Our last blog entry asked, “Where to start?” A good case could be made that good judging often starts with good listening. After all, for the average trial judge, where does the information come from? A great deal comes from a witness, an attorney, a probation officer, or someone else who speaks to the judge in the courtroom.
Yet how much training does the average judge get on listening skills? None.
Contrast this with the training we all get in reading. Reading comprehension is taught and studied as we go through elementary and secondary education—but we don’t get trained in listening skills or tested for listening comprehension.
When Kevin Burke and I do half-day or full-day training programs, we often include a listening-skills test from HRDQ, which comes with a booklet providing tips for improving those skills. You can take the online version of the test for $16. (Psychology Today offers its own listening-skills test online for $7.) Both sets of tests rely upon self-reporting about how you approach listening situations.
HRDQ breaks down its suggestions into three categories:
• Staying Focused: Sometimes we’re our own worst enemy when it comes to listening—we have lots of other things on our mind. The careful listener prepares to give the speaker full attention, monitors whether attention strays, and corrects the situation if it does.
• Capturing the Message: We need to be open-minded to capture the message the speaker is trying to send rather than our preconceived notion of what is being said. This can be especially true for judges who hear (or think they hear) the same stories day after day. Offering a summary of what you’ve heard so that the speaker can confirm you’ve got it right can help.
• Helping the Speaker: Not every speaker can handle a judge’s interruptions or distracting verbal comments. If you’re really trying to listen to what the speaker wants you to hear, you’ll be willing to make the environment conducive for good communication.
Given the extent to which good listening skills can be critical to judicial performance, this is an area that deserves greater emphasis. And it fits nicely with procedural fairness: how can a litigant perceive that we’ve given them voice—by listening, understanding, and addressing their concerns—if we haven’t first given the listening part a good effort?
Let us know what you think. How do you maintain your focus during a long day on the bench?
Procedural Fairness For Courts and Judges 
Judge Leben rightly emhasizes essay the importance of listening because it entitles the listener to speak, offer opinions, and make judgments. The more attentive a listener is, the more legitmate are the opinions and judgments.
The general relationship between listening and then voicing opinions is relevant to judges because litigants and attorneys are more satisfied with the legal process
and court procedures when a judge demonstrates a knowledge of what was said in pleadings, briefs, motions, and at court hearings.
Every judge is in an authoritative position, but a judge’s demonstration of having listened carefully enhances acceptance of the legal process.
Hence, a judge who wants to protect the legal process and maintin institutional independence is wise to hear what others have to say.