Trauma, stress and burnout among judges and magistrates could put the whole legal system at risk

Society needs efficient and well-functioning courts. In practice, that means we need judges and magistrates in good mental health.

However, a growing body of research shows these judicial officers are living with very concerning levels of stress and trauma.

A growing body of research

This is a worldwide problem.

One 2025 New Zealand study reported judges and magistrates had to contend with “enormous workloads, complex cases, unmanageable deadlines, high personal and public performance expectations, and reported professional isolation with limited management support”.

A study of Ghanaian judges published this year revealed many feel under intense pressure to perform, and struggle with work-life balance. Research shows judges in the United Kingdom are experiencing stress, burnout, sleep problems and isolation.

A study I coauthored with researchers specialising in law, sociology and psychology looked more closely at this issue in the Australian context.

Our research, based on a survey of 602 judges and magistrates from all states and territories across Australia, and published last year in the Judicial Officers Bulletin, revealed 38.4% registered either moderate or high levels of distress.

More than one-third of them had trauma symptom levels high enough to warrant a formal assessment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

We also found judges take joy in making a positive contribution to society. They often enjoy the complex legal decision-making required in their jobs, and derive satisfaction from formulating reasons and writing judgments.

When we looked at stress and trauma, however, the picture that emerged was extremely worrying.

To measure participants’ overall psychological distress, we used the well-researched Kessler-10 scale. You might have done this questionnaire yourself in a hospital or GP’s office.

Only 2.2% of people in the general population score above 30 on this test, which puts them in a very high-risk category.

A score above 30 indicates a 76% chance you will meet the diagnostic criteria for a disorder such as anxiety, depression or substance use.

Worryingly, 5.6% of the judges in our sample scored above 30.

In other words, judges were more than twice as likely to score above 30 than the general population.

In fact, 38.4% registered either moderate or high levels of distress.

We also tested participants against a different measure known as the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (which measures the effects of working with traumatised people).

More than 30% of respondents’ scores were in the moderate, high or severe ranges. Scoring this high would warrant a formal assessment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

This is far higher than what we’d expect to see in the general population.

Grim work and an unmanageable pace

We also asked judges and magistrates about sources of stress in their life.

Judges and magistrates often cited the volume of work and the pace required to accomplish it as stressors. One told us:

The workload was such that I could produce judgments of a standard that satisfied me, and do my fair share of the court’s work, only by working at weekends.

Another said:

The greatest stress in my last few years of service was the never-ending nature of criminal cases involving sex offences against children.

All of our studies so far have found that both the prevalence of psychological distress and of systemic challenges is significantly greater in the Magistrates Courts (which handle the vast majority of cases) than in the District, County or Supreme Court (which handle matters that cannot be heard in the Magistrates Courts).

Even after allowing for other variables such as the gender of the magistrate or location of the court, the most significant factor driving this was just doing the work of a magistrate (higher workloads, less support and fewer assistants).

The surge in self-represented litigants, who impose a very significant burden on the legal system, also represented a major source of stress. Respondents spoke about unmanageably long court lists of 100 or 120 cases in a day.

It is vitally important magistrates not be confronted with matters involving 50 or 100 people a day, with court papers often disorganised and needing to be assembled while listening to lawyers.

Many also spoke about the difficulty of balancing family with work.

One judge told us:

I feel the court system is 50 years behind supporting judicial officers who have family or carer responsibilities.

What would help?

Many people assume judges and magistrates live a privileged and serene existence.

The research tells a different story.

These issues are not new. Former judge of the High Court of Australia, the Honourable Michael Kirby’s 1995 paper Judicial Stress: an unmentionable topic also drew attention to these problems.

And well before that, American clinical psychologist Isaiah Zimmerman highlighted how judges endure isolation, lose friendships and contend with threats.

He formulated what he called a “personal burnout prevention plan” to be implemented every six months.

Practical measures to help could include:

• chamber days, where judges are relieved of court duty to catch up on other work
• access to high-quality counselling
• making space for conversations around wellbeing
• more sabbatical leave, and
• having more magistrates overall.

The first step, however, is to acknowledge that judicial officers work hard to provide us with the highest quality court system.

This work is often being done at great personal, unseen, cost – a cost we ignore at our peril.

Too many stressed and burnt out judges could risk a shortage of judicial officers, a clogged court system and lower quality judgments. It may put at risk the healthy functioning of the entire legal system.