To improve their decision-making and interactional skills with all kinds of litigants, approximately 130 administrative law judges and other judges from all states including Alaska and Hawaii gathered May 6-8, 1999, in Chicago for a seminar on "Practical Fundamentals of Judging." Sponsored by the National Association of Administrative Law Judges and the ABA National Conference of Administrative Law Judges (NCALJ), in cooperation with the Illinois and Chicago Bar Associations and the Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings, the program provided psychological perspectives on judging, addressing issues of bias, judicial demeanor, stress, and credibility determination.

Participants began by taking the Myers-Briggs personality test under the direction of John Kennedy, Presiding Judge of the San Bernardino County, California, Trial Courts. Kennedy gave examples of how people, unaware of personality differences, can set up unconscious reactions in each other, which impair effective communication and lead to inappropriate subjectivity in judging. Through small group exercises, those present learned to become more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of all types. Panels on judicial ethics and demeanor and on "working past biases and even the appearance of impropriety" presented scenarios that challenged the audience to rethink prior assumptions about judging and communication. Panel members included NCALJ Vice-Chair Edwin Felter, NCALJ Secretary Jodi Levine, Chicago Administrative Law Judge Ann Breen-Greco, Chicago Circuit Judge Sophia Hall, California Administrative Law Judge Peter Hemenway, and Michigan Administrative Law Judge Gregory Holiday.

To sensitize participants on issues of bias, faculty encouraged them to share their own thoughts and views, using situations for discussion that can perplex even the most sensitive. Hall offered a seven-step process for moving past stereotypes, which include: 1) acknowledging that stereotypes exist; 2) identifying any stereotypes one has and recognizing stereotypical thoughts when they occur; 3) pausing and considering the root of the stereotype; 4) removing judgment and describing the behavior; 5) learning more about the individual or group being stereotyped; 6) choosing behavior that enhances relationships; and 7) practicing enhancing behaviors. Illustrating the tendency to make judgments based on stereotypes, University of San Francisco Psychology Professor Maureen O'Sullivan cited evidence that people who are conventionally "good-looking" are more quickly believed than are those who are not. O'Sullivan, who has worked with the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, and Scotland Yard, shared some of the facial and behavioral cues to truth-telling and lying, and tested the audience in their ability to detect these accurately. Hemenway engaged Professor Sullivan in a dialogue about the role cultural differences play in this process, with both reminding the audience not to become over-confident in their ability to determine credibility accurately, but rather to use what they learned as catalysts to as look further.

All agreed that accepting that one doesn't "know it all" is the first step to becoming a better judge. Felter shared his "three F's" of being a good judge - being firm, fair, and friendly - and cautioned judges to become aware of their own "hot buttons" and to rise above ego. Special considerations, both practical and ethical, in handling pro se litigants and "Rambo" lawyers, were demonstrated and discussed. On the factors that create respect for the judicial process among disputants, Hall listed as the most important the hope that disputants will be respected themselves - no matter who they are or what they have done; that they will have input into the process; that they will be treated fairly; and that the process will have integrity. Participants were encouraged to examine themselves and the subtle ways that their own language and behavior can enhance or impede fairness in decision-making. To manage judicial stress, Breen-Greco likewise suggested that participants look within themselves and led the group in practicing techniques to relieve stress. Comments on the program were enthusiastic and included recommendations that the program should be mandatory for all judges. Many litigants would likely agree that they would benefit from the insights and skills gained by judges who attend such programs.