Law360 Canada (October 2, 2026, 3:01 PM EDT) --
 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Are judges a happy lot? Compared to lawyers especially? A
study generated by the Canadian Judicial Council with collaboration from the University of Sherbrooke noted that although some judges experience anxiety and depression, the figure for lawyers was more than double that of judges. In general, judges found a high level of meaning and satisfaction in their work.
And so, what stresses the judges? High up on the list is the number of sitting days. Hey, what did they expect? It is like a Starbucks barista bleating, “Oh no, what am I doing making cappuccinos? I’ve had it.”
After all, they sought to get appointed to the bench. They got a bench. What do they want? A hammock?
Lawyers can only wish to be in court that often. And at least, unlike lawyers who get stressed vying for clients, judges do not have to advertise and compete for business. I have yet to see a highway billboard reading, “Injured in a car accident? Call Judge Henry — www.sustained.com.”
Another stressor for judges is a lack of human resources in courts. I do not know about that one. A typical high court setting in Ontario generally has a court registrar who manages the exhibits, carries the judge’s notebook or laptop, and announces the entry of the judge making the opening greeting of “Oyez, oyez, oyez.” Then there is a court official at the courtroom entrance monitoring human traffic. There is also an elderly gentleman who sits in front of the bench a level below the judge. He is distinguished-looking, a dead ringer for Jeeves the butler. I never figured out what his function is. I think of poet John Milton’s line, “They also serve who only stand and wait.” I do not suppose the judges consider this man a major court resource. Who knows?
Another gripe judges have is having to deal with voluminous evidence, including dumps of documents, some being irrelevant. I am not sympathetic. Do judges not stand back and appreciate that it is the lawyers who have spent eons of hours preparing these documents? All the judges have to do is read them. Or do they? I sometimes think reading the documents is optional.
In my four-plus decades in practice, I came across my share of justices who I highly suspect just winged reading a complex motion brief. My level of concern would rise when, at the outset of my argument, the judge would say something like, “Counsel, may I suggest before we start argument that both of you go out and discuss resolution of this simple issue.” Or “Madam and sir, you both know proceeding with this motion could involve massive costs to your respective clients.” Or even more ominous is when, after the judge enters the courtroom, he or she says, “Counsel, I have read the materials…” Why would the judge make this comment to start with? Isn’t that supposed to be a gimme? You don’t ever sit on an airplane before takeoff and hear the pilot announcing, “I have performed the routine safety checks on the aircraft.” We certainly hope so.
Also of interest in what perturbs the judges is the alleged pressure of dealing with an increase in the number of self-represented litigants. Aside from delays incurred as judges spend time explaining the process to self-reps, judges often cut self-reps slack they would not afford lawyers. I once witnessed a woman hand a document to the judge — she had handwritten the words on the page in a circular spiral layout, like a snake coiled up. To read the document, the judge had to turn it around and around like a steering wheel. When questioned by the judge, the woman said, “I am just a poor artist. Unlike my rich husband, I cannot afford a lawyer. Alas.” Not surprisingly the judge was patient. I dare any lawyers to try that stunt. If so, the lawyer had better tender that document to the judge pinned onto a turntable.
And let us not forget the difference in how judges and lawyers are perceived by the public. Judges are viewed as dignified and making a substantial contribution to society. While lawyers may often be beneficiaries of these sentiments, they are also frequently seen as windbags, overpaid mouthpieces and of questionable veracity. I have even come across a dining establishment called “The Honest Barrister.” This name alone can raise our stress level. You will never see it referring to a judge — or to that gentleman in the court who does nothing.
It is not surprising that judges are generally happy with their jobs. Nor is it surprising to find that many lawyers are unhappy and emotionally burnt out in practice. I would say that in addition to having respect, judges earn a decent salary, have a generous benefits package including vacation and pensions, and of course major power. Not perfect. But not bad. I am reminded of that comment made by Mel Brooks in
History of the World, Part I where he says, “It’s good to be the king.” Ain’t it the truth.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.