by Rangajeeva Wimalasena, Lynne C. Leitch, Carly Schrever and Jeremy Fogel
Judicature International (2025) | An online-only publication
Whether shaped by media portrayals or personal experiences, the prevailing archetype of a judge rarely accounts for the pressures, challenges, and stresses that are inherent in the job. Judges have been expected, at least in modern times, to overcome their emotions, to transcend the human experience, and somehow deliver justice â often in isolation and without any regard to their mental health.
In recent years, the legal profession has begun to grapple with this unrealistic expectation, and the topic of judicial wellness is finally beginning to receive attention around the world. An important milestone in this movement is the Nauru Declaration on Judicial Wellbeing, which was developed at the three-day Regional Judicial Conference on Integrity and Judicial Wellbeing held in Nauru in July 2024. The Declaration is short, just three pages, and outlines seven key points of judicial wellbeing (see Appendix).
To learn more about the development of the Declaration and its goals, Judicature International hosted a discussion with Justice Rangajeeva Wimalasena, president of the Nauru Court of Appeal; Justice Lynne C. Leitch, Superior Court of Ontario, Canada and president of the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association; Dr. Carly Schrever, an attorney and psychologist who works with courts and tribunals around the world to support initiatives, programs, and education on judicial wellness. Jeremy Fogel, executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, retired federal judge, and longtime advocate for judicial well-being, served as the moderator.
The following discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
Jeremy Fogel: Thank you all so much for speaking with me today about the Nauru Declaration and judicial wellness more broadly. For the uninitiated, Rangajeeva, can you explain what led to the Declaration?
Rangajeeva Wimalasena: In 2014, I was the secretary of the Judicial Services Association in Sri Lanka. By that time, I had seen how judicial stress could affect judges, so I drafted an action plan, trying to promote collegiality and also to involve judges in the performing arts to promote a balanced mind â to enhance their other facilities so we can assist them in maintaining a balanced mind. At that time, I was not aware of the terms âjudicial well-beingâ or âjudicial wellness,â so thatâs why I used the term âbalanced mind.â
At that time, I thought stress was primarily due to lack of infrastructure and other facilities in the developing world.
But fast forward to 2020 when I moved to Australia, and after hearing a radio interview with Dr. Carly Schrever on judicial stress, I began to realize this issue is not limited only to developing countries or the countries with less facilities. After reading the reports of judicial well-being studies, I realized this is a universal problem.
I spent a while thinking about what we could do. Later, I got in touch with Marie Cauchois, the Regional Anti Corruption Advisor of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). When I pitched this idea, they agreed to come onboard and to support it. I slowly reached out to judges across the world who were known to me as well as through other contacts. We were able to gather about 18 judges and other stakeholders from around the world, from Canada to Ukraine to the Caribbean, Singapore, and other parts of the world. Alongside judges, we contacted Dr. Carly Schrever, one of the pioneering experts in this field, as well as some experts from the UNODC.
We faced a big challenge because this had never been done before. The biggest challenge was we had to do this online, and we were each from different time zones. So, at times, the judges had to attend meetings during very odd hours â at midnight or early in the morning. Their interest and the fact that they were keen to attend the meetings even during the odd hours was a testament to the urgent need for addressing judicial well-being.
Over several months, we analyzed studies conducted across various jurisdictions, including Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the judicial well-being study conducted by the UNODC. And we came up with these seven principles. It was a very long process, but that is the short version.
Finally, last year, we were able to adopt the Declaration on the 25th of July. Then we thought itâs not enough if we just come up with a declaration; we have to create further awareness and continue this discussion.
I made a proposal to the Nauru government to see whether they would agree to submit a resolution to the United Nations to declare an international day on judicial well-being. The Minister for Justice of Nauru, Hon. Lionel Aingimea happily agreed, and we submitted a resolution to the United Nations. Iâm happy to note that it passed the silence procedure, which means, unofficially, that it was agreed to by all the member states. Very soon, the President of the UNGA will assign a date for it to be officially adopted, hopefully by the end of February [ed note: The date has been set as March 4, 2025].
Jeremy Fogel: Thatâs a great story. Itâs a great statement to the world that this is an important subject, and itâs truly cross-cultural. It affects countries all over the world.
Lynne, the UN has made a lot of statements, such as the Bangalore principles and various other things that guide courts around the world. How does the Nauru Declaration fit into that framework?
Lynne C. Leitch: Well, one of the elements of the Bangalore principles of judicial conduct is a very generalized statement that judges should have sufficient time to permit the maintenance of physical and mental well-being. Acknowledgement of the stress of fulfilling judicial duties is increasing. Because of that principle, and the fact that there were a lot of increasing concerns about the difficulties of judging around the globe that came into focus because of the pandemic, the advisory board of the Global Judicial Integrity Network suggested that the Network should investigate this aspect of judicial well-being.
As a result, UNODC undertook a global survey with, I believe, something like 750 respondents from around the globe. It was quite revealing in its results. For example, 92 percent of the respondents indicated that judicial work brings them stress. In large part, the common contributing factor was excessive workloads.
I think it was really an alignment of stars, if you will, that while this survey was being done, Rangajeeva was percolating interest in this in the way that he can do so effectively, engaging Carly, engaging the UN, and speaking to lots of other people.
When he came forward, I think UNODC was ready to support this initiative. A few of us on the advisory board were part of this working group. Of course, we were aware of the survey results and the interest in this area, which has been very under-researched and very under-considered.
I do want to say that Rangajeeva did a remarkable job in keeping this very diverse group together. As we all know, itâs not easy drafting by committee. In fact, people say that the worst thing you can do is draft by committee. But thatâs exactly what we did. I am quite happy with how we were able to synthesize all our discussions.
That was a considerable challenge because when we first started out, we had a lot to say. We had almost too much information, too many observations, and too many expressions and perspectives. We distilled it down to these seven principles that encapsulate many of the concerns. But we had a tremendous leader in Rangajeeva and those of us who worked on drafting it signed it. I signed it on behalf of the Commonwealth Magistratesâ and Judgesâ Association. Then of course, Carlyâs expertise assisted us with some of the language that we used, which was exceedingly helpful.
That was a long answer to your short question, but it dovetails very nicely with the Bangalore principles. I think itâs really adding some meat on the bones, if you will, to that principle.
Jeremy Fogel: Two reactions to what you said, and one is that youâre dealing with such diversity. Youâre dealing with well-developed countries like Canada, which have an abundance of resources, and youâre dealing with places like Sri Lanka, which I know just from having worked with people from there, is a very different situation. So, being able to come up with a definition and a set of principles that crosses those boundaries to which everyone says, âYeah, this is us, this is something we really agree to,â thatâs really quite remarkable.
The other observation is that when I started talking about judicial wellness 30 years ago, people said, âWell, okay, wellness is what you do privately. Itâs your own private business. Itâs like youâre taking care of yourself and your own, but whatâs it got to do with judging?â Never the two shall meet. I think what has become clear, and Carly, Iâm going to turn to you and ask you about this, but itâs that the quality of judging is inseparable from the wellness of the judges â you canât separate them.
Ultimately, you have to pay attention to what shape the judges are in, but itâs been a long time getting to that realization. Itâs really been a hard sell to get the judicial community to realize that actually you need to be at least somewhat healthy â mentally and psychologically â in order to do the job. So, please say more about that, and I think we can play out some of those implications.
Carly Schrever: I completely agree that in order to do the intellectually demanding, often emotionally intense work of judging, judges need for the most part to be feeling well and feeling that theyâre able to manage their stress. This sits alongside the inevitability that judges will experience stress in the workplace. The work is inherently incredibly demanding. Having worked with judges on judicial well-being now for more than 10 years all over the world, I know that all judges experience stress, and that is fine. That is normal. The conversation has these two parts, where we need to be able to normalize the experience of stress so that we can talk about it, and then we need to think both as individuals, but also collectively as institutions, how we can support judges to manage their stress to the best of their ability to be able to fulfill their judicial functions effectively.
We know from decades of psychological research â not just with judges â that stress undermines key human faculties required for good decision-making. It undermines our objectivity and critical thinking, making it more likely that decisions will be infused with unconscious biases or heuristics.
Also, stress undermines our human capacities for emotion regulation and impulse control, making it more likely that weâll behave in ways that we later regret on the bench. We know this from human psychology. Therefore, itâs really important that we address the issue of judicial stress, but we donât want to stigmatize judicial stress because itâs a natural human response to the incredible demands of judicial work.
At bottom, we want to acknowledge judicial stress, normalize it so we can talk about it, and therefore deal with it appropriately.
Jeremy Fogel: Youâve said something very important, I think, which is that it would be easy to think about this as an individual problem: âIâm a judge. Iâm experiencing stress. That is my problem.â I think thatâs the way a lot of judges traditionally have thought about it. They donât talk about it with each other, and stigma is a big part of that. But what you are saying and the implications of what youâre saying is that the way the judiciary actually delivers its product is affected by what kind of shape the judges who deliver it are in, right?
If they are always experiencing extreme or chronic stress, poor decision skills, poor regulation skills, all the things you identify, the litigants, the parties who appear in the court, their experience is affected by all of that. Itâs not just something that stays with the judge. Itâs the entire institution that suffers.
Carly Schrever: Exactly. In Victoria, Australia, where I am from, we first started speaking about judicial stress and well-being directly back in 2015. Initially, it was framed very much as an individual experience requiring an individual response.
But as the conversation progressed, judges were saying, âWell, look, itâs great to be talking about this. Itâs great to know Iâm not alone. Itâs great to learn strategies to manage the stress. However, so much of my stress comes from unreasonable workloads, or a lack of transparency in leadership decisions, or the way the court of appeal writes about my decisions when they overturn me, or that the way the media reports on my cases,â which then shifted the focus away from just the individual responsibility for managing stress to thinking about, âWhat are some of the institutional responsibilities?â
I think that is something that was really reflected in the Nauru Declaration â that we need to think about judicial well-being as a shared responsibility between individual judges and courts as institutions, because there is a lot that courts as institutions can do to mitigate or even sometimes remove the unnecessary sources of stress that judges face. We need to think about where the stress comes from.
Jeremy Fogel: One of the challenges that judiciaries around the world are experiencing is maintaining public trust and confidence. Thereâs a tremendous amount of cynicism about courts and people being concerned theyâre not really getting fair adjudication of their cases. So, how does this effort contribute to trying to address that problem?
Lynne C. Leitch: : I look at it as a question of ensuring that judges have the capacity to fulfill their very important public responsibilities. Weâre not the only people who have to do this, but when I think about what a judgeâs responsibilities are, I think about the fact that we become quite intimately involved in peopleâs problems, their experiences, sometimes their traumas. Weâre dealing with â as I say to a jury â human dynamics, and weâre addressing human behaviors. We do all of that in real time and in the public domain. That inherently is extremely stressful. On top of that, our decisions really matter. Weâre impacting peopleâs lives.
I think we must be careful in addressing these problems. Itâs not just simply workload, but, of course, workload is a factor. Itâs other things like security issues. Thatâs something we all think about. Itâs also timeliness of assignments. Itâs also the timely receipt of materials to be prepared the way we need to be. Those are all things that address well-being. Those are the kinds of things that the Declaration nicely reveals. Judicial well-being is not just a simple matter of saying, âWell, fewer cases, more judges.â Itâs not about that.
My experience has been that judges who receive the appointment and privilege of being a judge are people who take their public responsibilities very seriously, and they want to perform their job well. I think one of the reasons this is coming a bit to a head right now is because the circumstances in which we work are becoming more challenging. Capacity demands are increasing, and because the resources are not increasing, the demands on us are increasing along with the other problems that I mentioned.
As youâve said, public confidence and public trust in the judicial system is essential to our societies. Itâs very fragile. We must work very hard to preserve it and maintain that confidence, and thatâs why it behooves the institutions to ensure that is accomplished.
Jeremy Fogel: I was a judge long enough that I did a lot of different kinds of cases, and I remember doing family law cases. I did it for four years, and it always felt to me that what the people wanted from me was something I could never do. Once in a while, I could make a decision and they would say, âOkay, well, the judge listened to me.â I worked very hard to listen well and try to come to the perfect outcome. But a lot of times, what the parties wanted just wasnât possible. I mean, they wanted their soon-to-be ex-partner to be sent to the moon or something like that.
There was just such anger, such hurt and grief. Youâre in a courtroom, and you have half an hour for a hearing or something like that, given the amount of time thatâs available. Thereâs no way youâre going to be able to really address whatâs going on for those folks. I always felt very stressed out by that. I always felt like I was disappointing them, that I wasnât able to give them the justice that they wanted. I think a lot of judges feel that way.
Carly Schrever: That was a key finding in my large-scale interview study that I did with Australian judges. Everyone talked about workload, and case content definitely was discussed as a demand of the job, but the thing that really seemed to upset judges the most was the sense that they were not able to deliver the best justice experience to the people coming before them due to a range of structural and systemic factors â like overloaded lists, or inflexibilities in the law, or lack of resources in the community to support people to get their lives back on track. That feeling of presiding over an imperfect justice experience was felt most keenly, I think, of all the sources of stress that judges spoke about.
Rangajeeva Wimalasena: Carly would remember in 2018, a Victorian magistrate died by suicide. The day before he died he had told one of his colleagues that he was deeply troubled by the media criticisms for adjourning a case involving a juvenile who had assaulted a police officer. The magistrate adjourned the matter to another date so to allow that child to sit for an exam. That was not the first time that a judge took their own life in relation to pressures faced from their work.
Also in 2020, an Australian Federal Circuit Court Judge was found dead. One year after he was appointed as a full-time federal court judge, he was transferred to Brisbane temporarily because of the way he had treated one of the lawyers in one of his cases. One month later, he died by suicide.
Luckily, in Australia, all these incidents are reported and nothing is hidden. But Iâm sure in other jurisdictions there are a lot of incidents like this that are not reported properly.
Jeremy Fogel: A lot happens out of sight where people are not only experiencing a lot of stress, but stress that is so severe that incidents like that can happen.
I want to ask a question to all three of you. The Declaration refers to the judiciary as a âhuman system,â that is, the justice system depends on the human beings who are part of it. So, whatâs the hope in calling that out? How is that intended to be a paradigm shift?
Lynne C. Leitch: There seems to be less confidence in a lot of institutions and an interest in being highly critical of decision-making, whether itâs police, government, judiciary, etc., and without any way to properly educate the public.
I would hope that judiciaries would have a look at some of these things and consider ways to alleviate some of those stresses. Iâm always looking at things that can be done that donât cost money, because the concept that weâre going to solve this by having more of us isnât really the point and thatâs an unrealistic goal. We have to look at ways that can alleviate some of the stresses.
Before todayâs call, I thought Iâd just look to see what resources are on the website of the National Judicial Institute in relation to judicial wellness, just for fun. For the first time, there is a separate tab for judicial wellness. Thatâs never been there before.
While thereâs not a lot on that tab, there are a few interesting things. I was really intrigued and very happy to see the Declaration there. Then, the Canadian Judicial Council, which is our council of chiefs and associate chiefs across Canada, are commissioning a survey on judicial wellness, and that is there, too. So, I think the Declaration is creating awareness and also will prompt action.
Jeremy Fogel: It says this is really important â so important that you have a UN declaration about it. Itâs tying wellness to the performance of the judiciary. Itâs not just saying judges ought to be healthy, but itâs really tying it to performance and â as we were saying earlier â to public confidence.
Carly Schrever: To the point about us emphasizing the judiciary as a human system, there are a couple of other matters to mention. Thereâs a lot of literature on this. Historically, the archetypal judge was expected to be superhuman, above the ordinary human responses and experiences and emotions that people will feel in relation to the demands and the kinds of stories that judges hear every day. Thatâs the historical ideal that we know, of course, is not the reality.
We are also now living in an age where very real questions are being asked about the extent to which certain judicial functions could be divested to artificial intelligence. I think that brings in another element of, âWhat is it about a human judiciary that is so important?â
It is a human system. Itâs not superhuman, but we want it to be a human system that has emotional intelligence and has the capacity to bring human notions of morality and feeling and compassion alongside the ideals of judicial reasoning, which AI can never do. So, recognizing the judiciary as a human system is something that we want to protect, and it also means we have to acknowledge the realities of what it is for human beings undertaking this incredibly important role.
Rangajeeva Wimalasena: I think even now around the world, judicial well-being is not spoken about well. In 1997, Justice Michael Kirby, the former president of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and former judge of the High Court of Australia, was one of the first judges to openly acknowledge judicial stress.
At that time, his remarks were not well received by the judiciary. Justice Thomas of the Queensland Supreme Court said judges should not tap into the âstress bandwagon.â He continued, âJudges need adrenaline to perform well.â I think that debate is still there because sometimes in certain judiciaries, judicial well-being is not considered an important area.
As Lynne mentioned, when the Global Judicial Integrity Network did their study in 2021, there were respondents from 102 countries, and over 80 percent of participants said that judiciaries do not pay enough attention to judicial well-being. Also, about 69 percent of them said judicial well-being is considered taboo.
Jeremy Fogel: What you said is so important. I have a mental health background, so Iâve had a natural interest in this. My experience when I was a young judge and trying to get people to speak about judicial well-being was that they usually said, âNo, get out of here. We donât want to talk about that. This is not really appropriate.â There was that taboo, and it has gotten better. But itâs also really interesting that when you do surveys where people can actually say what theyâre feeling, you get 90 percent of the people saying, âThis is important, but we donât get to talk about it because thereâs this element in the culture that doesnât buy into it.â That was really what my next question was going to be.
I was at the International Organization for Judicial Training organization in Korea this fall, and we did a wellness breakout group. We didnât know how many people were going to show up. It was standing room only. People really wanted to be there. People were voting with their presence. They were showing this is something that they cared about.
But you still run into a lot of resistance â that âthis is not appropriate.â What are some strategies? I mean, weâve identified a problem, but what are some strategies for addressing that problem of resistance?
Carly Schrever: Iâve given a lot of thought to this because a big part of my work is going into new jurisdictions to get the conversation started. I think we need to start by acknowledging that the topic is historically taboo and remains somewhat sensitive for some good reasons. Thereâs a concern that admitting stress might imply admitting some impairment, and that this could have a detrimental impact on public confidence in the courts. I think thatâs a fair concern. Also, legal work is adversarial and combative, and by the time lawyers become judges, theyâve spent many years needing to hide their vulnerability from opponents and clients.
Thus, itâs baked into legal culture in a particular way. I think once we acknowledge that there is this sensitivity for some good reasons, then we can start to bring in some facts from psychology that can temper that a little bit.
The equation of stress with impairment is actually an erroneous equation in psychology. Stress doesnât necessarily equal impairment. Itâs when stress goes unacknowledged and unmanaged that it has the potential to be most problematic, and of course, stress is most likely to go unacknowledged and unmanaged in a culture of stigma and silence. We need to be able to have a conversation, at least amongst ourselves as judges, to break down the stigma so that stress can be managed, acknowledged, and therefore not lead to impairment.
Another way is also just to bring in some information from psychology about what stress is. Stress isnât all bad. Thereâs healthy stress. Stress can be used to galvanize our energy and our attention. Judicial work is inherently stressful. We canât make it stress-free. That is all fine. Judges are going to feel stressed. Thatâs not a problem. But when stress gets to the point that it leads to distress, thatâs not good for the judgeâs personal experience. Itâs also not good for the experience of the people in the courtroom or potentially for their decision making. When we can have a nuanced conversation about the sensitivities around this topic, then I think it helps overcome some of that very natural resistance that some judges can have around it.
Jeremy Fogel: What youâre saying, Carly, is donât be disrespectful of people who are resistant. There are reasons why theyâre resistant. Itâs not just that they donât get it, but you have to have a conversation that acknowledges why theyâre uncomfortable and say, âWell, look, this is not about saying that something is wrong with you. These are tools that are going to help you do your job better.â
Carly Schrever: Absolutely. In addition to that, weâve got increasing empirical data on the nature, prevalence, and severity of stress within the judiciary. We know itâs extremely common.
Jeremy Fogel: The anonymous surveys are stunning. Huge majorities of people talk about it.
Carly Schrever: Absolutely. The majority experience is some degree of distress on a regular basis. A significant proportion of respondents experience high levels of secondary trauma and burnout. We know itâs within peopleâs experience. Itâs not just a tiny minority. Itâs the majority. I think thatâs important for people to understand as well.
Rangajeeva Wimalasena: Thatâs why I think we made the second principle say that judicial stress is not a weakness.
Jeremy Fogel: Yes. Now, one of the things that I do quite a bit of is acquaint judges with mindfulness practices, and their immediate reaction, at least some of them, is âwell, this is some bizarre Eastern religion or something.â Theyâre not open to it in that way. I say, âNo, actually this is a performance-enhancing thing. Itâs used by the U.S. military and by special forces and by elite athletic organizations and the top brass at major corporations.â
Itâs got nothing to do with religion. I mean, it has roots in that, but thatâs not what it is. Itâs just a way of focusing your attention and your energy so that you are able to do a better job at what youâre doing and you can manage stress better. You have to talk about it that way or else you lose a significant number of people.
Carly Schrever: That is absolutely true. Itâs not just a spin; itâs the reality.
Lynne C. Leitch: I think something that will assist the judiciary in moving forward in these efforts is that the legal profession itself is becoming very aware of their wellness. There are many â the Canadian Bar Association, perhaps the American Bar Association â trying to focus on this concept and to destigmatize it and make people more aware. I think all of that is helpful. I think changes within society generally, but more importantly within the legal profession, are going to be quite pivotal in getting courts to address this.
Carly Schrever: I completely agree. I think as public awareness of mental health issues increases, the expectation on people in positions of power and authority shifts. Though in bygone generations or decades, the public expectation mightâve been that judges are superhuman and donât have these kinds of experiences, now the public understanding has shifted. People no longer believe that any human being is superhuman.
The expectation is that people in positions of authority, like judges, need to be seen to be taking proactive steps to manage identifiable risks to their own mental health, not maintaining some myth that they donât have those needs. I think thatâs a really key piece as to why this declaration is coming at a good time; the public now understands the importance of judicial well-being.
Jeremy Fogel: Iâm hopeful, too. I see that the younger judges who are coming into the judiciary in the U.S. are different. They are different than my generation of judges for sure. Theyâre more open emotionally, which is good to see.
My next question is that the world is a very complex place. There are places where there are very difficult conditions. I donât know if things have calmed down now in Sri Lanka, but there was certainly a time when that was not a very safe place to be. So, if youâre in a situation like that and youâre trying to deal with what weâre talking about here, how realistic is that?
Rangajeeva Wimalasena: Thatâs a very good question because even in the Nauru Declaration, we noted that the initiative should be context-specific because one size will not fit all. Circumstances change and the infrastructure, facilities, and social and economic standards differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Interestingly, a member of the drafting committee was from Ukraine, and we had the privilege to listen to her. Due to the war, she was experiencing a lot of hardship. We took those things into consideration when we drafted the Declaration.
I have served in Sri Lanka and Fiji before joining the Nauru Judiciary. Yes, in Sri Lanka we had a civil war for 30 years. Luckily, since 2009, the country has been very peaceful. But the judges have gone through a lot. Unfortunately, in these jurisdictions where judges go through a lot of stress due to political and other circumstances, little attention is paid to addressing those issues.
Context-specific initiatives to address judicial stress are very important because they affect the quality of justice. In the modern day, regardless of whether there are conflict situations or not, as Carly correctly said the advent of social media and artificial intelligence has significantly advanced the quality and standards of our societies. If the judgeâs work is also not up to that level, we are compromising the quality of justice.
âQuality of justiceâ is a phrase that we used intentionally in the Nauru Declaration, because we believe that merely delivering justice is no longer sufficient in the modern world. We have to deliver quality justice because the standard of everything is advancing and judicial well-being is directly link to the quality of justice.
Ultimately, it comes down to context. We have to consider conflict situations, wars, or other political, social and other economic circumstances to make sure that individual well-being is addressed accordingly, so that we increase the quality of justice we deliver.
Jeremy Fogel: But you donât give up on the situation. You say, âWell, obviously, you canât have the same kinds of programs in Sri Lanka during a civil war as you could have in the U.S. or Canada during a time of peace.â But the point is you donât stop thinking about it. You donât say, âWell, this is hopeless. Thereâs nothing to be done.â
Actually, this reminds me of one of the programs I did with the Bolch Judicial Instituteâs Assistant Director, Cris Diaz, a number of years ago. We did a program for judges in Eastern Europe who were under a tremendous attack in Hungary and Poland and places like that. Independence was being directly challenged by the government. It was really interesting that they were able to share experiences with each other. It was tremendously positive.
It helped with their level of stress to talk about what was happening to them. Being able to share that with people whoâd been through the same thing. It didnât cost any money. It was just a matter of making the time available. It was a very memorable experience. Those judges were from parts of the world that were very challenged.
Relevant to this, I remember during the presentation in Ottawa where Carly and I met, there were some people in the audience who said, âWell, we donât have any resources. This is all great what youâre saying. We just donât have any resources. We canât do it.â So how do you respond to a situation like that?
Lynne C. Leitch: Well, before I respond to that, just on your prior points, Jeremy, the working group was from literally all around the globe with varying levels of resources. In my view, regardless of the resources in the country, the tenure of the judges, their areas of expertise, their level of responsibility within the court, the commonality of concerns was remarkable. Itâs remarkable. Of course, itâs a matter of degree, but theyâre all the same.
Carly Schrever: I find that staggering, too. Though thereâs a lot of variation in social context, political context, and in resources, there is this commonality of judicial experience that seems to hold across the globe. It comes down to those key aspects of the judicial role â high workload, high intensity, and high stakes for oneâs decision-making. There is a real commitment to holding justice and fairness as sacred values and feeling it very keenly when the circumstances make it difficult to deliver that. Then the isolation and the other aspects of the role are shared across the globe.
Lynne C. Leitch: To Jeremyâs question about resources, Iâve also learned that no matter where you are in the world, resources are an issue. Justice never receives enough resources. Thatâs just the way it is. You can be in a very well-resourced country in North America but thereâs still a lack of resources. Again, itâs a matter of degree. I do think though many, many of these things that the Declaration is propounding can be resolved without the expenditure of resources.
Jeremy Fogel: What are you thinking of in particular?
Lynne C. Leitch: Well, we might have two different perspectives, but for example, we all understand that Iâm in a well-resourced country where we enjoy very high levels of independence, etc., but the notion that weâre going to get more resources is just not realistic. You have to say, âWell, what would alleviate stress?â
Sometimes it can be very, very simple things like better communication, more timely indication of assignments, more timely delivery of materials to prepare. It depends on the system youâre in.
There are very simple things. They donât cost any money. I think there would be a lot of stress relief if people understood perhaps how certain decisions were made. How are schedules prepared? What are the protocols? Stress can also be relieved by policies.
Rangajeeva Wimalasena: Take a country like Sri Lanka. Back in 2014, we did not have funding for judicial well-being because nobody had heard about it, but I was able to engage judges on monthly performing arts workshops, which did not cost us anything. I also organized a workshop for trust-building because I think enhancing collegiality amongst judicial offices is very important. Such things donât require much resources. I donât think necessarily we can complain about lack of resources.
As we acknowledged in the Nauru Declaration, the judicial leadership has a responsibility to initiate programs or initiate processes to promote judicial well-being.
For example, take judicial bullying and the like. The United Kingdomâs judiciary has released a Statement of Expected Behavior. It is a small document that sets standards for judicial officers. These donât cost anything. As Lynne said, itâs all about how you see the problem. Itâs all about the judicial leadership.
Carly Schrever: This is also supported by empirical research. For example, my study is not alone here, but when I was looking at the key predictors of stress among the Australian judiciary, the strongest predictor of well-being was relatedness. The number and quality of trusting relationships that a judge had with their colleagues was the strongest predictor of their well-being. This goes to your previous point, Jeremy, about the wonderful work you did in Eastern Europe. Creating spaces for judges to have an authentic conversation about the human dimension of judging with their colleagues goes an enormous way to mitigating stress because people realize theyâre not alone.
They learn from each other. They know that theyâve got people they can turn to when they are stressed. It changes things dramatically in a measurable and predictable way. While there might be modest resourcing required to take judges out of court and maybe bring facilitators like yourself along to hold those spaces, itâs not about bringing in 10 extra judges to the court. Only a modest injection of resources is required. It really stems from the mindset shift that Rangajeeva was speaking about, particularly from judicial leaders, to acknowledge this as a real concern, as something that needs attention, and to shift the conversation away from a stigmatization of stress to an acknowledgement and normalization of stress, and then creating the conditions for judges to support each other.
Jeremy Fogel: Judicial leadership can very easily become focused on keeping the trains running, getting the cases decided, and ensuring that the law evolves in ways that are desirable. This issue of wellness doesnât get the same prominence. It seemed the reason for the Declaration is to say that judicial well-being should have the same prominence.
Itâs just as important as all the other stuff in the Bangalore Declaration and the other statements of what weâre aspiring to as judges around the world. So, any thoughts about how to increase the awareness of judicial leaders?
Lynne C. Leitch: Even when needed initiatives are undertaken or new resources are added, sometimes thereâs not an adequate analysis as to the impact of that initiative or new resource on a judgeâs workload. This should be taken into consideration as a factor in how leaders are going to add those resources. Look at how they could be best rolled out and best implemented to minimize the potential negative impact on those using them.
Jeremy Fogel: So really think about the human effects of what youâre doing.
I am thinking about this in a completely unrelated context, and it would seem thereâs a law in a couple of states in the U.S. where a judge must be super intentional about implicit bias in jury selection, which is a very desirable goal. The way they have done it, though, is to make judges go through about 25 different steps to get there. Psychologically, I understand. Thatâs how unconscious bias works, but the impact of having to do it that way has been to create an enormous amount of stress for the judges who have to it. Maybe that was an unintended consequence.
Lynne C. Leitch: This is not a criticism, but I want to give another example of how administrative and process changes can cause stress. Pre-pandemic, we used to receive files physically, and the matter you would be dealing with would be flagged with something as simple as a Post-It note. Now, we receive it electronically and you need to find a bundle, which is a challenge. It sounds silly, but it dramatically increases the time needed to prepare for cases.
Itâs a terrific initiative, and it was something that should be done. In our jurisdiction, this was implemented and done very quickly to address pandemic conditions. We moved a century in a short period of time, but because of that, it created unexpected stressors.
Jeremy Fogel: I think that was my point. Iâm all in favor of getting rid of implicit bias. I mean I devoted my life to that. Itâs just the vehicle you choose.
Carly Schrever: I think we also need to acknowledge at the start that being a judicial leader has got to be one of the most challenging leadership roles out there for so many reasons. Judicial leaders donât have the same levers of control as, for instance, CEOs in other organizations, which are also challenging roles and probably very stressful.
One of the best examples Iâve seen in a large court in Australia is not only the establishment of a judicial well-being committee, which is now becoming pretty commonplace in many parts of the world, but also creating the role of a supervising magistrate or judge for judicial well-being. That supervisor sits across other governance structures within the court to bring a well-being lens to all the decision making in other areas of the court â on the IT committee, on the assignments committee etc, to make sure that well-being implications are considered with any significant change or improvement or intervention being brought into the court.
Jeremy Fogel: That seems like a great initiative and one that we must follow up on.
I just want to say, as somebody who wasnât involved in the creation of the Nauru Declaration, what a great thing you all did. Itâs really great to see. Thank you all very much.
Click here to view and download the declaration as a PDF.
RECALLING Article 11 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (the Convention), which recognizes the crucial role of the judiciary in combating corruption and requires that States parties, in accordance with the fundamental principles of their legal system and without prejudice to judicial independence, take measures to strengthen integrity and to prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary, including rules with respect to the conduct of members of the judiciary;
NOTING the role of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in supporting States in their efforts to effectively implement the Convention, including through establishing the UNODC Global Judicial Integrity Network as a platform for judges and judiciaries to share experiences and jointly address emerging judicial integrity-related challenges;
APPRECIATING the knowledge products and tools developed by UNODC and the UNODC Global Judicial Integrity Network on different aspects of the implementation of Article 11 of the Convention, including the United Nations Convention Against Corruption Implementation Guide and Evaluative Framework Guideline for Article 11 and the Global Survey Report on Exploring Linkages between Judicial Well-being and Judicial Integrity;
ACKNOWLEDGING the findings of the above-mentioned report on the global survey conducted by UNODC, and other studies on judicial stress and well-being conducted in various jurisdictions, collectively revealing high levels of occupational stress within judiciaries globally, and low levels of acknowledgement and action regarding the same;
REAFFIRMING that a well-functioning judiciary exemplifies the six core judicial values enshrined in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct: Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Equality, Competence and Diligence;
RECOGNIZING that the judiciary is made of human beings â individual and independent persons appointed to judicial office; therefore, the judiciary is fundamentally a human system, dependent upon the collective human capacities and faculties of individual judges;
APPLAUDING the fact that judiciaries are becoming more diverse and inclusive, and recognizing that this diversity strengthens the judicial system and enhances public trust;
ACKNOWLEDGING that the physical and mental well-being of judges is crucial for promoting competence and due diligence, as acknowledged in paragraph 194 of the Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, which highlights the importance of addressing judicial stress and the necessity of providing appropriate support;
We, the members of judiciaries and other justice stakeholders here gathered, in person and virtually, on 25 July 2024 at the Civic Centre in Nauru, declare:
1. Judicial Well-being is essential and must be recognized and supported.
Judicial well-being may be described as a continuous process enabling judges to thrive across all aspects of their lives, including occupational, physical, social, cognitive, emotional, and spiritual, which are universally recognised well-being domains. Judicial well-being is essential for individual judgesâ occupational health and sustainability, for court usersâ experience in court, for the quality of justice and ultimately for public confidence in the courts. As such, judicial well-being warrants attention and investment commensurate with other institutional priorities, such as access to justice, the upholding of judicial values, judicial training and judicial efficiency.
2. Judicial stress is not a weakness and must not be stigmatised.
Judicial stress may be described as the subjectively negative psychological, physiological and/or behavioural responses a judge may have to the demands of judicial work. Judicial work is increasingly demanding, and stress is a natural human response. The historical stigmatisation of stress in legal and judicial culture compounds inherent work challenges with isolation and shame, and is a major barrier to help-seeking and recovery. Judicial leaders have a particular role in promoting healthy cultural messages about judicial stress and well-being.
3. Judicial well-being is a responsibility of individual judges and judicial institutions.
Judicial well-being is a shared responsibility, requiring action on the part of both individual judges and the judicial institutions. Individual judges must take active steps to maintain their well-being. Courts, including the judicial leadership and court management, must create working conditions conducive to judicial well-being.
4. Judicial well-being is supported by an ethical and inclusive judicial culture.
Collegial connection is a key predictor of judicial well-being. All judges should have an equal opportunity to experience well-being in their work. The court environment and culture must demonstrate zero tolerance for corruption, discrimination, harassment, bullying and other negative behaviours.
5. Promoting judicial well-being requires a combination of awareness-raising, prevention, and management activities.
Judicial leadership and judicial institutions must commit to promote judicial wellbeing. A systemic approach to judicial well-being must be holistic, involving activities that promote judicial well-being and capitalise on available sources of judicial job satisfaction. This approach should raise awareness of judicial well-being and judicial stress, prevent avoidable sources of judicial stress, and help manage the inherent demands of judicial work. Where possible, initiatives and interventions should be evidence-based and continuously assessed and evaluated. Judicial well-being is never âdoneâ- it must always remain on the agenda.
6. Judicial well-being initiatives must suit the unique circumstances and requirements of national jurisdictions.
The drivers of judicial stress and well-being are strongly shaped by local contextual factors that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, including economic, social, cultural, political, religious, and environmental influences, as well as crisis situations. To be effective, initiatives and activities to enhance judicial well-being must be responsive to relevant contextual factors and cater to the requirements of national jurisdictions.
7. Judicial well-being is enhanced by human rights.
As stated in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, judges are entitled to fundamental rights of freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly, subject to their duty to preserve the dignity of their judicial office and uphold the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary. This balance is vital to maintain both judicial well-being of individual judges and the integrity of the judicial system as a whole.
