Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Is Responsive Judging?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Responsive Judge

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 67))

  • 730 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter the Editors introduce the concept of responsive judging, examine its historical roots, and explore some of its manifestations in courts and judiciaries today. In general terms, judicial responsiveness is an acknowledgement by judges that the law is not an autonomous field of activity answerable only to its own norms, but is rather a semi-autonomous practice embedded in society which answers to the desire for justice of members of that society. Such a conception of responsiveness is compared to more traditional jurisprudential analyses of law and a view of law as intersecting and interacting with society is preferred. Some elements of responsiveness are explored including accountability, concern for consequences of decisions and the experiences of litigants, as well as the need for open communication with the public. Critiques of responsive judging are examined and answered. The chapter concludes with an overview of the aspirations and examples of responsive judging which appear in the following chapters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The following description of “classic” responsive judging is largely based on Fuller (1978) and Eisenberg (1978).

  2. 2.

    For judicial pronouncements on the rule against bias, see R v Watson (1976), Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983), Vakauta v Kelly (1989).

  3. 3.

    A court team usually consists of a variety of professionals from different backgrounds including defense lawyers, community support agents and treatment providers such as psychologists, social workers etc.

  4. 4.

    The term ‘People’ in this context is understood as including any legal entity which may use services provided by the civil justice system including corporations, incorporated associations etc.

  5. 5.

    It has been suggested that those exposed to cooperative dispute resolution processes develop more constructive communication patterns and less obstructive behaviour: Wanger (1994).

  6. 6.

    However, as noted by McGuire and Macdonald (1996) even judges who are given an explicit mandate to assist self-represented parties still find it difficult to abandon the role of passive “umpire”. See also Steinberg (2016).

References

  • Alberstein M, Zimerman N (2017) Constructive plea bargaining: towards judicial conflict resolution. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 32:279–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldisert RJ (2009) Judicial declaration of public policy. J Appellate Pract Process 10(2):229–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander N (2009) International and comparative mediation: legal perspectives. Kluwer, Alphen ann den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison JWF (1994) Fuller’s analysis of polycentric disputes and the limits of adjudication. Camb Law J 53(2):367–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Bar Association Consortium on Legal Services and the Public (1994) Legal needs and civil justice. American Bar Association, Chicago. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/legalservices/downloads/sclaid/legalneedstudy.authcheckdam.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2018

  • Arbour L (2017) @louise_arbour. https://twitter.com/louise_arbour?lang=en. Accessed 5 Oct 2017

  • Arvind TT (2012) ‘Though it shocks one very much’: formalism and pragmatism in the Zong and Bancoult. Oxf J Legal Stud 32(1):113–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attorney General’s Department, Australia (2012) Draft objectives for the civil justice system. https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/Documents/Draft%20objectives%20for%20the%20civil%20justice%20system.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2018

  • Australian Law Reform Commission (1997) Review of the adversarial system of litigation: rethinking the federal civil litigation system (Issues Paper No. 20). Australian Law Reform Commission, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Law Reform Commission (1998) Review of the adversarial system of litigation: ADR—its role in federal dispute resolution (Issues Paper No 25). Australian Law Reform Commission, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Baicker-McKee S (2015) Reconceptualizing managerial judges. Am Univ Law Rev 65:353–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandes SA (2015) Empathy and Article III: Judge Weinstein, cases and controversies. DePaul Law Rev 64:317–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett RE (1987) Foreword: judicial conservatism v. a principled judicial activism. Harvard J Law Public Policy 10:273–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker L (2005) Judicial activism in Australia: a perspective, 79 Aust Law J, 783

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum L (2006) Judges and their audiences: a perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenko S (1998) Research on drug courts: a critical review. Natl Drug Court Inst Rev 1(1):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman G (2000) What is traditional justice anyway? Problem solving in the state courts. Judicature 8:78–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman G, Feinblatt J (2004) Therapeutic Jurisprudence: the role of forensic psychology. In: Sarre R, Tamaino J (eds) Key issues in criminal justice. Australian Humanities Press, Unley, pp 166–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernal D (2017) Taking the court to the people: real-world solutions for nonappearance. Ariz Law Rev 59:547–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Billingsley B, Lowe D, Stratton M (2006) Civil justice system and the public: learning from experiences to find practices that work. Canadian Forum on Civil Justice. http://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files/docs/2006/cjsp-learning-en.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Bowen P (2017) Building trust: how our courts can improve the criminal court experience for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic defendants. Centre for Justice Innovation. http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/building-trust/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Brazil WD (1985) Settling civil suits: litigators’ views about appropriate roles and effective techniques for federal judges. American Bar Association, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazil WD (1999) Comparing structures for the delivery of ADR services by courts: critical values and concerns. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 14:715–811

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan WJ Jr (1988) Reason, passion, and the progress of the law. Cardozo Law Rev 10:3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning JG (2016) The judge as digital citizen: pros, cons, and ethical limitations on judicial use of new media. Faulkner Law Rev 8:131–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbank S (1997) The courtroom as classroom: independence, imagination and ideology in the work of Jack Weinstein. Columbia Law Rev 97:1971–2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger WE (1976) 70 F.R.D. 83. Agenda for 2000 A.D.-a need for systematic anticipation. Global Pound Conference. http://baltimore2017.globalpoundconference.org/Documents/1976%20Addresses%20Delivered%20at%201976%20Pound%20Conference.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2017

  • Burke K, Leben S (2007) Procedural fairness: a key ingredient in public satisfaction. Court Rev 44:4–25. University of Nebraska. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/226/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Caldwell J (2011) Common law judges and judicial interviewing. Child Fam Law Q 23:41–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Cates CL, McIntosh WV (1995) Retail jurisprudence: the judge as entrepreneur in the marketplace of ideas. J Law Polit 11:709–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Chayes A (1976) The role of the judge in public law litigation. Harvard Law Rev 89(7):1281–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheema MH (2016) The ‘Chaudhry court’: deconstructing the ‘judicialization of politics’ in Pakistan. Pac Rim Law Policy J 25:447–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin D (2012) Sentencing: a role for empathy. Univ Penn Law Rev 160(6):1561–1584

    Google Scholar 

  • Church TW Jr (1982) The ‘old and the new’ conventional wisdom of court delay. Justice Syst J 7:395–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen FS (1935) Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach. Columbia Law Rev 35(6):809–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colatrella MT Jr (2000) ‘Court-performed’ mediation in the People’s Republic of China: a proposed model to improve the United States federal district courts’ mediation programs. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 15:391–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Colby TB (2012) In defense of judicial empathy. Minn Law Rev 96:1944–2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook B (2017) Active adjudication: improving access to justice. Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators. https://soar.on.ca/system/files/documents/cook-presentation-session2-ontario.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Coumarelos C, Wei Z, Zhou AZ (2006) Justice made to measure: NSW legal needs survey in disadvantaged areas. Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, Sydney. http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/report/survey2006. Accessed 11 Feb 2018

  • Courts and Programs Development Unit (2006) Policy framework to consolidate and extend problem-solving courts and approaches. Department of Justice, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Darbyshire P (2011) Sitting in judgment. Hart Publishing, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies G, Sheldon S (1993) Some proposed changes in civil procedure: their practical benefits and ethical rationale. J Judicial Adm 3:111–127

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoon M, Verberk S (2013) Judicial conflict management: what brings litigants to court? In: Sourdin T, Zariski A (eds) The multi-tasking judge: comparative judicial dispute resolution. Thomson Reuters, Sydney, pp 87–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Deason EE (2017) Beyond ‘managerial judges’: appropriate roles in settlement. Ohio State Law J 78:73–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodson S, Klebba JM (2011) Global civil procedure trends in the twenty-first century. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 34:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Domnarski W (2016) Richard Posner. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke Group (in Liq) v Alamein Investments Ltd. and ors (2003) SASC 272

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenzweig AA (1965) Psychoanalytic jurisprudence: a common language for Babylon. Columbia Law Rev 65:1331–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg MA (1978) Participation, responsiveness, and the consultative process: an essay for Lon Fuller. Harvard Law Rev 92:410–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott ED (1986) Managerial judging and the evolution of procedure. Univ Chicago Law Rev 53:306–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson RW (2015) Judges as guardian angels: the German practice of hints and feedback. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law 48:707–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrow TCW (2014) Civil justice, privatization, and democracy. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2017) Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Feminist Judgments Project (2017) https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/fjp/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Fielding NG (2011) Judges and their work. Soc Legal Stud 20:97–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fish S (2009) Empathy and the law. New York Times. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/empathy-and-the-law/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Fisher F (2014) Moving toward a more perfect world: achieving equal access to justice through a new definition of judicial activism. City Univ N Y Law Rev 17:285–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss OM (1979) Foreword: the forms of justice. Harvard Law Rev 93(1):1–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss OM (1984) Against settlement. Yale Law J 93:1073–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fix-Fierro H (2003) Courts, justice and efficiency. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaherty M (2015) Self-represented litigants, active adjudication and the perception of bias: issues in administrative law. Dalhousie Law J 38:119–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogel J, Strong SI (2016) Judicial education, dispute resolution and the life of a judge: a conversation with Judge Jeremy Fogel, director of the Federal Judicial Center. J Dispute Resolut 2016:259–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Forde HMW (2001) What model of court governance would optimize the expeditious delivery of justice, judicial independence and the accountability of Queensland’s court system? Presented at Conference on Governance and Justice, Griffith University, Brisbane, 9 July. http://archive.sclqld.org.au/judgepub/forde090701.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2012

  • Frank J (1930) Law and the modern mind. Brentano’s, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank J (1931a) Are judges human? Part one: the effect on legal thinking of the assumption that judges behave like human beings. Univ Penn Law Rev 80:17–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank J (1931b) Are judges human? Part two: as through a glass darkly. Univ Penn Law Rev 80:233–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank J (1949) Courts on trial: myth and reality in American justice. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg A (2001) Problem-oriented courts: innovative solutions to intractable problems? J Judicial Adm 11:8–27

    Google Scholar 

  • French HR (2009) Perspectives on court annexed alternative dispute resolution. High Court of Australia.http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/frenchcj/frenchcj27july09.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2012

  • Fuller LL (1978) The forms and limits of adjudication. Harvard Law Rev 92:353–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galanter M (1986) The emergence of the judge as a mediator in civil cases. Judicature 69:257–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter M (2014) Snakes and ladders: suo moto intervention and the Indian judiciary. Florida Int Univ Law Rev 10:69–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter M, Palen FS, Thomas JM (1979) The crusading judge: judicial activism in trial courts. South Calif Law Rev 52:699–742

    Google Scholar 

  • Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263

    Google Scholar 

  • Galligan TC Jr (2005) Understanding the unrepresented. Tenn Bar J 41:14–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Garoupa N, Ginsburg T (2009) Judicial audiences and reputation: perspectives from comparative law. Columbia J Transnational Law 47:451–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Gélinas F, Camion C, Bates K, Anstis S, Piché C, Khan M, Grant E (2015) Foundations of civil justice: toward a value-based framework for reform. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Genn H (1999) Paths to justice: what people do and think about going to law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Genn H, Paterson A (1999) Paths to justice Scotland. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg S (2011) Problem-solving in Canada’s courtrooms: a guide to therapeutic justice. National Judicial Institute. https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/?langSwitch=en. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Goldberg JCP (2015) Judging responsibility, responsible judging. DePaul Law Rev 64:475–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Graff G (2012) Courts are conversations: an argument for increased engagement by court leaders. National Center for State Courts. http://www.ncsc.org/services-and-experts/court-leadership/harvard-executive-session/courts-are-conversations-an-argument-for-increased-engagement-by-court-leaders.aspx. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Greenberg EE (2017) Bridging our justice gap with empathic processes that change hearts, expand minds about implicit discrimination. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 32:441–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ (2001) Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Rev 86:777–830

    Google Scholar 

  • Haavisto V (2002) Court work in transition: an activity-theoretical study of changing work practices in a Finnish district court. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/19754. Accessed 26 Aug 2012

  • Hansford J (2014) Cause judging. Georgetown J Legal Ethics 27:1–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazard GC, Dondi A (2006) Responsibilities of judges and advocates in civil and common law: some lingering misconceptions concerning civil lawsuits. Cornell Int Law J 39:59–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson L (1988) The dialogue of heart and head. Cardozo Law Rev 10:123–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Herz R (2012) The art of justice: the judge’s perspective. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman M (2000) The drug court scandal. N C Law Rev 78:1437–1534

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes OW Jr (1897) The path of the law. Harvard Law Rev 10:457–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes J, Bryden P (2017) Implications of case management and active adjudication for judicial disqualification. Alberta Law Rev 54(4):849–870

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter R, Anleu SR, Mack K (2016) Judging in lower courts: conventional, procedural, therapeutic and feminist approaches. Int J Law Context 12(3):337–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson AC (1979) Book review: Law and society in transition: toward responsive law. By Nonet P, Selznick P. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson AC (2003) Heydon’ seek: looking for law in all the wrong places, 29 Monash UL Rev 85, 103

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation (1984) 597 F. Supp. 740 (E.D.N.Y. 1984). Justia. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/597/740/1437287/. Accessed 11 Feb 2018

  • Indermaur D, Roberts L (2003) Drug courts in Australia: the first generation. Curr Crim Issues Crim Justice 15(2):136–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Infante EA (1997) Judicial case management in the federal trial courts of the United States of America. World Bank. http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/LearningProgram/Judicial/CASEMGMT%20Infante%20paper.doc. Accessed 10 Oct 2017

  • International Commission of Jurists (2017) International Commission of Jurists. https://www.icj.org/. Accessed 5 Oct 2017

  • Ipp D (1995) Judicial intervention in the trial process. Aust Law J 69:365–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones v National Coal Board (1957) 2 QB 55

    Google Scholar 

  • Justice Heydon D (2003) Judicial Activism and the Death of the Rule of Law 47(1) Quadrant 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser KA, Holtfreter K (2016) An integrated theory of specialized court programs: using procedural justice and therapeutic jurisprudence to promote offender compliance and rehabilitation. Crim Justice Behav 43(1):45–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman IR (1990) Reform for a system in crisis: alternative dispute resolution in the federal courts. Fordham Law Rev 59:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler G, Finkelstein LJ (1988) The evolution of a multi-door courthouse. Catholic Univ Law Rev 37(3):577–590

    Google Scholar 

  • King M, Wager J (2005) Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving judicial case management. Judicial J Adm 15:28–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby M (1997) Judicial activism, 27 U.W. Aust Law Rev 1, 20

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby M (2017) The Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG. https://www.michaelkirby.com.au/. Accessed 5 Oct 2017

  • Kmiec KD (2004) The origin and current meanings of ‘judicial activism’. Calif Law Rev 92:1441–1478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kourlis RL, Singer JM (2007) Using judicial performance evaluations to promote judicial accountability. Judicature 90:200–207. http://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/using_jpe_to_promote_judicial_accountability2007.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2018

  • Kourlis RL, Singer JM (2010) Managing toward the goals of rule 1. Federal Courts Law Rev 4:1–17. http://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/managing_toward_the_goals_of_rule_1_2009.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2018

  • Kouroutakis AE (2014) Judges and policy making authority in the United States and the European Union. Vienna J Int Const Law 8:186–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Labarga J, Richardson NA, Knox T (2016) Should I tweet that? Court communications in the 21st century. National Center for State Courts. www.ncsc.org/~/media/microsites/files/trends%202016/trends-2016-low.ashx. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • LaGratta E (ed) (2017) To be fair: conversations about procedural justice. Center for Court Innovation. http://www.courtinnovation.org/topic/procedural-justice. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Langbein JH (1985) The German advantage in civil procedure. Univ Chicago Law Rev 52:823–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langbein JH (2012) The disappearance of civil trial in the United States. Yale Law J 122:522–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Legal Services Agency New Zealand (2006) Report on the 2006 national survey of unmet legal needs and access to services. Legal Services Agency, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lippman J (2014) The judiciary as the leader of the access-to-justice revolution. N Y Univ Law Rev 89(5):1569–1588

    Google Scholar 

  • Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn K (1930) The bramble bush: on our law and its study. Author, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn K (1950) Remarks on the theory of appellate decision and the rules or canons about how statutes are to be construed. Vanderbilt Law Rev 3:395–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Luban D (1997) Heroic judging in an antiheroic age. Columbia Law Rev 97:2064–2090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack K, Roach Anleu S (2011) Opportunities for new approaches to judging in a conventional context: attitudes, skills and practices. Monash Univ Law Rev 37:187–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus RL (1987) Apocalypse now? Mich Law Rev 85:1267–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mate M (2014) Elite institutionalism and judicial assertiveness in the Supreme Court of India. Temple Int Comp Law J 28:361–430

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire SC, Macdonald RA (1996) Judicial scripts in the dramaturgy of the small claims court. Can J Law Soc 11:63–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin K (2017) Feminism, women judges, judicial diversity and the High Court of Australia. feminists@law 7(2). http://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/article/view/417. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Moore M (2003) Judges as Mediators: a Chapter III prohibition or accommodation? Aust Dispute Resolut J 14:188–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris JB (2015) Jack Weinstein: judicial strategist. DePaul Law Rev 64:279–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Nejelski P (1977) Judging in a democracy: the tension of popular participation. Judicature 61(4):166–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan J (2003) Redefining criminal courts: problem-solving and the meaning of justice. Am Crim Law Rev 40:1541–1565

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker S (1998) Courts and the public. Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, Carlton South

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelan A (2004) Solving human problems or deciding cases? Judicial innovation in New York and its relevance to Australia: Part 3. J Judicial Adm 13:244–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleasence P, Balmer NJ, Sandefur RL (2013) Paths to justice: a past, present and future roadmap. Nuffield Foundation. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/PTJ%20Roadmap%20NUFFIELD%20Published.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Posner RA (1990) The problems of jurisprudence. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA (2008) How judges think. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Procedural Fairness (2017) Procedural fairness for judges and courts. http://proceduralfairness.org/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Quintanilla VD (2017) Human-centered civil justice design. Penn State Law Rev 121:745–806

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Watson; ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinovich-Einy O, Sagy Y (2016) Courts as organizations: the drive for efficiency and the regulation of class action settlements. Stanford J Complex Litigation 4:1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik J (1982) Managerial judges. Harvard Law Rev 96:374–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik J (1990) Feminism and the language of judging. Ariz State Law J 22:31–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickard E (2017) The agile court: improving state courts in the service of access to justice and the court user experience. West N Engl Law Rev 39:227–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach Anleu S, Rottman D, Mack K (2016) The emotional dimension of judging: issues, evidence, and insights. Court Rev 52:60–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers A (1993) The managerial or interventionist judge. J Judicial Adm 3:96–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers CT (2015) Access to justice: new approaches to ensure meaningful participation. N Y Univ Law Rev 90(5):1447–1462

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottman DB (2007) Procedural fairness as a court reform agenda. Court Rev 44:32–35. University of Nebraska. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/219/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Rowe TD Jr (2007) Authorized managerialism under the federal rules—and the extent of convergence with civil-law judging. Southwest Univ Law Rev 36:191–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander FEA (1976) 70 F.R.D. 111. Varieties of dispute processing. Global Pound Conference. http://baltimore2017.globalpoundconference.org/Documents/1976%20Addresses%20Delivered%20at%201976%20Pound%20Conference.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2017

  • Selznick P (1980) Jurisprudence and social policy: aspirations and perspectives. Calif Law Rev 68:206–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selznick P (2003) ‘Law in context’ revisited. J Law Soc 30(2):177–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senft LP, Savage CA (2003) ADR in the courts: progress, problems, and possibilities. Penn State Law Rev 108(1):327–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Shetreet S (1980) On assessing the role of courts in society. Manitoba Law J 10:357–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinai Y, Alberstein M (2016) Expanding judicial discretion: between legal and conflict considerations. Harvard Negot Law Rev 21:221–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivasubramaniam D, Heuer L (2007) Decision makers and decision recipients: understanding disparities in the meaning of fairness. Court Rev 44:62–71. University of Nebraska. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/222/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Sossin L (2010) Listening to Ontarians: report of the Ontario civil legal needs project. Law Society of Upper Canada. http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/may3110_oclnreport_final.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2018

  • Sourdin TM (2014) Why judges should not meet privately with parties in mediation but should be involved in settlement conference work. J Arbit Mediat 4:99–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Sourdin T (2016a) A broader view of justice? In: Legg M (ed) Resolving civil disputes. LexisNexis Australia, Chatswood, pp 19–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Sourdin T (2016b) Alternative dispute resolution, 5th edn. Thomson Reuters, Pyrmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Sourdin T, Zariski A (eds) (2014) The multi-tasking judge: comparative judicial dispute resolution. Thomson Reuters, Sydney, pp 87–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg JK (2016) Adversary breakdown and judicial role confusion in ‘small case’ civil justice. Brigham Young Univ Law Rev 2016:899–970

    Google Scholar 

  • Stempel JW (1996) Reflections on judicial ADR and the multi-door courthouse at twenty: fait accompli, failed overture, or fledgling adulthood? Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 11:297–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Stępień M (2013) The three stages of judges’ self-development. In: Amaya A, Ho HL (eds) Law, virtue and justice. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 137–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Stobbs N (2017) Therapeutic jurisprudence and due process—consistent in principle and in practice. J Judicial Adm 26(4):248–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahiri X (2016) ‘Judicial activism’ or constitutional interpretation?: an analysis of the workings of the constitutional court of Kosovo. Ohio Northern Univ Law Rev 42:799–820

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamanaha BZ (2015) The third pillar of jurisprudence: social legal theory. William and Mary Law Rev 56(6):2235–2277

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut J, Walker L (1975) Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornburg EG (2010) The managerial judge goes to trial. Univ Richmond Law Rev 44:1261–1326

    Google Scholar 

  • Tousek v Bernat (1959) SR (NSW) 203

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR (2007) Procedural justice and the courts. Court Rev 44:4–26–31. University of Nebraska. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/217/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Tyler TR, Sevier J (2013) How do the courts create popular legitimacy?: the role of establishing the truth, punishing justly, and/or acting through just procedures. Albany Law Rev 77:1095–1138

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzelac A (ed) (2014) Goals of civil justice and civil procedure in contemporary judicial systems. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568

    Google Scholar 

  • van Velthoven BCJ, ter Voert M (2004) Paths to justice in the Netherlands: looking for patterns of social exclusion. Leiden University. http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/bvv-2004-04.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2018

  • Wanger P (1994) The political and economic roots of the ‘adversary system’ of justice and ‘alternative dispute resolution’. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 9(2):203–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein JB (1994a) Limits on judges learning, speaking and acting—part I—tentative first thoughts: how may judges learn? Arizona Law Rev 36:539–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein JB (1994b) Limits on judges’ learning, speaking, and acting: part II speaking and part III acting. Univ Dayton Law Rev 20:1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein JB (1995) Individual justice in mass tort litigation: the effect of class actions, consolidations, and other multiparty devices. Northwestern University Press, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein JB (2000) Three gates to justice. Litigation 26(2):3–4–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein JB (2011) The roles of a federal district court judge. Brooklyn Law Rev 76:439–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein JB (2015) Notes on uniformity and individuality in mass litigation. DePaul Law Rev 64:251–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler D (1995) Robes and rehabilitation: how judges can help offenders make good. Court Rev 38(1):18–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler DB (2007) Adding color to the white paper: time for a robust reciprocal relationship between procedural justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. Court Rev 44:78–81. University of Nebraska. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/276/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  • Wexler DB (2016) Guiding court conversations along pathways conducive to rehabilitation: integrating procedural justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. Int J Ther Jurisprud 1:367–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Wistrich AJ, Rachlinski JJ, Guthrie C (2015) Heart versus head: do judges follow the law or follow their feelings? Texas Law Rev 93:855–924

    Google Scholar 

  • Yung CR (2013) A typology of judging styles. Northwest Univ Law Rev 107:1757–1820

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman AS (2017) The bellwether settlement. Fordham Law Rev 85:2275–2298

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

    Tania Sourdin

  2. Athabasca University, Edmonton, Canada

    Archie Zariski

Authors
  1. Tania Sourdin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Archie Zariski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Archie Zariski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle Australia, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia

    Tania Sourdin

  2. Athabasca University , Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Archie Zariski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sourdin, T., Zariski, A. (2018). What Is Responsive Judging?. In: Sourdin, T., Zariski, A. (eds) The Responsive Judge. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 67. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1022-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1023-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation