Therapeutic Jurisprudence

I remember the day I discovered the Law Review article by Stolle and Wexler.I had just become a Family Court Judge. I had as my vision that I could be the handmaiden of greater healing as a judge rather than as a lawyer.
The latter years of my divorce practice were esconced in high asset cases, surrounded by the wealthy who hungered for simple advice on values and spirit,wanting to be authentic in the face of the storm of dissent that only divorce can so beautifully unleash.
Try as I might, my clients would not turn to their churches, therapists,or other advisors but to me: for life instructions both for their divorce issues and for their futures.I had only success.My bills were paid,I received lavish gifts of jewelry and most importantly I received their love back.

Last night we had the conference dinner. It was held at the Melbourne Aquarium on the Yarra River in central Melbourne. On one side we could see the river and on the other a large aquarium full of beautiful fish. At least we were not located near a shark tank! The President of the Court of Appeal of Victoria gave an interesting and entertaining after dinner speech, talking, amongst other things, about the role of therapeutic jurisprudence in an appeal court.

It is now day 2 of the conference. I will again blog the day. As with yesterday’s blog, here is my exclusion clause: what follows is a selection of thoughts and impressions rather than a comprehensive coverage of what each speaker says.

David Yamada of Suffolk University Law School has recently posted a thoughtful and stimulating article to SSRN. It bears the title "Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Practice of Legal Scholarship". The article is to be published in the University of Memphis Law Review. The article makes a novel, creative and important contribution to the expansion of TJ scholarship – examining how a TJ analysis can improve legal scholarship and at the same time promote a more rewarding experience for those involved in it.

I do not intend to repeat the contents of the article – I encourage you to read it in full. What follows are a few observations and some highlights from the article.

As some of the contributors to different vectors of the comprehensive law movement or non-adversarial justice – such as Peggy Hora, David Wexler, Bruce Winick and Victorian Deputy Chief Magistrate Jelena Popovic have observed – judging in a problem-solving court is significantly different from conventional judging. It is little wonder that mainstream legal education, legal practice and judicial education have hitherto largely not properly prepared judicial officers for this form of judging.