The psychological impact of judicial work: Australia’s first empirical research measuring judicial stress and wellbeing1

C Schrever,2 Associate Professor C Hulbert3 and Professor T Sourdin4

This article presents the methodology and primary quantitative analysis of Australia’s first empirical research measuring judicial stress and wellbeing. The findings arise from the survey of 152 judges and magistrates from five Australian courts. Using standardised and validated psychometric instruments for a broad range of stress constructs, the survey robustly explored the varying ways in which stress in judicial office can manifest, allowing comparisons with the Australian legal profession and general population. The results suggest that, like lawyers, judges and magistrates report elevated psychological distress and problematic alcohol use, and that symptoms of burnout and secondary trauma are prominent features of the judicial stress experience. However, unlike the broader legal profession, judicial officers’ rates of depressive and anxious symptoms are relatively low. Together, the findings reveal a judicial system not yet in mental health crisis, but under considerable stress. The implications of the findings and areas for future research are discussed.

Introduction

A central feature of a well-functioning democracy is a well-functioning judiciary. As the third arm of government, the judiciary and courts provide an essential check on executive power and require judges to model the highest standards of integrity and ethical behaviour expected in civil society. As guardians of the rule of law, they do more than simply adjudicate and determine disputes; in their role they must do so while maintaining transparency and independence, and intervening to protect the rights of minorities and individuals. Australia is fortunate to have a strong and independent judiciary, whose robust culture has been forged over centuries of British and Australian common law. Notwithstanding this solid cultural framework, it remains (and thankfully so) a fundamentally human system, dependent upon the faculties and capacities of the human beings appointed to judicial office. This human capital is a precious national resource and, therefore, the wellbeing of our judicial officers is an important community concern.

Despite its importance, judicial wellbeing has not received the same research attention as the wellbeing of lawyers and law students.5 Alongside a large and growing body of international research revealing alarmingly high rates of depression and anxiety within the legal profession,6 sits a much smaller collection of studies relating to judges,7 none of which were conducted in Australia.8 As senior members of a stress-prone profession,9 managing workloads bordering on the oppressive,10 in the context of professional isolation,11 intense scrutiny12 and often highly traumatic material,13 there is good reason to expect that judicial officers are at particular risk of work-related stress. Given the impact of judicial decisions on people’s lives, and the pivotal role they play in our democratic system, courts arguably have a duty, not only to individual judges, but to the community more generally, to investigate and promote judicial wellbeing.

In a number of previous papers, it has been suggested that robust empirical research into work-related stress among the Australian judiciary is required.14 This research was undertaken to meet that identified gap and to consider how judicial stress can be characterised, quantified and, where required, addressed. This article sets out the methodology used in this groundbreaking research and presents the primary quantitative analysis of the survey data. This article is in four parts. Part I sets out the methodology used and describes the sample of participating judicial officers. Part II provides commentary relating to the measurement instruments used in the survey. Part III analyses the primary survey data, with reference to outcomes in previous studies relating to lawyers and other professional groups. Part IV discusses the implications of the findings, the strengths and limitations of the study, and areas for future research.

Methodology

Research design and aims

This was an exploratory, mixed-methods study. The research aims were to explore the nature, prevalence, severity and sources of judicial stress in Australia.

Approval and support

Support from Heads of Jurisdiction was essential to the viability of the study. Five courts, from summary to appellate level, were identified as possible participant jurisdictions. Informal consultations with each of the five Heads of Jurisdiction indicated that safeguarding confidentiality and anonymity of both the individual participants and the courts was a key concern. In light of this, formal support was sought and granted from the five Heads of Jurisdiction on the basis that neither the names of the courts nor their geographical locations would be reported. Also in principle and in kind support was extended from the Judicial College of Victoria and the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration. Subsequently, approval to conduct the research was granted from the Human Research Ethics Committees for the University of Melbourne and the participating courts.

Recruitment methodology

With the support of the Heads of the five participating jurisdictions, the researcher delivered a presentation on Judicial Stress and Wellbeing at each of the courts’ internal judicial conferences. These took place between July 2016 and April 2017. The presentation set out the rationale for empirical research into judicial wellbeing, and explained the aims and methodology of the current research project. During the presentation, printed copies of the survey were distributed, together with stamped envelopes addressed to a secure post office box. To reach judicial officers who were not present at the conferences, and to provide an alternative means of survey completion, a follow-up email was sent the next day to all judicial officers of the relevant court with a link to an electronic version of the survey hosted on Qualtrics — a secure online survey platform. A participant information sheet and consent form accompanied both versions of the survey. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

The study involved three stages, with participants invited to participate in one, two or all three stages. The first stage was a short survey (Part 1), taking 10–15 minutes to complete, relating to stress symptoms and experiences, and involved the collection of some limited demographic information (see below for details of survey contents). The second stage involved a longer survey (Part 2), taking 15–20 minutes to complete, relating to mental health literacy, burnout, secondary trauma and alcohol use. The third stage comprised an in-depth semi-structured interview, taking 40–60 minutes, relating to particular experiences of work-related stress, the major sources of judicial stress, and ideas for programs and initiatives to reduce judicial stress. At the completion of each stage, participants were invited to opt in to the next stage or to decline further participation in the study. To opt in to a third stage interview, participants provided their contact details by completing a form and returning it in a separate envelope from their completed survey, thereby preserving the anonymity of the survey responses. Participants were offered the opportunity to opt in to receive personalised feedback regarding their responses to the survey measures by providing their email address at the end of the survey.

The rationale for the staged recruitment approach was to balance the competing aims of maximising sample size and optimising data richness. In the knowledge of judicial officers’ general time poverty, it was anticipated that a shorter survey would attract greater voluntary participation than a longer survey. However, in order to collect data on additional relevant measures, the longer survey was retained as an option for those judicial officers prepared to dedicate the additional time.

The rationale for offering personalised feedback was to balance another pair of competing considerations — anonymity of survey completion, and notifying and supporting participants when scores indicated psychological distress. Given the survey included several widely used screening tools for mental health concerns, scores in the very high ranges could warrant further investigation and possibly supportive intervention. However, the provision of such support was dependent upon being able to contact the relevant participants and, therefore, incompatible with participant anonymity. In order to reconcile these competing concerns, participants had the option to voluntarily forsake their anonymity by providing an email address in order to receive a personalised feedback report on their survey scores. Seventy-three participants (48%) took up this option. The report, which was emailed as a password-protected document, set out several options for independent and confidential psychological support, and recommended accessing such support if any scores were in the high or severe range.

The survey was closed in May 2017. Hardcopy and online survey data were entered into the Software Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) by an independent research assistant and checked by the researcher prior to analysis.

The sample

Five Australian courts, from summary to appellate level, participated in the study. From these courts, 152 judicial officers participated in Part 1 of the survey.15 Of these, 125 went on to complete Part 2 of the survey, and 60 participated in in-depth interviews. Table 1 sets out the sample size according to jurisdiction, gender, age, stage of career and main area of practice. Participants’ average age was 57.8 years (range = 38–71; standard deviation = 6.9) and average length of service was 9.5 years (range = .2–30; standard deviation = 6.6).

Sample size and composition by demographic variables
Demographic variable Sample Size: n (%)
  Survey Interviews
  Part 1 (n = 152) Both Parts (n = 125) (n = 60)
Jurisdiction
Summary 84 (55.3%) 68 (54.4%) 30 (50.0%)
Intermediate 34 (22.4%) 31 (24.8%) 12 (20.0%)
Superior 34 (22.4%) 26 (20.8%) 12 (20.0%)
Gender
Female 66.(43.4%) 59 (47.2%) 36 (60.0%)
Male 86 (56.6%) 66 (52.8%) 24 (40.0%)
Age (Years)
<50 20 (13.2%) 15 (12.0%) *
50–59 60 (39.5%) 48 (38.4%) *
60–69 67 (44.1%) 59 (47.2%) *
>70 5 (3.3%) 3 (2.4%) *
Years Since Appointment
<2 21 (13.8%) 13 (10.4%) *
2–5 20 (13.2%) 17 (13.6%) *
5–10 63 (41.4%) 53 (42.4%) *
10–15 26 (17.1%) 22 (17.6%) *
15–20 10 (6.6%) 9 (7.2%) *
>20 12 (7.9%) 11 (8.8%) *
Demographic Variable Sample Size: n (%)
  Survey Interviews
  Part 1 (n = 152) Both Parts (n = 125) (n = 60)
Main Area of Practice
Crime or Coronial 89 (58.6%) 73 (58.4%) *
Combination 35 (23.0%) 29 (23.2%) *
Civil or Commercial 28 (18.4%) 23 (18.4%) *
Total 152 (100%) 125(82.2%) 60 (39.5%)

Note: *This demographic data was not collected for interviewees.

As explained above, approval for the research project was obtained on the basis that neither the names nor geographical locations of the participating courts would be reported. It is not possible to report specific response rates according to these demographic variables without risking identification of the courts involved; however, two important points can be made. First, within each of the five participating courts the response rates were very strong, varying between 51% and 85%, and averaging 67%. That is, of the judicial officers to whom the survey was distributed, 67% responded by completing at least Part 1. Second, the sample was, with one exception, broadly representative across the five demographic variables measured. The exception was that female judicial officers were significantly over-represented among those who chose to participate in an interview: women comprised 43.4% of survey respondents, but 60% of interviewees. The interview data therefore will need to be interpreted with this in mind.

The survey

In constructing the survey, much thought was given to the choice of both psychological constructs to be measured and psychometric instruments by which to measure them. The term psychological construct arises from the field of empirical psychology and refers to psychological phenomena and experiences one may want to measure and analyse, but are not directly observable — for example, intelligence, happiness and stress. Psychometric instruments are the questionnaires, scales, tests and tasks that have been scientifically developed to validly and reliably measure different psychological constructs. While stress and wellbeing are psychological constructs in their own right, their conceptual breadth is such that they could more accurately be described as psychological categories comprising a broad range of qualitatively different psychological experiences, each of which would be defined and measured differently.

In the current study, the following principles guided the choice of psychological constructs and psychometric instruments:

  • was there a strong theory-driven basis for expecting that the construct may be a prominent feature of the judicial experience?

  • was the construct measured in research relating to lawyer stress?

  • did the instrument have strong face validity (ie did the questions and items sufficiently translate to the judicial context)?

  • did the instrument have robust psychometric properties (ie had it been validated, standardised, and found to have good reliability)?

  • was the instrument used in other relevant judicial or lawyer stress research?

The application of these principles, and the piloting of a draft survey in May 2016 with a group of 14 retired judicial offices, lead to the inclusion of the constructs and instruments set out in Table 2. These are briefly described in detail in Part II below.

Survey contents and structure
Psychological construct Psychometric instrument Number of items
Part 1 — Short survey
Perceived stress and satisfaction N/A (Questions developed by researcher) 3
Basic psychological needs satisfaction Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction at Work Scale (BPNSW Scale) A 24
Non-specific psychological distress Kessler 10 (K-10)B 10
Depressive and anxious symptoms Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales 21 (DASS-21)C 21
General reflections on the stress of judicial office N/A (Open question with free-text response) 1
Demographics N/A (Questions developed by researcher) 7
Part 2 — Longer survey
Mental health literacy and attitudes to help-seeking International Depression Literacy Survey (IDLS)D 27
Burnout Maslach Burnout Inventory — General Scale (MBI-GS)E 16
Secondary traumatic stress Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS)F 17
Alcohol use and dependence Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)G 10

Notes:

A B Ilardi et al, “Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting” (1993) 23(21) Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1789; T Kasser, J Davey and R Ryan, “Motivation and employee-supervisor discrepancies in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting” (1992) 37(3) Rehabilitation Psychology 175; E Deci et al, “Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organisations of a former Eastern Bloc country: a cross-cultural study of self-determination” (2001) 27(8) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 930.

B R Kessler et al, “Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress” (2002) 32 Psychological Medicine 959.

C P Lovibond and S Lovibond, “The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression Inventories” (1995) 33(3) Behaviour Research and Therapy 335.

D N Highet, I Hickie and T Davenport, “Monitoring awareness of and attitudes to depression in Australia” (2002) 176 Medical Journal of Australia S63.

E W Schaufeli et al, “MBI general survey”, 1996, available for purchase from www.mindgarden.com; W Schaufeli, M Leiter and R Kalimo, “The Maslach Burnout Inventory — general survey: a self-report questionnaire to assess burnout in the workplace” in M Leiter (ed), “Extending the burnout construct: reflecting changing career paths”, APA/NIOSH Conference, Work, Stress and Health, Creating Healthier Workplaces, 14–16 September 1995, Washington, DC, 1995. Copyright © 1996 W Scjaufeli, M Leiter, C Maslach and S Jackson, Licence to reproduce in hardcopy and online format granted on 23 June 2016.

FB Bride et al, “Development and validation of the secondary traumatic stress scale” (2004) 14(1) Research on Social Work Practice 27.

GJ Saunders et al, “Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption II” (1993) 88 Addiction 791.

The interviews

Judicial officers who completed both parts of the survey were invited to participate in an in-depth semi-structured interview. Sixty judicial officers accepted this invitation by returning a form with their contact details and signing a consent form at the start of their interview. The interviews were conducted by the lead researcher in the judicial officers’ chambers between November 2016 and July 2017, each lasting approximately one hour. They were audio-recorded and independently transcribed. All identifying information was removed prior to analysis. The interview questions were developed following a review of the literature relating to judicial stress and discussions with research colleagues and several judicial officers regarding the areas of greatest relevance to understanding and responding to judicial occupational stress. The first draft of the questions was developed by the lead researcher for an earlier internal project within one of the participating jurisdictions, and further refined following feedback from that pilot. The final list of nine stem questions, each with several supplementary questions, was framed around four board topics: experiences of judicial stress; perceived sources of judicial stress and satisfaction; strategies for managing judicial stress; and ideas of initiatives to support judicial wellbeing.

Over the course of conducting the 60 interviews, the researcher noted themes that emerged as prominent and recurring, refining these throughout the interview process. This preliminary observational process yielded six key themes, which provided the initial basis of the formal thematic analysis of interview transcripts. As a further step, the researcher read the interview transcripts, totalling 1,386 pages and over 400,000 words, in full three times. In the first reading, the researcher noted all statements that supported or contradicted the six key themes, also recording other recurring themes. From these, codes were created for each theme. In the second reading, the codes were applied to the relevant passages and colour-coded on the transcript. In the third reading, the colour-coded passages were reviewed for patterns and themes, and names applied to each of the themes. A final review was undertaken, using the Microsoft Word search function, to extract the passages that best illustrated the identified themes.16

The survey

Part 1 — short survey

Perceived stress and satisfaction

Three questions, framed by the researcher, provided an initial measure of judicial officers’ perceptions of stress and satisfaction in the role. On a five-point scale, participants were asked: how much of the time they experience stress and personal wellbeing and satisfaction related to their work (1 = none of the time; 5 = almost all of the time); and how the stress of judicial office compares to their career prior to appointment (1 = much less stressful; 5 = much more stressful).

Basic psychological needs satisfaction

Much of the recent empirical research on lawyer stress has adopted the framework of Self-Determination Theory17 (SDT) as a model for understanding the factors influencing lawyer wellbeing.18 SDT is a well-established and evidenced-based model of wellbeing, with more than three decades of empirical research behind it.19 In essence, SDT posits that human wellbeing is a function of the extent to which our basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness are met within our environment. Autonomy refers to the experience of self-determination, full willingness, and volition when carrying out an activity.20 Competence refers to feeling effective and capable to achieve desired outcomes.21 Relatedness refers to the experience of intimacy and genuine connection with others.22

Dozens of psychometric instruments based on SDT have been developed.23 The present study adopted the Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction at Work Scale (BPNSW Scale) — a 24-item, seven-point scale assessing the extent to which participants agreed (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) that a series of work-related feelings applied to them over the past four weeks. Each of the three factors — autonomy, competence and relatedness — is measured by eight items, generating an average score between 1 and 7 for each factor, and an average overall score, with higher scores indicating greater basic psychological needs satisfaction. Sample items are as follows: for autonomy, at work, I feel a sense of choice and freedom in the things I undertake; for competence, when I am at work, I feel competent to achieve my goals; for relatedness, at work, I feel close and connected with other people who are important to me. Earlier versions of the BPNSW Scale had fewer items (2124 or 1525 ), and have documented construct validity, internal reliability26 and a well-developed factor structure.27 The internal reliability in the present study was good across the three sub-scales (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients: for autonomy = .83; for relatedness = .85; for competence = .80)

Non-specific psychological distress

Non-specific psychological distress, or ill-being, was measured using the standardised and widely employed Kessler 10 Scale (K10).28 The K10 is a 10-item, five-point scale assessing how often (1 = none of the time; 5 = all of the time) subjects have experienced 10 symptoms of psychological distress (eg how often did you feel restless and fidgety; how often did you feel that everything was an effort) in the past four weeks. It generates scores within a possible range of 10–50, with higher scores indicating more severe distress. The K10 is a screening tool, not a diagnostic instrument. It provides a broad indication of the risk of mental illness by measuring the severity of generalised psychological distress.29 Excellent normative data exists for the K10, as it was the instrument used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing and 2007–2008 National Health Survey.30 The K10 has also been used in several Australian studies on lawyer and law student wellbeing, including the landmark Courting the Blues study.31 Normative data allows for the classification of K10 scores into one of four severity ranges: low or no distress (scores of 10–15); moderate distress (scores of 16–21); high distress (scores of 22–29); very high distress (scores of 30–50).32 The K10 has outstanding and well-documented psychometric properties, including content and construct validity and internal reliability.33 In the current study, the internal reliability was found to be strong (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = .85).

Depressive and anxious symptoms

Population mental health research has consistently reported that depression and anxiety are the highest prevalence mental disorders,34 and that the rate and severity of depressive and anxious symptoms are good indications of the level of mental ill-health within a population. In the current study, depressive and anxious symptoms were measured using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21).35 The DASS-21 is not a diagnostic scale, but rather a validated and standardised test of affective distress symptoms along the three axes of depression, anxiety and stress. Depression is described as symptoms associated with dysphoric mood, sadness and worthlessness. Anxiety is described as symptoms associated with physical arousal, panic and fear. Stress is described as symptoms of tension, irritability and a tendency to over-react. Separate factors in the DASS-21, the anxiety and stress sub-scales, measure distinct aspects of anxious symptomatology – the somatic and cognitive aspects, respectively.

The DASS-21 is a 21-item, four-point combined severity/frequency scale, measuring the extent to which participants have experienced a series of symptoms over the past week (0 = did not apply to me at all; 3 = applied to be very much or most of the time). Example items across the three sub-scales are as follows: for depression, I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all; for anxiety, I was aware of dryness of my mouth; for stress, I found myself getting agitated. Total scores for each sub-scale (range 0–21) are obtained by summing the scores for each sub-scale item, with higher scores indicating more severe symptomatology. Percentiles derived from normative data allow for the classification of scores into one of five severity ranges – normal, mild, moderate, severe and extremely severe.36 The DASS-21 has excellent psychometric properties and normative data,37 and was employed in the majority of Australian studies into lawyer and law students’ wellbeing,38 as well as numerous studies involving other occupational groups. In the current study, the internal reliability was sound across the three sub-scales (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients: for depression = .87; for anxiety = .78; for stress = .87).

General reflections on judicial stress

Participants were given the opportunity to express any other reflections relevant to the study, by providing a free text response to the following question: Please let us know anything else that would help us understand the personal challenges and rewards of judicial office, and the factors that contribute to both stress and wellbeing in the role.

Demographics

Part 1 of the survey concluded with seven questions about participant demographics: age; gender; years since appointment; jurisdiction; main area of legal practice; location (ie urban, suburban, rural); and living arrangements (eg living alone, living with partner and children etc).

Part 2 — Longer survey

Mental health literacy and attitudes to help-seeking

Mental health literacy and attitudes to help-seeking were explored using the International Depression Literacy Survey (IDLS),39 a measure developed by Australian researchers and used in the landmark Courting the Blues study.40 Focused specifically on depression, the IDLS comprises questions (some checklists, some Likert scales) relating to knowledge about depression (eg statistics, facts, symptoms), as well as attitudes, awareness and personal experiences.41 Sample questions include: for knowledge, what proportion of the Australian population will experience depression?; for awareness, which of the following [checklist of symptoms] are the most typical of a person with depression?; for help-seeking attitudes, if you thought you might be experiencing depression, how likely would you be to seek help from a [GP/psychologist/family member/friend etc]?. The original version of the IDLS also incorporated several published measures of psychological distress, including the K10 described above, and a number of demographic questions. To avoid duplication, these were excluded in the present study.

Owing to its use in the Courting the Blues study, useful normative data on the IDLS is available for the Australian legal profession. It has also been used in several other settings, mostly relating to depression literacy among Chinese and Australian medical students.42 Beyond this, however, information relating to scoring, norms, psychometric properties and interpretation is limited,43 and therefore it cannot currently be used to generate a depression literacy score, nor to compare literacy levels between different groups. It does, however, probe a number of interesting aspects of mental illness experiences and attitudes, and was included in the present study to extend the Courting the Blues research to the judiciary, as the only arm of the legal profession not included in that landmark study.

Burnout

The theoretical literature on judicial wellbeing,44 including two papers proposing structural models of judicial stress,45 posits that occupational burnout is a feature of judicial officers’ work-related stress. Burnout is not a diagnosable mental disorder, but rather a psychological phenomenon that has been identified and described within the research literature on occupational stress and since become a prominent field of empirical research. Burnout is broadly defined as a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who work with people in some capacity.46 Burnout is distinguished from depression and anxiety in that those conditions are global, pervading all aspects of a person’s life, whereas burnout is more distinctly linked to the working environment.47 It is also distinguished from general occupational stress in that it is a more specific and complex phenomenon that is in contrast to a sense of engagement with work,48 rather than a generalised experience of tension that is contrasted to broad feelings of relaxation and wellbeing.

Two principal psychometric instruments have been developed for measuring burnout: the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI);49 and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI).50 Although the CBI was used in two previous judicial stress studies, one involving United States (US) immigration judges51 and another involving Taiwanese judges,52 the MBI since its introduction in the early 1980s53 has become accepted as the gold standard assessment tool for burnout,54 and for this reason was selected for the present study. Several versions of the MBI are available: the General Survey (MBI-GS);55 the Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS);56 and the MBI-Educators Survey.57 The present study adopted the MBI-GS as, of the three, it had the strongest face validity for judicial respondents, and was also the recommended instrument in one seminal article calling for research into judicial stress.58

The MBI-GS is a 16-item, seven-point scale measuring the frequency (0 = never; 6 = every day), with no timeframe imposed, of certain job-related feelings across the three dimensions of occupational burnout — exhaustion, cynicism and professional efficacy. It differs from the other versions of the MBI in that it de-emphasises people’s work as the cause or origin of the work-related feelings. Exhaustion refers to fatigue and the depletion of emotional and mental energy. Cynicism refers to an attitude of distance or indifference towards one’s work, including a loss of meaning. Professional efficacy refers to satisfaction with past and present accomplishments and expectations of continued effectiveness. Burnout is associated with high exhaustion, high cynicism and low professional efficacy. Sample items are as follows: for exhaustion, I feel emotionally drained from my work; for cynicism, I doubt the significance of my work; for professional efficacy, I feel exhilarated when I accomplish something at work. The MBI-GS is not time-limited but measures the frequency of these feelings over a respondent’s history in their job. The MBI-GS has very good psychometric properties and normative data. The official manual provides cut-offs, based on normative data across a range of cultural and occupational groups, for three severity ranges (low, moderate, high) within each of the sub-scales.59 In the present study, the internal reliability was good across the three sub-scales (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients: for exhaustion = .90; for professional efficacy = .79; for cynicism = .86).

Secondary traumatic stress

Another psychological construct that is much discussed in the commentary on judicial stress is secondary trauma, which broadly refers to the psychological distress a person can experience as a result of exposure to information about the primary trauma suffered by another. Numerous theoretical papers60 and, more recently, published personal accounts61 have highlighted secondary trauma as an occupational hazard of judicial work. It is axiomatic that judicial officers are exposed to potentially traumatic material. Courts deal, on a daily basis, with the very worst that humanity does to itself, and judicial work entails regular contact with distressing subject matter and distressed court users. What is less known, however, is whether this exposure translates to psychological distress in the form of secondary trauma reactions among judicial officers. A number of US studies have explored judicial experiences of secondary trauma reactions, variously defined as vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue and secondary traumatic stress (STS);62 however, in most cases these experiences were not empirically measured using validated instruments. An exception is a US study of immigration judges, which employed the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS)63 and reported judges’ levels of STS were higher than those previously found for social workers.64 As the only validated measure of secondary trauma reactions that had been used in previous judicial research, the STSS was selected for the current study.

STS is defined as the natural, consequent behaviours and emotions resulting from knowledge about a traumatizing event experienced by a significant other. It is the stress resulting from helping or wanting to help a traumatised or suffering person.65 The negative effects of STS are understood to be qualitatively similar to those of primary trauma — namely, experiences of intrusion (eg unwanted memories, flashbacks and nightmares), avoidance (eg of reminders of the trauma, emotional numbness) and arousal (eg hypervigilance). As such, the STSS was developed to maintain congruence with the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),66 and it has been suggested that it can be used as a proxy measure for the presence of PTSD symptomatology.67 The STSS is a 17-item, five-point scale measuring the frequency (1 = never; 5 = very often), over the past seven days, of intrusion, avoidance and arousal symptoms associated with the indirect exposure to traumatic events via one’s professional contact with traumatised individuals. The official STSS refers throughout to clients, but permits substitution of another noun that better represents the work of the target population. In the current survey clients was changed to people who come before me, and work with clients was changed to court work. Sample items were as follows: for intrusion, I had disturbing dreams about the people who come before me; for avoidance, I avoided people, places, or things that reminded me of my court work; for arousal, I felt jumpy. Raw scores are obtained for each sub-scale by summing responses to sub-scale items, and average scores are calculated by dividing the raw score by the number of relevant items. A Total STSS raw score (the sum of all scale items) ranges from 17 to 85, with high scores indicating more severe STS. Percentile ranks from a normative sample of US social workers (n = 282)68 allows classification of Total STSS scores into one of five severity ranges: normal (50 percentile; scores less than 28); mild (51 to 75 percentile; scores from 28 to 37); moderate (76 to 90 percentile; scores from 38 to 43); high (91 to 95 percentile; scores from 44 to 48); and severe (above the 95 percentile; scores above 48).69 There is good evidence of reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and factorial validity of the STSS. In the present study, the internal reliability was found to be acceptable across the three sub-scales (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients: for intrusion = .76; for avoidance = .82; for arousal = .80).

Alcohol use and dependence

The relationship between stress and alcohol dependence is well documented.70 In addition, the theoretical71 and empirical72 literature on lawyer stress suggests that alcohol use, especially to manage feelings of stress and sadness, is notably high within the legal profession — higher, it seems, than in other professions. In light of this, it was decided to include a measure of alcohol use in the survey. The instrument chosen was the World Health Organisation’s Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). It is widely used, has excellent psychometric properties, helpful cut-off scores, good population norms,73 and was used in at least one Australian74 and one American75 lawyer stress study. The AUDIT contains 10 items relating to frequency, quantity, dependence and harmful consequences of alcohol use (eg How many standard drinks do you have on a typical day when you are drinking?), which participants rate on a three- or five-point Likert scale, depending on the question. A total AUDIT score is obtained by summing responses to individual questions. Possible scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher risk drinking. Normative data allows for the classification of AUDIT scores into one of four levels of risk: non-drinker (scores of 0); low risk (scores of 1–7); medium risk (scores of 8–15); and high risk (scores of 16+).76 Scores in the medium- to high-risk range are sometimes referred to as indicating problematic use.77 The internal reliability in the present study was found to be acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = .76).

Analysis

This article presents the primary analysis of the quantitative survey data — that is, descriptive statistics and normative comparisons across the various measures of stress and wellbeing:

  • perceived stress and wellbeing;

  • non-specific psychological distress (K10);

  • depressive and anxious symptoms (DASS-21);

  • burnout (MBI-GS);

  • secondary traumatic stress (STSS); and

  • alcohol use and dependence (AUDIT).

Forthcoming articles will present the secondary analysis of the quantitative data (ie relationships among stress variables, relationships between stress variables and basic psychological needs satisfaction, and differences among demographic groups), and the qualitative data arising from the interviews.

Perceived stress and wellbeing

Three questions provided an initial measure of judicial officers’ perceived stress and wellbeing. The first two related to the frequency (1 = none of the time; 5 = almost all the time) that judicial officers had experienced stress and personal wellbeing and satisfaction related to their work since their appointment. As shown in Fig 1, perceived stress was negatively skewed and perceived wellbeing was positively skewed. Approximately one-eighth (12.7%) of respondents reported experiencing stress most or almost all of the time, while more than three-quarters (76.0%) reporting experiencing personal wellbeing and satisfaction most or almost all of the time. An analysis of individual responses revealed that subjective experiences of stress and wellbeing were not mutually exclusive — for example, of those who reported experiencing stress most of the time, the majority (60.0%) also reported experiencing personal wellbeing and satisfaction most of the time.

A third question was directed to perceptions of the relative stress (1 = much less stressful; 5 = much more stressful) of judicial office compared with respondents’ career prior to appointment. The results are show in Fig 2. Sixty-two per cent of judicial officers reported that judicial office was a little or much less stressful than their pre-appointment careers, 20.3% reported that it was a little or much more stressful, with the remainder (17.7%) reporting that it was equally as stressful.

Non-specific psychological distress (K10)

The descriptive statistics for judicial officers’ K10 scores were as follows: mean = 16.64; standard deviation = 4.87; possible range = 10–50; observed range = 10–31. The K10 asks about the frequency of experiences over the past four weeks. The highest scoring items were about how often did you feel tired out for no good reason? and about how often did you feel nervous?, with 14.2% and 4.5% of judicial officers respectively reporting they felt this way most of the time or all of the time over the past four weeks. As noted above, K10 scores can be categorised into one of four severity ranges, from low or no distress through to severe distress. The frequencies of K10 scores within each severity range for judicial officers in the present study, and those reported in previous studies of the Australian legal profession78 and general population,79 are set out in Table 3 and expressed graphically in Fig 3. The majority (52.9%) of judicial officers’ scores indicated some level of non-specific psychological distress, with 14.8% of scores indicating high or very high distress.

K10 Severity Range Frequencies, Expressed as Percentages, for Australian Judicial Officers (n = 152) Compared with Those Reported for Barristers, Solicitors, Law Students and the Australian General Population
K10 Severity Range Frequencies (%)
Population n Low or No Distress Moderate Distress High Distress Very High Distress
Judicial officers 152 47.1 38.1 13.5 1.3
Barristers 756 56.2 27.2 12.5 4.2
Solicitors 924 36.4 31.6 22.3 8.7
Law students 741 31.5 33.3 21.9 13.3
General population 15,740 67.3 20.8 8.5 3.5

Sources: Data for barristers, solicitors and law students is as reported in the landmark study by N Kelk et al, Courting the blues: attitudes towards depression in Australian law students and legal practitioners, Monograph 2009-1, Brain and Mind Research Institute, 2009; Brain and Mind Research Institute, January 2009, 9; data for the general population are as reported in Australian Bureau of Statistics, Use of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale in ABS Health Surveys, Australia, 2007–2008, National Health Survey 2007–2008 (Information Paper, 4817.0.55.001, 4 April 2012).

Sources: Data for barristers, solicitors, and law students is as reported in the landmark study by N Kelk et al, Courting the blues: attitudes towards depression in Australian law students and legal practitioners, Monograph 2009-1, Brain and Mind Research Institute, 2009 9; data for the general population are as reported in Australian Bureau of Statistics, Use of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale in ABS Health Surveys, Australia, 2007–2008, National Health Survey 2007–2008 (Information Paper, 4817.0.55.001, 4 April 2012).

These results indicate that Australian judicial officers experience elevated rates of non-specific psychological distress, as measured by the K10, in the moderate to high ranges, compared to the general population and the barrister arm of the legal profession. However, when we consider distress within the very high range, judicial officers’ rates are considerably lower than all levels of the profession and the general population.

Depessive and anxious symptoms (DASS-21)

The descriptive statistics for judicial officers’ scores on the DASS-21, across the three sub-scales of depression, anxiety and stress, are set out in Table 4. The frequencies of judicial officers’ scores within each of the five normative severity ranges are set out in Table 5.

Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Judicial Officers’ Scores on the DASS-21 Sub-Scales (n = 152)
Sub-Scale Mean Standard Deviation Possible Range Observed Range
Depression 2.22 2.81 0–21 0–18
Anxiety 1.50 2.23 0–21 0–13
Stress 5.03 3.66 0–21 0–20
Severity Range Frequencies for Judicial Officers’ Scores on the DASS-21 Sub-Scales (n = 152)
Sub-Scale Severity Range
Normal Mild Moderate Severe Extremely Severe
Depression
Score cut-off 0–4 5–6 7–10 11–13 14+
Count 126 12 12 1 1
Percentage 82.9% 7.9% 7.9% .7% .7%
Anxiety
Score cut-off 0–3 4–5 6–7 8–9 10+
Count 131 10 6 3 2
Percentage 86.2% 6.6% 3.9% 2.0% 1.3%
Stress
Score cut-off 0–7 8–9 10–12 13–16 17+
Count 120 20 6 4 2
Percentage 78.9% 13.2% 3.9% 2.6% 1.3%

Note: Score cut-offs for the severity ranges are derived from normative percentiles as set out in the DASS official manual.

The three most strongly endorsed DASS-21 items were all from the stress sub-scale: I found it hard to wind down; I found it difficult to relax; and I found myself getting agitated. The percentage of respondents who indicated that these experiences applied to them a good part or most of the time over the past week was 25.0%, 15.3% and 8.6%, respectively.

A number of lawyer and law student wellbeing studies have focused on the rates of scores in the moderate to extremely severe ranges — sometimes reporting rates three times higher than the general populations — as an indication of the scale of the mental health problem afflicting the legal profession.80 Figure 4 shows the rates of judicial officers’ scores in the moderate to extremely severe ranges, compared with Australian lawyers and the general population — according to results reported in a large-scale study of the Australian legal profession (n = 965)81 and the population normative percentiles set out in the DASS-21 official manual.82 The results show that judicial officers’ rates of moderate to extremely severe depression, anxiety and stress symptoms (9.3%, 7.2% and 7.8%, respectively) were dramatically lower than those reported for Australian lawyers, and lower also than those suggested for the Australian general population.

Sources: J Chan, S Poynton and J Bruce, “Lawyering stress and work culture: an Australian study” (2014) 37(3) UNSW Law Journal 1062 at 1081; P Lovibond and S Lovibond, Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), Psychology Foundation Monograph, 1993 (DASS Manual).

Burnout (MBI-GS)

The descriptive statistics for judicial officers’ scores on the MBI-GS, across the three burnout sub-scales of exhaustion, cynicism and professional efficacy, are set out in Table 6. Scores on the professional efficacy sub-scale are interpreted in reverse to the exhaustion and cynicism sub-scales — that is burnout is associated with higher exhaustion and cynicism scores, but lower professional efficacy scores. The frequencies of judicial officers’ scores within these normative severity ranges of low, moderate and high are set out in Table 7. On each of the exhaustion and cynicism sub-scales, a little over one quarter (26.6% and 29.6%, respectively) of judicial officers scored in the high range. Approximately one in 10 (10.4%) scored in the low range on the professional efficacy sub-scale. Four per cent (4.0%) scored high on both exhaustion and cynicism, and low on professional efficacy, indicating high risk of burnout, whereas 24.8% scored low on both exhaustion and cynicism, and high on professional efficacy, indicating low risk of burnout.

Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Judicial Officers’ Scores on the MBI-GS Sub-Scales (n = 125)
Sub-Scale Mean Standard Deviation Possible Range Observed Range
Exhaustion 2.27 1.40 0.00–6.00 0.00–5.40
Cynicism 1.61 1.40 0.00–6.00 0.00–6.00
Professional efficacy 5.04 .87 0.00–6.00 1.17–5.04

Note: One incomplete response on the exhaustion sub-scale lead to an overall sample size of n = 124 for that sub-scale.

Burnout Severity Range Frequencies for Judicial Officers’ Scores on the MBI-GS Sub-Scales (n = 125)
Sub-Scale Burnout Severity Range
Low Moderate High
Exhaustion
Score cut-off ≤2.00 2.01–3.19 ≥3.20
Count 64 27 33
Percentage 51.6% 21.8% 26.6%
Cynicism
Score cut-off ≤1.00 1.01–2.19 ≥2.20
Count 58 30 37
Percentage 46.4% 24.0% 29.6%
Professional Efficacy
Score cut-off ≤4.00 4.01–4.99 ≥5.00
Count 13 27 85
Percentage 10.4% 21.6% 68.0%

Note: One incomplete response on the “exhaustion” sub-scale lead to an overall sample size of n = 124 for that sub-scale.

The most strongly endorsed items were all on the professional efficacy sub-scale, for which high scores indicate lower burnout. Among the items for which high scores indicate higher burnout (ie items on the exhaustion and cynicism sub-scales), the three most strongly endorsed were: I feel used up at the end of the workday (exhaustion); I just want to do my work and not be bothered (cynicism); and I feel emotionally drained by my work (exhaustion). The percentages of respondents who indicated that they experience these feelings at least once a week were 40.4%, 38.4%, and 30.4%, respectively. Almost 8% (7.8%) of respondents indicated that they feel used up at the end of the workday every day.

To the knowledge of the author, the MBI-GS has not been used in other studies involving judicial officers or lawyers. It has, however, been used in a number of large-scale North American and European studies across a range of occupational groups (including military, nurses, civil servants and psychiatric workers).83 Figure 5 shows judicial officers’ mean scores across each of the sub-scales, alongside those reported for different occupational groups in previous studies. The results reveal that, on average, judicial officers in this sample experienced moderate levels of exhaustion and cynicism, but very high levels of professional efficacy, compared with the available data for other occupational groups.

Source: C Maslach, S Jackson and M Leiter, Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, Mind Garden, 3 edn, 2013, (MBI Manual) p 24.

Secondary traumatic stress (STSS)

The descriptive statistics for judicial officers’ raw and average scores on the STSS, for total STSS and across the three sub-scales of intrusion, avoidance and arousal, are set out in Table 8. An STS symptom was considered to be endorsed if the respondent indicated that it was experienced occasionally, often or very often in the preceding seven days. The great majority (83.6%) of judicial officers endorsed at least one STS symptom, with the arousal sub-scale (mean = 2.04; standard deviation = .70) more strongly endorsed than the intrusion (mean = 1.83; standard deviation = .62) and the avoidance (mean = 1.79; standard deviation = .63) sub-scales. The most strongly endorsed items were: I had trouble sleeping (arousal; endorsed by 48.7%); I thought about my court work when I didn’t intend to (intrusion; endorsed by 46.7%); and I was easily annoyed (arousal; endorsed by 37.5%). Responses to a number of other items are also notable: 22.4% of judicial officers endorsed I wanted to avoid working on certain types of cases or cases involving certain people (avoidance); 18.4% endorsed it seemed as if I was reliving the traumas experienced by a person/some people who came before me (intrusion); and 10.5% endorsed I had disturbing dreams about the people that came before me (intrusion). Figure 6 shows judicial officers’ mean scores for the three STSS sub-scales, as compared with those reported for three occupational groups in the United States: immigration judges (n = 96);84 social workers (n = 287);85 and clinical social workers (n = 256).86

Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Judicial Officers’ Raw and Average Scores on the STSS Sub-Scales and Total STSS
Scale Mean Standard Deviation Possible Range Observed Range
Raw Scores
Intrusion 9.15 3.10 5–25 5–18
Avoidance 12.52 4.43 7–35 7–27
Arousal 10.20 3.48 5–25 5–21
Total STSS 31.78 10.04 17–85 17–85
Mean Scores
Intrusion 1.83 .62 1.00–5.00 1.00–3.60
Avoidance 1.79 .63 1.00–5.00 1.00–3.86
Arousal 2.04 .70 1.00–5.00 1.00–4.20
Total STSS 1.87 .59 1.00–5.00 1.00–3.41

Note: Several incomplete responses lead to slightly different sample sizes across the three sub-scales: intrusion (n = 123); avoidance (n = 124); arousal (n = 125); and total STSS (n = 122).

Sources: Immigration judges (S Lustig et al, “Burnout and stress among United States Immigration Judges” (2008) 13 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 22; social workers (B Bride et al, “Development and validation of the secondary traumatic stress scale” (2004) 14(1) Research on Social Work Practice 27); clinical social workers (J Caringi et al, “Secondary traumatic stress and licensed clinical social workers” (2016) 23(2) Traumatology 186 at 190).

The frequencies of judicial officers’ total STSS raw scores within each severity range are set out in Table 9. The results indicate that 62.3% of judicial officers were experiencing mild or higher levels of STS, with 13.2% experiencing high or severe STS. As noted above, STSS items mirror the diagnostic criteria for PTSD87 and its lead author has suggested it could be used as a proxy measure of PTSD symptomatology.88 Total STSS raw scores of 38 or higher (ie scores in the moderate to severe ranges) are considered pertinent to the question of whether formal assessment for PTSD might be indicated.89 In the current study, 30.4% (n = 37) of judicial officers scored at or above 38. Figure 7 shows judicial officers’ rates of scores at or over 38, alongside those previously reported for two samples of US social workers.

Severity Range Frequencies for Judicial Officers’ Total STSS Raw Scores (n = 122)
Total STSS Severity Range
Normal Mild Moderate High Severe
Score cut-off >28 28-37 38-43 44-48 49+
Count 46 39 21 8 8
Percentage 37.7% 32.0% 17.2% 6.6% 6.6%

Note: Severity ranges and score cut-offs were suggested by Bride based on percentile ranks of total STSS raw scores found in his study of 282 US social workers; see B Bride, “Prevalence of secondary traumatic stress among social workers” (2007) 52(1) Social Work 63.

Sources: B Bride, “Prevalence of secondary traumatic stress among social workers” (2007) 52(1) Social Work 63 at 67; J Caringi et al, “Secondary traumatic stress and licensed clinical social workers” (2016) 23(2) Traumatology 186 at 190.

Alcohol use and dependence (AUDIT)

The descriptive statistics for judicial officers’ AUDIT scores were as follows: mean = 6.12; standard deviation = 4.11; possible range = 0–30; observed range = 0–23. The three most strongly endorsed items all related to frequency and quantity of drinking, as opposed to dependent or harmful drinking. The highest scoring item was How often do you have a drink containing alcohol, with 76% of judicial officers indicating that they drink at least twice weekly. Almost half (48.4%) reported that they have at least 3–4 standard drinks on a typical day when they are drinking. Fourteen per cent (14.6%) reported that they consume six or more standard drinks on one occasion at least weekly.

The frequencies of judicial officers’ AUDIT scores within each normative level-of-risk range, alongside those reported in previous studies of the Australian legal profession90 and general population,91 are set out in Table 10 and expressed graphically in Fig 8. Just over 30% of judicial officers scored in the moderate- to high-risk or problematic use levels, as compared with 32% of lawyers and 18.8% of the general population.

AUDIT Level of Risk Frequencies, Expressed as Percentages, for Australian Judicial Officers (n = 121) Compared with Those Reported for Australian Lawyers and the General Population
  AUDIT Level of Risk Frequencies (%)
Population n Non-Drinker Low-Risk Medium Risk High Risk
Judicial officers 121 4.0 65.4 28.1 2.5
Lawyers 772 9.0 59.0 25.0 7.0
General population 4,100 8.1 73.1 15.5 3.3

Sources: J Chan, S Poynton and J Bruce, “Lawyering stress and work culture: an Australian study” (2014) 37(3) UNSW Law Journal 1062 at 1087; C Moller, R Tait, and D Byrne, “Self-harm, substance use and psychological distress in the Australian general population” (2013) 108(1) Addiction 211 at 215.

Sources: J Chan, S Poynton and J Bruce, “Lawyering stress and work culture: an Australian study” (2014) 37(3) UNSW Law Journal 1062 at 1087; C Moller, R Tait, and D Byrne, “Self-harm, substance use and psychological distress in the Australian general population” (2013) 108(1) Addiction 211 at 215.

Discussion

This research was the first psychologically grounded study of judicial stress and wellbeing to be conducted in Australia. Based on a survey of 152 judicial officers from five Australian courts, the primary quantitative analysis presented in this article provides the first empirical data on the nature, prevalence and severity of stress among Australian judicial officers. These results deliver a picture of how Australian judges’ and magistrates’ levels of stress fit within the broader conversation about lawyer wellbeing that is taking place around the world.

Key findings

A number of important findings have arisen from this research. First, it has revealed that the pattern of stress and psychological ill-health among judicial officers in the study is different from that which has been reported for the Australian legal profession. This finding draws upon the results from the K-10, which measures psychological distress, and the DASS-21, which measures depressive and anxious symptoms. For the former, compared with K-10 data published for Australian barristers92 and the general population,93 judicial officers reported elevated rates of non-specific psychological distress in the moderate to high ranges. However, when considering distress in the very high range, judicial officers’ rates were considerably lower than all levels of the profession and the general population. Alongside the K-10 results, the DASS-21 results show that judicial officers reported symptoms of depression and anxiety at rates similar to (and, in the moderate to extremely severe ranges, lower than) those suggested for the general population,94 which is dramatically lower than those previously found for the broader legal profession.95 In fact, in the moderate to extremely severe ranges, lawyers’ reported rates of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms were more than three times those found for judicial officers in this study. Taken together these results suggest that while there is not a widespread mental health problem among the Australian judiciary, there is a stress problem. This is consistent with the limited empirical research on judicial stress from the United States, which has collectively suggested that judicial officers experience elevated occupational stress, but their rates of stress and mental ill-health are generally lower than practising lawyers.96 Given that judicial officers are, almost without exception, drawn from the population of practising lawyers, this difference in rates of mental ill-health between the two groups is interesting. It may be due to a number of factors. It may indicate that judicial work is quantitatively less demanding than legal practice, such that a key driver of mental ill-health within the legal profession is reduced among judges. Alternatively, it could suggest that those appointed to judicial office are generally well-adapted to legal work and well suited to the judicial role — in other words, that the appointment process is generally sound. Finally, it may be a reflection of the well-documented observation that late middle life (the age at which most judicial officers serve their time in office) is a period of relative mental stability. Indeed, it may indicate a combination of all three. Of course, the impact of these factors may vary between different levels of the court hierarchy and different practice areas; these issues will be explored in forthcoming articles.

Second, this research found that symptoms of burnout and secondary trauma were features of the occupational stress experience for many judicial officers. Considering first the MBI-GS burnout results, while only 4.0% of participants’ scores fell within the highest risk profile (ie high exhaustion, high cynicism and low professional efficacy), still only 24.8% fell within the lowest risk profile (ie low exhaustion, low cynicism and high professional efficacy), indicating that three-quarters (75.2%) of judicial officers in this study reported scores on at least one sub-scale that was consistent with some level of burnout risk. The burnout symptoms reported by judicial officers’ were chiefly along the axes of exhaustion and cynicism; while reported experiences of professional efficacy were generally very strong. The mean scores for both exhaustion and cynicism were in the moderate range, whereas the mean score for professional efficacy was in the high range — and higher, in fact, than the professional efficacy means reported for other occupational groups, such as psychiatric workers, civil servants and the military.97 These results suggest that although judicial officers’ are vulnerable to burnout, their experiences of burnout symptoms are likely to be characterised by feelings of emotional depletion and loss of meaning, rather than feelings of incompetence and ineffectiveness.

Turning to the STSS results, the overwhelming majority of judicial officers in this study (83.6%) endorsed at least one STS symptom, with almost a third (30.4%) obtaining total STSS scores in the moderate to severe ranges. Given that these statistics relate to symptoms experienced occasionally, often or very often in the one week prior to survey completion, these results suggest that, at any given point in time, a considerable proportion of judicial officers are burdened with one or more symptoms of STS. Promoting the STSS as a proxy measure of PTSD, Bride, the lead author of the STSS, has recommended that a total STSS score of 38 or higher be interpreted as indicating PTSD due to STS98 — in other words, all people scoring in the moderate to severe ranges can be considered, according to Bride, likely to meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD.99 By this analysis, 30.4% of judicial officers in the present study should be considered to be experiencing symptoms similar to, and likely qualifying for, PTSD. Although Bride reported good sensitivity and specificity for this cut-off value, this methodology has been followed in only one other study100 and hence has not been externally validated. Further, the STS does not address PTSD diagnostic criteria relating to duration of symptoms and functional impairment.101 It therefore provides, at best, a very crude basis upon which to infer post-traumatic psychopathology. Nonetheless, participants’ mean scores fell somewhere between those previously reported for other high stress professional groups, US social workers102 and US immigration judges,103 suggesting that STS is a prominent feature of the occupational stress experienced by Australian judicial officers. This is consistent with several American studies which have explored secondary trauma (and the related constructs of vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue) among judges.104 Third, the study found that judicial officers’ alcohol use was comparable to that reported for the Australian legal profession, which is considerably higher than the documented level of use within the Australian general population. A little over 30% of judicial officers’ AUDIT scores were in the medium- to high-risk levels, indicating problematic alcohol use; previous studies with Australian lawyers105 and the general population106 reported rates of medium- to high-risk scores as 32.0% and 18.8%, respectively. To the knowledge of the researcher, this is the first study internationally to measure judicial officers’ alcohol use. A number of Australian107 and American108 studies have investigated alcohol use among practising lawyers, frequently reporting that lawyers’ levels of use are higher than those of other occupational groups, especially as a way of managing stress and depression. The Law Institute of Victoria’s 2012 report, Mental Health and the Legal Profession: A Preventative Strategy, suggested that there may be a culture within the profession of self-medicating, noting alcohol abuse (and, to a lesser extent, substance abuse) is prevalent in the legal profession as a maladaptive strategy for dealing with stress.109 Although the present study did not investigate judicial officers’ functional goals for alcohol use, the results suggest that the pattern of alcohol consumption within the broader Australian legal profession extends to judicial officers.

Strengths and limitations

The present study makes a significant contribution to the conversation on judicial wellbeing taking place in Australia and around the world. As the first research to empirically measure levels of stress and psychological ill-health among Australian judicial officers, the present study is groundbreaking nationally, and — given the limited number of judicial stress studies undertaken using empirically validated measurement instruments110 — it is pioneering internationally. In addition, whereas previous studies of lawyer and judicial wellbeing have generally confined the analysis to one or two stress constructs, the present study operationalised judicial stress and wellbeing across six qualitatively different stress constructs and used empirically validated psychometric instruments to measure each. This expansive and rigorous measurement approach has afforded a rich and reliable picture of the varied ways in which the unique pressures of judicial office are experienced by judges and magistrates, and how judicial stress compares to the stress experienced by lawyers, other professionals and the general population. The clinical and social significance of this study is considerable. It directly targeted the suffering of senior public officials, judges and magistrates, which is not readily acknowledged and was historically taboo.111 Given the pivotal role that judicial officers play in Australia's democratic system and the daily impact of their decisions on people's lives, their psychological health and wellbeing is a vital community concern. As more and more judicial officers speak out about their experiences of stress and mental ill-health on the bench, and as courts in Australia and around the world begin to grapple with the question of how best to support judicial officers in their complex and critical work, the results of this study provide an initial basis for appropriate intervention and support.

There were of course some limitations with the present study. First, while this was the first empirical research into judicial wellbeing in Australia, it was not a fully national study. There are, at the time of writing, 38 courts in Australia;112 five were invited to participate in the study. These five spanned the court hierarchy from summary to appellate level and, given the study’s strong (67%) response rate and broad representativeness across the demographic variables, the survey data can be considered to reliably reflect the prevalence and severity of judicial stress within the five participating courts. However, the question of whether these findings can be generalised to the Australian judiciary as a whole is more nuanced. The five participating courts represent just over one-eighth of the courts currently operating within the Australian federal, State and Territory systems, and the 152 judicial participants represent approximately 14.4% of the Australian judicial population, which — at the time of writing — is estimated to number 1,052 judges and magistrates.113 It should be remembered in interpreting the results that the context and circumstances of judicial work varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and therefore the prevalence and severity findings generated by this study may not be representative of every Australian court.

Second, several aspects of the study design and recruitment methodology may have influenced the sample and responses. First, regarding the use of a survey — self-report bias and social-desirability bias are well-documented phenomena,114 and are limitations intrinsic to all survey-based psychological research. In this regard, it is possible that participants’ responses reflected their aspirational, rather than their actual, experiences. For example, in responding to the AUDIT, participants may have indicated their intended frequency and quantity of alcohol use, which may well be considerably lower than their actual level of use.115 Even if participants were trying to answer honestly, some may have lacked the introspective ability to provide accurate responses. Given that most of the measures assessed the frequency and intensity of negative stress symptoms, a lack of insight or introspection would likely lead to an under-reporting of symptoms. Although validated measurement instruments, like those used in this study, are scientifically developed to minimise the impact of self-report bias, it is not possible to completely eliminate under- or over-reporting of experience. This, of course, is equally a limitation for the survey-based studies cited throughout this article relating to the legal profession and the general population. However, given the reputed stress denying culture116 of the Australian judiciary, it is possible that self-report and social-desirability biases are more pronounced among judicial officers. Second, the recruitment methodology (distributing the survey during internal courts conferences) may not have reached judicial officers’ at their most stressed, given that conferences usually provide a short reprieve from the many stressors faced by judicial officers in their daily work. It was also unlikely to have reached the most acutely unwell judicial officers, who may have been on extended sick or stress leave or who may not have been prepared to dedicate the time to survey completion. While these limitations cannot be overlooked, they are arguably most likely to have contributed to an under-representation of the true prevalence and severity of judicial stress, such that is it possible the real extent of the stress experienced by judicial officers is higher than the findings suggest.

Future research

The results of the present study raise a number of questions that should be addressed in future research. Perhaps most importantly: are the findings indicative of the state of stress and wellbeing among judicial officers throughout Australia, or are they the idiosyncratic experience of the five participating courts? The Australian judicial system is diverse and dynamic, and while there are undoubtedly many commonalities in judicial work across the Australian courts, it is equally apparent that courts vary dramatically in terms of workload, work type, and work culture, any or all of which may impact the pressures confronted by judicial officers and the stress they experience. The present study highlights the need for a national study, involving all Australian courts, to determine the overall nature, prevalence and severity of judicial stress in Australia and to identify jurisdictions, practice areas and demographic groups that may be particularly affected. If such a study were to occur, it would be a world first. National judicial studies have been undertaken in Australia117 and the United Kingdom118 with great success and practical application; however, to date these have focused on workload, job satisfaction and judicial attitudes, and have not included validated measures of stress and wellbeing. As already noted, the small number of previous studies measuring judicial stress were all relatively small scale and jurisdiction specific. No country has yet embarked upon a full-scale national study of judicial wellbeing.

A related question is to what extent the findings of the current study reflect the general experience of judicial stress around the world. The current research adds to a very small body of empirical research into the psychological impact of judicial work, most of which has been conducted in North America. Judges around the world encounter many of the same occupational stressors (heavy workloads, dealing with distressing subject matter, daily immersion in conflict and disagreement, responsibility for decisions that significantly impact people’s lives); however, there are obviously also enormous differences in terms of history and culture, political and social context, terms and conditions, and practical support, to name but a few. Future studies into judicial stress and wellbeing in other countries should attempt to use the same validated measurement instruments as used in the current study, or one of the previous North American studies, to enable meaningful transnational comparisons.

A further area that needs to be explored is the positive side of judicial wellbeing. The present study has focused on the negative side of judicial wellbeing — that is, judicial stress. However, the results from the three questions measuring perceived stress and wellbeing provide an initial indication that personal wellbeing and satisfaction were prominent feelings alongside the stress of the role. It is possible that the sources of fulfilment, accomplishment and purpose within judicial work compensate or offset for the sources of stress, providing for a demanding but meaningful professional life. As research within the relatively recent but now very well-established field of Positive Psychology has demonstrated, meaning may be more integral to sustained wellbeing than ease or pleasure.119 Numerous validated measures of positive wellbeing now exist. Future studies could look into the nature and parameters of judicial wellbeing and satisfaction and explore the relationships between wellbeing variables and stress variables.

Finally, future research could attempt to determine the workplace factors that contribute greater judicial stress or wellbeing. There is much to guide such an inquiry. Extensive research in the fields of occupational stress and organisational psychology has generated a large evidence base for a number of models of workplace wellbeing, including the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s 13 factors for psychological health and safety in the workplace,120 which were adopted by the Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation (now Minds Count, the peak body for lawyer wellbeing in Australia) in its best practice guidelines for psychologically healthy legal workplaces.121 The 13 factors include organisational culture, civility and respect, psychological demands, and workload management, and provide a framework both for assessing the extent to which a workplace is supportive of psychological health and wellbeing, and for developing initiatives to improve wellbeing. Future research could be directed to exploring the presence and impact of these factors within the court environment, and their relationship to experiences of judicial stress.

Conclusion

This article has presented the methodology and primary quantitative analysis of Australia’s first empirical research measuring judicial stress and wellbeing. The findings arise from the survey responses of 152 judicial officers from five Australian courts. Using standardised and validated psychometric instruments for a broad range of stress constructs, the survey robustly explored the varying ways in which stress in judicial office can manifest, and provided a rich picture of the psychological impact of judicial work. The findings reveal a judicial system not in mental health crisis, but under considerable stress. Judicial officers’ rates of psychological distress were markedly higher than those previously reported for the general population and the barrister arm of the legal profession. Three-quarters of judicial officers’ burnout scores indicated some level of burnout risk. The great majority endorsed at least one symptom of STS, with approximately a third scoring in moderate to severe ranges. Almost one in three judicial officers reported problematic alcohol use. Alongside this, however, judicial officers’ rates of depressive and anxious symptoms were similar to and, in the moderate to extremely severe ranges, considerably lower than population norms, which is dramatically lower than rates reported for the legal profession. This research suggests that judicial officers in Australia are under pressure. Psychological distress, burnout and STS appear to be occupational hazards of judicial office, and, like lawyers, judicial officers seem more likely than others to rely on alcohol to manage the demands of the role. The good news is that judicial work does not appear to be associated with increased risk of mental illness and, for most judicial officers, judicial work is perceived as highly satisfying and less stressful than legal practice. While there are many questions yet to be explored, this first report from Australia’s first study measuring judicial stress provides the basis for beginning an evidence-based conversation on judicial wellbeing in Australia, and contributes to the international conversation on this important topic taking place beyond our shores.



1This article was first published by Thomson Reuters in the Journal of Judicial Administration and should be cited as C Schrever, C Hulbert and T Sourdin, “The psychological impact of judicial work: Australia’s first empirical research measuring judicial stress and wellbeing” 28 JJA 141. For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/search. The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase.

2BSci/LLB, MPsych (Clinical), PhD candidate (University of Melbourne). The author acknowledges the generous guidance and assistance received in the preparation of this article from her supervisors, Associate Professor Carol Hulbert (Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences) and Professor Tania Sourdin (Newcastle Law School). Thanks also to the Heads of the five participating jurisdictions, and the judicial officers of those courts, for their support for and participation in the project. The author also acknowledges the generous support of the Judicial College of Victoria and the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration throughout the project.

3Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.

4Professor and Dean, Newcastle Law School, The University of Newcastle, Australia.

5J Chamberlain and J Richardson, “Judicial stress: a topic in need of research” in M Miller and B Bornstein (eds), Stress, trauma, and wellbeing in the legal system, Oxford University Press, 2013, p 269.

6For a summary of Australian research on stress within the legal profession, see C Parker, “The moral panic over psychological wellbeing in the legal profession: a personal or political ethical response” (2014) 37(3) UNSW Law Journal 1103.

7At the time of writing, there are believed to be no more than 15 published studies worldwide purporting to systematically examine judicial stress: C Showalter and D Martell, “Personality, stress and health in American judges” (1985) 69(2) Judicature 82; J Rogers, S Freeman and P LeSage, “The cccupational stress of judges” (1991) 36(5) Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 317; T Eells and C Showalter, “Work-related stress in American trial judges” (1994) 22(1) Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 71; C Graff, “Stress management: controlling the hidden stalker within the Immigration Courts”, National Centre for State Courts, 8 February 2000 at https://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/hr/id/66/, accessed 6 August 2021; P Jaffe et al, “Vicarious trauma in judges: the personal challenge of dispensing justice” (2003) Fall Juvenile and Family Court Journal 1; D Flores et al, “Judges perspectives on stress and safety in the courtroom: an exploratory study” (2008) 45 Court Review 45 at 76; J Chamberlain and M Miller, “Evidence of secondary traumatic stress, safety concerns, and burnout among a homogenous group of judges in a single jurisdiction” (2009) 37 Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 214; S Lustig et al, “Burnout and stress among United States Immigration Judges” (2008) 13 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 22; S Lustig et al, “Inside the judges’ chambers: narrative responses from the National Association of Immigration Judges Stress and Burnout Survey" (2008) 23 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 57; M Ciocoiu, M Cojocaru and S Ciocoiu, “Implications of levels of stress factors in the magistrate’s activity” (2010) 15(3) Romanian Biotechnical Letters 126; M Ciocoiu, M Cojocaru and S Ciocoiu, “Stress related manifestations regarding magistrates” (2010) 15(3) Romanian Biotechnical Letters 134; F Tsai and C Chan, “Occupational stress and burnout of judges and procurators” (2010) 83 International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 133; A Resnick, K Myatt and P Marotta, “Surviving bench stress” (2011) July Family Court Review 610; L Krieger and K Sheldon, “What makes lawyers happy? A data-driven prescription to redefine professional success” (2015) 83(2) George Washington Law Review 554; M Miller et al, “Judicial stress: the roles of gender and social support” (2018) 25(4) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 602.

8Extensive, high-quality research has been conducted in Australia on the judicial experience, looking at judicial workload, work-practices and job satisfaction. This research, conducted principally by Emerita Professor Kathy Mack and Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu from Flinders University, is closely related to judicial wellbeing, and has greatly informed the present research. See, eg, K Mack, A Wallace and S Roach Anleu, Judicial Workload: Time, Tasks and Work Organisation, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, 2012.

9Chamberlain and Richardson, above n 1; J Chamberlain and M Miller, “Stress in the courtroom: call for research” (2008) 15(2) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 237.

10M Kirby, “Judicial stress: an unmentionable topic" (1995) 13 Australian Bar Review 101, 106.

11I Zimmerman, “Isolation in the Judicial Career” (2000) Winter Court Review 4.

12Resnick, Myatt and Marotta, above n 3, at 610–611.

13See, eg, Jaffe et al, above n 3.

14C Schrever, “Judge stress” (2015) September Law Institute Journal 29; C Schrever, “Current issues: Australia's first research measuring judicial stress and wellbeing: a preview of the findings” (2018) 92 ALJ 885 at 859.

15There were 164 surveys returned at the close of the survey. Nine did not have completed demographic data, and were therefore removed from the analysis, leaving a total of 152 valid responses to Part 1 of the survey.

16A forthcoming article by the present author, C Schrever, will explore these themes in more detail.

17R Ryan and E Deci (eds), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being” (2002) 55 American Psychologist 68.

18See, eg, Krieger and Sheldon, above n 3.

19R Ryan and E Deci, Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development and Wellness, Guilford Publishing, 2017.

20E Deci and R Ryan, “The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality” (1985) 19 Journal of Research in Personality 109.

21R Ryan, “Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes” (1995) 63 Journal of Personality 397.

22ibid.

23Ryan and Deci, above n 15.

24E Deci et al, “Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organisations of a former Easter Bloc country: a cross-cultural study of self-determination” (2001) 27(8) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 930.

25T Kasser, J Davey and R Ryan, “Motivation and employee — supervisor discrepancies in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting” (1992) 37(3) Rehabilitation Psychology 175.

26ibid; Deci et al, above n 20.

27E McAuley, T Duncan and VV Tammen, “Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis” (1987) 60 Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 48.

28R Kessler et al, “Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress” (2002) 32 Psychological Medicine 959.

29G Andrews and T Slade, “Interpreting scores on the Kessler psychological distress scale (K10)” (2001) 26(6) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 494.

30Australian Bureau of Statistics, Use of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale in ABS Health Surveys, Australia, 2007–2008, National Health Survey 2007–2008, Information Paper, 4817.0.55.001, 2012.

31N Kelk et al, Courting the blues: attitudes towards depression in Australian law students and legal practitioners, Monograph 2009-1, Brain and Mind Research Institute, 2009 (Courting the Blues Study); N Kelk, S Medlow and I Hickie, “Distress and depression among Australian law students: incidence, attitudes and the role of universities” (2010) 32 Sydney Law Review 113; C Leahy et al, “Distress levels and self-reported treatment rates for medicine, law, psychology and mechanical engineering students: cross-sectional study” (2010) 44 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 608.

32N Kelk et al, above n 27, p 9–10; Australian Bureau of Statistics, above n 26.

33Andrews and Slade, above n 25.

34Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, 2007, Summary of Results, Category no 4326.0, 23 October 2008.

35P Lovibond and S Lovibond, “The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the Beck depression inventories” (1995) 33(3) Behaviour Research and Therapy 335.

36Norms are provided by P Lovibond and S Lovibond, Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), Psychology Foundation Monograph, 1993 (DASS Manual).

37See T Brown et al, “Psychometric properties of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) in clinical samples” (1997) 35(1) Behaviour Research and Therapy 79.

38See Parker et al, above n 2, at 1108–1110.

39N Highet, I Hickie and T Davenport, “Monitoring awareness of and attitudes to depression in Australia” (2002) 176 Medical Journal of Australia S63.

40Courting the Blues Study, above n 27.

41I Hickie et al, “The assessment of depression awareness and help-seeking behaviour: experiences with the international depression literacy survey” (2007) 7 BMC Psychiatry 48.

42Ye Rong et al, “Recognition and treatment of depression: a comparison of Australian and Chinese medical students” (2009) 44(8) Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 636; Y Rong et al, “Improving knowledge and attitudes towards depression: a controlled trial among Chinese medical students” (2011) 11 BMC Psychiatry 36.

43Hickie et al, above n 37.

44See, eg, Chamberlain and Miller, above n 5; Chamberlain and Richardson, above n 1.

45M Miller and J Richardson, “Model of causes and effects of judicial stress” (2006) Fall Judicature 20; T Hagen and S Bogaerts, “Work pressure and sickness absenteeism among judges” (2014) 21(1) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 92.

46C Maslach, S Jackson and M Leiter, Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, Mind Garden, 3 edn, 2013 at p 4.

47ibid at p 16; M Leiter and J Durup, “The discriminant validity of burnout and depression: a confirmatory factor analytic study” (1994) 32 Anxiety, Stress and Coping 357.

48Maslach, Jackson and Leiter, n 46, at p 16.

49C Maslach and S Jackson, “The measurement of experienced burnout” (1981) 2 Journal of Occupational Behaviour 99.

50T Christensen et al, “The Copenhagen burnout inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout” (2005) 19 Work & Stress 192.

51Lustig et al, Burnout and stress among United States Immigration Judges, n 7.

52Tasi and Chan, n 7.

53Maslach and Jackson, n 49.

54N Schutte et al, “The factorial validity of the Maslach burnout inventory-general survey (MBI-GS) across occupational groups and nations” (2000) 73 Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 53.

55W Schaufeli et al, MBI general survey, 1996, (available for purchase from www.mindgarden.com).

56C Maslach and S Jackson, MBI-Human Services Survey, 1981, (available for purchase from www.mindgarden.com).

57C Maslach, S Jackson, and R Schwab, MBI-Educators Survey, 1986, (available for purchase from www.mindgarden.com).

58Chamberlain and Miller, n 9, at 244.

59Schaufeli et al, n 55.

60See, eg, Chamberlain and Miller, n 9; Chamberlain and Richardson, n 5; Miller and Richardson, n 45; Schrever, “Judge stress”, n 14; I Zimmerman, “Helping judges in distress” (2006) 90(1) Judicature 10 at 11–12.

61D Heilpern, “Lifting the judicial veil — vicarious trauma, PTSD and the judiciary: a personal story”, speech delivered at the Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation Annual Lecture, Sydney, 25 October 2017; K Adam, “The price I paid for being a good judge”, National Centre for State Courts, 20 April 2017, www.judges.org/price-paid-good-judge/, accessed 11 August 2021.

62Jaffe et al, n 7; Chamberlain and Miller, n 7; Lustig et al, “Burnout and stress among United States Immigration Judges”, n 7; Resnick, Myatt and Marotta, n 7.

63B Bride et al, “Development and validation of the secondary traumatic stress scale” (2004) 14(1) Research on Social Work Practice 27.

64Lustig et al, “Burnout and stress among United States Immigration Judges”, n 7, at 27.

65Bride et al, n 63, at 27, quoting C Figley, “Compassion fatigue: towards a new understanding of the costs of caring” in B Stamm (ed), Secondary Traumatic Stress: Self-Care Issues for Clinicians, Researchers, and Educators, Sidran, 2 edn, 1999, p 3, at p 10.

66DSM-IV at the time of scale development, in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, APA, 4 edn, text revision, 2000.

67B Bride, “Prevalence of secondary traumatic stress among social workers” (2007) 52(1) Social Work 63 at 67; J Caringi et al, “Secondary traumatic stress and licensed clinical social workers” (2016) 23(2) Traumatology 186 at 190.

68Bride, n 67, 68.

69Bride, n 67; Caringi et al, n 67, 190.

70See, eg, Beaton Consulting, Annual Professions Survey, Summary Research, Beyondblue, April 2007 at 2–3.

71P Schiltz, “On being a happy, healthy, and ethical member of an unhappy, unhealthy and unethical profession” (1999) 52 Vanderbilt Law Review 871 at 876.

72G Andrew et al, “The prevalence of depression, alcohol abuse and cocaine abuse among United States lawyers” (1990) 13 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 233; Beaton Consulting, n 70; J Chan, S Poynton and J Bruce, “Lawyering stress and work culture: an Australian study” (2014) 37(3) UNSW Law Journal 1062; P Krill, R Johnson and L Albert, “The prevalence of substance use and other mental health concerns among American attorneys” (2016) 10(1) Journal of Addiction Medicine 46.

73J Saunders et al, “Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption II” (1993) 88 Addiction 791; T Babor et al, AUDIT: the alcohol use disorders identification test — Guidelines for use in primary health care, World Health Organisation, 2 edn, 2001, at https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/67205, accessed 11 August 2021, (AUDIT Manual); D Reinert and J Allen, “The alcohol use disordered identification test: a update of research findings” (2007) 31(2) Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 185.

74Chan, Poynton and Bruce, n 72.

75Krill, Johnson and Albert, n 72.

76Chan, Poynton and Bruce, n 72 at 81; AUDIT Manual, n 73 at 21–22. Note that the AUDIT Manual divides the high-risk category into two zones, the first (scores 16–19) indicating simple advice plus brief counselling and continued monitoring are necessary, and the second (scores 20+) indicating referral to a specialist for diagnostic evaluation and treatment.

77Krill, Johnson and Albert, n 72 at 47.

78Courting the Blues Study, n 31.

79Australian Bureau of Statistics, n 30; Australian Bureau of Statistics, n 34.

80See, eg, Chan, Poynton and Bruce, n 72; A Bergin and N Jimmieson, “Australian lawyer well-being: workplace demands, resources and the impact of time-billing targets” (2014) 21(3) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 427; W Larcombe et al, “Does an improved experience of law school protect students against depression, anxiety and stress? An empirical study of wellbeing and the law school experience of LLB and JD students” (2013) 35 Sydney Law Review 407.

81Chan, Poynton and Bruce, n 72 at 1081. Note: Chan, Poynton and Bruce used the extended version of the DASS, the DASS-42, so (as permitted by DASS Manual) the cut-off scores were divided by two to match the cut-offs for the DASS-21.

82Normative percentiles reported in official DASS Manual, n 36. No n for the normative sample was provided.

83Results of these studies are summarised in C Maslach, S Jackson and M Leiter, Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, Mind Garden, 3 edn, 2013, (MBI Manual) p 24 at p 48.

84Lustig et al, Burnout and stress among United States Immigration Judges, n 7.

85Bride et al, n 63.

86Caringi et al, n 67.

87As set out in the DSM-IV, n 66, which was current at the time the STSS was produced.

88Bride et al, n 63.

89Bride, n 67; Caringi et al, n 67.

90Chan, Poynton and Bruce, n 72 at 1087.

91C Moller, R Tait, and D Byrne, “Self-harm, substance use and psychological distress in the Australian general population” (2013) 108(1) Addiction 211 at 215. Figures reported for Australians in their 40s. An error in the table (figures for abstainer and low risk have been interchanged). In addition, there is an error in the calculation of the percentage of abstainers: paper reports 6.7% but manually calculated the correct percentage is 8.1%.

92Courting the Blues Study, n 31 at 9–10.

93Australian Bureau of Statistics, n 30.

94DASS Manual, n 36.

95Chan, Poynton and Bruce, n 72.

96To the knowledge of the research, there is only one study worldwide that has specifically compared levels and rates of distress between judicial officers and practicing lawyers (Krieger and Sheldon, n 7) reporting that judges’ levels of depression were the lowest of all legal practitioner groups. Other studies have reported elevated distress symptoms among judges without reference to the legal profession: see, eg, Showalter and Martell, n 7; Eells and Showalter, n 7; Jaffe et al, n 7; Flores et al, n 7; Lustig et al, “Burnout and stress among United States Immigration Judges”, n 7; Miller et al, n 7.

97MBI Manual, n 83 at 24.

98Bride, n 67.

99As set out in the DSM-IV, n 66, which was current at the time the STSS was produced.

100Caringi et al, n 67.

101Diagnostic criteria E and F in DSM-IV, n 66.

102Bride et al, n 63.

103Lustig et al, Burnout and Stress Among United States Immigration Judges, n 7.

104Jaffe et al, n 7; Chamberlain and Miller, n 7; Lustig et al, “Burnout and stress among United States Immigration Judges”, n 7; Resnick, Myatt and Marotta, n 7; Miller et al, n 7.

105Chan, Poynton and Bruce, n 72 at 1087.

106Moller et al, n 91, 215.

107Beaton Consulting, n 70; Chan, Poynton and Bruce, n 72.

108G Andrew, H Benjamin, E Darling, and B Sales, “The prevalence of depression, alcohol abuse, and cocaine abuse among United States lawyers” (1990) 13 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 223; Krill, Johnson and Albert, n 72.

109L Helm, Mental Health and the Legal Profession: A Preventative Strategy, Final Report, Law Institute of Victoria, 11 September 2014, p 14.

110Of the 15 published studies directed to systematically exploring judicial stress, less than half (seven in total) reported using validated stress measurement instruments: Showalter and Martell, n 7; Eells and Showalter, n 7; Flores et al, n 7; Lustig et al, “Burnout and stress among United States Immigration Judges”, n 7; Tsai and Chan, n 7; Krieger and Sheldon, n 7; Miller et al, n 7.

111Kirby, n 10.

112The figure of 38 was arrived at by counting courts as presented in various annual reports and this number may be slightly higher. For example, the researcher has included as separate courts Children’s/Youth Courts and Coroners Courts where possible and it may be that some separate courts are not included in the figure of 38.

113Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Judicial Gender Statistics, 7 March 2018, at https://aija.org.au/research/judicial-gender-statistics/, accessed 11 August 2021. This information is collated by the AIJA Librarian using the court websites.

114See M Hunt, J Auriemma and A Cashaw, “Self-report bias and underreporting of depression on the BDI-II” (2003) 80(1) Journal of Personality Assessment 26.

115See K Kypri et al, “Social desirability bias in the reporting of alcohol consumption: a randomised trial” (2016) 77(3) Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 526; M Devaux and F Sassi, “Social disparities in hazardous alcohol use: self-report bias may lead to incorrect estimates” (2016) 26(1) European Journal of Public Health 129.

116See Kirby, n 10, 101; M Kirby, “Judicial stress — a reply” (1997) 71 ALJ 791.

117See the extensive and high-quality work conducted principally by Emerita Professor K Mack and Professor S Roach Anleu from Flinders University on judicial workload, emotion and job-satisfaction, eg, K Mack, A Wallace and S Roach Anleu, Judicial Workload: Time, Tasks and Work Organisation, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, 2012.

118C Thomas, “2016 UK Judicial Attitude Survey: Report of Findings Covering Salaried Judges in England & Wales Courts and UK Tribunals” Report, UCL Judicial Institute, 7 February 2017, at www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/jas-2016-england-wales-court-uk-tribunals-7-february-2017.pdf, accessed 11 August 2021.

119For a discussion of the relationship between meaning and wellbeing in judicial work, see A Brafford and R Rebele, “Judges well-being and the importance of meaningful work” (2018) 54 Court Review 60.

120Mental Health Commission of Canada, 13 Factors: Addressing Mental Health in the Workplace, 2018, at www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/13-factors-addressing-mental-health-workplace, accessed 11 August 2021.

121Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation, TJMF Psychological Wellbeing: Best Practice Guidelines for the Legal Profession at www.mcw.com.au/content/Document/TJMFMentalHealthGuidelines_A4_140426.pdf, accessed 11 August 2021.