Many judges experience occupation‐specific stress, such as secondary traumatic stress (STS), burnout, compassion fatigue, and vicarious traumatization. A content analysis of 762 judges’ open‐ended responses to a survey asking whether they had suffered from STS revealed that judges moderately experienced most types of stress. Some case types (e.g., family court) and some job aspects (e.g., gruesome evidence) were particularly stressful. Judges reported both positive (e.g., social support) and negative (e.g., distractions) coping mechanisms. Interventions should be tailored to judges’ characteristics, (e.g., gender), job (e.g., family court), beliefs (e.g., that STS does not exist), and level of distress.

No abstract

No abstract

In response to The National Judicial College’s Question of the Month (n=831) in April 2018, almost 45% of judges reported that civility was declining in their courtrooms. A content analysis of judges’ comments revealed that judges experience a broad range of incivility including uncivil behavior, speech, and self‐presentation. Similarly, the sources of incivility appear to come from a variety of individuals including members of the public, defendants/plaintiffs, self‐represented litigants, attorneys, and other judges. These findings shed light on potential causes of incivility and can help legal practitioners and psychologists determine “best practices” for managing courtroom‐specific workplace incivility.

No abstract