Some years ago, I attended an educational program that was centered on professionalism. It is a subject that receives far too little attention in our daily work. The pressures of making the rent or the payroll are ever-present and put pressure on most businesses. Finding the time to be introspective and contemplative is never easy in business.
This particular program was focused in part on labels. It involved components of self-perceptions and group discussion. As I recall it, the speaker started by asking us to write a list of characterizations or attributes that we thought would describe ourselves. A list of adjectives attributable to our subjective self-image. We retained those after writing them. The second portion of the exercise involved us writing adjectives that we thought epitomize our profession. These we passed in.
The moderator was amazingly skilled at continuing the lecture while simultaneously writing these adjectives on a large flip chart. Skilled not because of the ability to speak and write simultaneously, but because the writing also included skillfully organizing those adjectives into somewhat related categories on the chart for our observation. We then had a collaborative discussion of these aspirational adjectives. We were questioned about their appeal, how we would rank them, which we would eliminate if the list had to be rendered more concise. I learned from the introspection.
The point of that exercise was about arriving at a collective group expression of the attributes that we could agree upon. We eliminated words that our collaboration and discussion convinced us were redundant or repetitive. We discussed what we meant by various adjectives, and as I recall it there were some individually proposed words that we collectively decided should be eliminated in favor of substitutes that we arrived at through our discussion of what we actually meant. It was collaborative, introspective, and informative.
The exercise came back to me recently as I wrote Conferences and Consequences. But, the thoughts were focused when I discussed that post with a reader. That post is about three drunk judges who found themselves in a physical altercation and shooting at a White Castle hamburger restaurant at 3:00 a.m. one fine May 2019 morning. They found themselves in a world of troubles that all started with a less-than-ladylike display of sign language. The instigating judge admitted in the ensuing investigation that she "drink(s) and get mouthy," and "I’m fiery and I’m feisty."
As an aside, the very best comment I received on that post came from one of the brightest attorneys I know. He questioned whether this story forever destroys the idiom "sober as a judge." That, in itself, is a troubling indictment of the damage those three inebriated, strip-joint-seeking, White-Castle-eating, judges did to the honor of this profession. But I digress.
When we think of what epitomizes a good judge, what adjectives would we select?
In 2007 A Pursuit of Justice published The Qualities of a Good Judge. Adjectives that were used there included: understanding, communicative, calm, courteous, patient, "open-mindedness, tact, courage, punctuality, firmness, understanding, compassion, humility and common sense." The article goes on to mention "forbearance under provocation," sensitivity, intelligence, awareness, courage, integrity, experienced, educated, active, expressive, vigorous, reputable, moral, and discreet (some of these are specifically mentioned in the article and others have been inferred from context).
The article concludes that judges should be able to "assimilate data outside the candidate’s experience without bias and without undue difficulty or stress." When stress does present, the judge:
"should be able to handle personal stress without unloading on others; he or she should recognize that the position is not only stressful but an official governmental position of public trust, with its business conducted largely in full view; and that criticism and scrutiny are inherent in the position."
Sound advice, and an astute reflection on this profession. There will certainly be stress, criticism, and scrutiny. But, despite the breadth of this analysis, I note that the attributes selected by that author simply ignore the "mouthy," "fiery," and "feisty" that Judge Bell used in self-description. Are these three attributes that should be included in epitomizing a good judge?
Could all judges benefit from a periodic reconsideration of what attributes or adjectives each considers important to this difficult and challenging profession? Might we likewise benefit from careful (re)consideration of our personal attributes and performance? Should we all reflect on what we think is appropriate, and whether we think we are fulfilling the role. Should we consider whether others in the community feel we are doing so?
I think we should. I think it is important to be reflective and introspective every so often. Let's look inward and consider who we are, what the public has the right to expect of us, and whether we are delivering. Let's not be "mouthy," "fiery," "feisty," or even obnoxious drunks. And, if we note our peers in such behavior, let's be the first and most strident to speak out and correct them privately. Let us encourage each other to be what we aspired to be when we sought these challenging and demanding jobs. Let's be proud and describe ourselves accurately with the adjectives listed by A Pursuit of Justice. That requires that we periodically ask ourselves to be introspective and self-critical.
