Judicial stress: the roles of gender and social support

Testing the model of judicial stress using a COVID-era survey of U.S. federal court personnel

Non-judicial court personnel, critical to a well-functioning justice system, experience overloaded dockets and the responsibility of making significant decisions, contributing to cognitive stress. Understanding and mitigating their stress is essential for maintaining judicial efficiency. We adapted Miller and Richardson's Model of Judicial Stress to assess stress in a broad sample of non-judicial court personnel (n = 122), including judges, lawyers, and administrative staff. Participants responded to surveys about their stress levels, job performance, and health; they also completed cognitive performance tasks. The findings indicated that stress negatively affected employee outcomes including cognitive performance, job performance, job satisfaction, and health outcomes. Notably, perceived job performance had declined compared to the previous year, suggesting that the pandemic was an additional significant stressor. Based on the data, the Model of Judicial Stress is also applicable to other types of courtroom personnel, underlining its relevance across various judicial roles.

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.

Vicarious trauma among legal practitioners and judicial officers

The term 'vicarious trauma' refers to a range of cumulative and harmful effects from exposure to the trauma of others and is now recognised as a category of causation in the diagnostic criteria of post-traumatic stress disorder. Legal practitioners may be exposed to the risk of harm from vicarious trauma in a number of occupational contexts. This article reviews recent case authority, including a 2023 prosecution of Court Services Victoria for failing to provide a safe workplace in the Coroners Court of Victoria and the High Court decision in Kozarov v Victoria (2022) and the Victoria Court of Appeal decision in Bersee v Victoria (2022). It considers measures that should be taken to provide a workplace for both legal practitioners and judicial officers that is as safe and without risks to health as is reasonably practicable.

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.

Prevalence and predictors of secondary trauma in the legal profession: a systematic review

There has been increased scrutiny of occupations that less obviously experience adverse impacts from indirect exposure to trauma. In legal professions, repeated exposure to clients who have experienced trauma comprises a significant part in the role of lawyers, attorneys, solicitors and judges. The current review aimed to explore the prevalence and risk factors of secondary trauma reported by such legal professionals. A systematic search using seven psychological and legal databases elicited 10 articles for review. Quality appraisal revealed several methodological frailties in the reviewed articles. Thus, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Results indicated comparatively high prevalence of secondary trauma in legal professionals, and highlighted predictors and correlates of secondary trauma (gender, work experience, personal trauma and level of exposure). The review emphasised significant variability between the studies making systematic comparisons challenging, as well as the need for further conceptually consistent and scientifically robust studies.

Inverse Correlation Between Distress and Performance in the Medical Rescuers Against COVID-19 in Wuhan

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese government had transferred many medical rescuers to Wuhan, which provided effective support in disease control. The high-intensity working and mental stress during rescue could induce distress and negatively impact the performance of rescuer afterward. Materials and Methods: To identify the characteristics of stress load and its possible effects on performance, the study surveyed 90 medical rescuers in Wuhan using a mobile phone-based self-rated questionnaire. Results: The results showed an existence of universal but mostly mild distress in rescuers. About 95.6% of the participants reported that they had at least one symptom of distress, whereas, the median scores were <30 (100 as max). Compared with civilian rescuers, a higher proportion of working with immediate virus contact was found in military medical rescuers (P = 0.008); however, no statistical differences of stress load were found between civilians and militaries. The rescuers with positive cognition or good psychological preparation were found having lower stress loads than other rescuers. An inverse correlation between the stress load and performance (R = -0.24, P = 0.023) and a positive correlation between social support and working performance (R = 0.349, P = 0.001) were found in our survey, suggesting the possible negative effects of stress and the beneficial effects of social support on performance. Conclusion: Our study indicated that more attention should be paid to the distress of medical rescuers against COVID-19. Positive cognitions, good psychological preparations, and sufficient social support would be necessary to reduce the distress and improve the performance in COVID-19 rescue.