with judicial stress was jurisdiction: compared with judicial officers in the higher jurisdictions (i.e. judges), those in the summary jurisdictions (i.e. magistrates) reported significantly higher levels of stress and significantly lower levels of basic psychological needs satisfaction. Implications and areas for future research are discussed. Alcohol use and dependence was not associated with levels of stress or needs satisfaction.

Court innovations and access to justice in times of crisis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disrupted not only the health sector but also justice systems. Courts around the world have had to respond quickly to the challenges presented by the pandemic and the associated social distancing restrictions. This has created significant challenges for the justice system and such challenges are likely to be further compounded in the post-pandemic era as there is a 'tsunami' of COVID-19-related disputes predicted. METHODS: This study will examine how global court responses have transitioned from being primarily traditional, face-to-face proceedings to online court processes (as supported by internet technology). By adopting a comparative approach, we will analyse how some countries have adapted to this shift to online mode while also maintaining a focus on access to justice. RESULTS: We argue that online modes of dispute resolution, often referred to as Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), can promote resolution while facilitating social distancing in this new COVID-era. The rapid shift from traditional court processes to an online mode has further assisted the public, lawyers and experts to access the justice system in some jurisdictions, even during the crisis. In light of the scale of recent changes, there have been concerns about the capacity of courts to adopt newer technologies as well as issues relating to the impact of a new online model of justice, particularly in terms of the barriers for more vulnerable members of society. Further, the use of disruptive technologies in some courts have posed questions around whether outcomes generated by these innovations reflect the meaning of 'justice' in its traditional sense. CONCLUSIONS: This article argues that courts should embrace newer technologies that support court services while being mindful of possible tech-related issues that can impact on justice objectives. We argue that by placing further emphasis on alternative dispute resolution methods and ODR into the future, this might offset the likely tsunami of COVID-related litigation which would enable courts, hospitals, medical professionals and patients to settle disputes in a just, equitable and more efficient manner.

Implications for therapeutic judging (TJ) of a psychoanalytical approach to the judicial role - Reflections on Robert Burt's contribution.

Robert Burt in, "The Yale School of Law and Psychoanalysis, from 1963 Onward", in this issue, explains and laments a decline in influence of psychoanalytic ideas in legal thinking. He notes "the fundamental similarity that both litigation and psychotherapy involve recollections of past events", buttressing his argument with eight parallels between the two. In this article we take up Burt's theme, first noting the relationship between therapeutic jurisprudence and psychoanalytic concepts before presenting an outline for a psychoanalytical understanding of the judicial role. We then consider the litigation process from the linked perspectives of therapeutic jurisprudence and psychoanalysis before closing with a reflection on the eight parallels elaborated by Burt.