Internship Reflection: Rebukes and Tears in the Courtroom—Reflecting on the Dilemma Judges Face in Maintaining Trial Order

The individual evaluation system allows the public to file complaints with specific organizations when they discover illegal, derelict, or poor conduct by judges and prosecutors. These organizations can then petition the evaluation committee to investigate whether the judge or prosecutor should be disciplined.

The Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF) is one such organization that assists the public with filing complaints. After citizens submit complaints or consultations via phone, they mail the relevant case materials to the JRF. Internal staff and volunteers at the JRF handle the cases preliminarily, such as clarifying the facts of the case, listening to audio recordings of the trial proceedings, and transcribing them into written records. The organized cases are then submitted to the lawyers' group for discussion meetings, where it is decided whether to petition the evaluation committee for an investigation, alongside potential recommendations for investigation or disciplinary action.

As an intern at the JRF, I answered complaint hotline calls, participated in case discussions, and prepared audio transcripts as a volunteer. Later in my internship, I also observed the lawyers' group's individual evaluation meetings. Through this process, I witnessed the dilemma judges face between maintaining litigation order and soothing the emotions of parties involved.

Grief, helplessness, grievance, pain, impatience... Both judges and parties to a case may experience a surge of emotions during trial proceedings. What approach allows a judge to effectively maintain courtroom order without being overly aggressive and making the parties feel disrespected? This internship inspired a series of reflections on this question.

Before embarking on this journey of thought, let us first understand the facts of the case. The story goes like this:

(The names of all individuals below are pseudonyms)

Wang Wang believed that after his parents passed away, his elder brother Wang Wang (Note: same romanization used as per standard Wade-Giles rule, though distinct characters) had withdrawn several sums of money from his parents' bank accounts, infringing upon the inheritance rights of the other heirs. Therefore, together with his elder and younger sisters, he filed a lawsuit in court demanding that Wang Wang return the withdrawn amounts.

Since the funds demanded for return formed part of the undivided estate and were jointly owned by all heirs, and to prevent divergent litigation outcomes among the heirs and ensure the unified determination of the subject matter of the litigation, all heirs had to sue and be sued together. Consequently, the court subsequently ruled to add Wang Wang's elder sister, Wang A-yu, as a co-plaintiff.

Although Wang A-yu agreed to the joinder, her views diverged from those of the other plaintiffs. She believed that the plaintiffs and defendants were all Wang family siblings, and questioned why the matter necessarily had to be contested in court, hoping everyone could talk things out amicably. During court sessions, the other plaintiffs and Wang A-yu argued over this, occasionally experiencing emotional breakdowns, crying bitterly, and disrupting the proceedings. During the trial, the presiding judge also slammed the table, rebuked verbally, and scolded Wang Wang and the others.

Believing he was treated unreasonably by the judge during the litigation proceedings, Wang Wang mailed his case file and the audio recordings of the court session to the JRF, initiating an internal discussion within the JRF on whether there was a necessity to submit this judge for individual evaluation.

When I first encountered this case, I participated in transcribing the audio recordings of the April 2015 hearing. In that hearing, the judge's emotions were most agitated. Viewed in context, it was clear that the judge was not inherently an emotionally unstable person; rather, the loud rebukes and table-slamming were very likely triggered by the parties' recurrent emotional instability in court and even disruptions of the proceedings. Maintaining the order of litigation and preventing delays are part of a judge's duties when trying cases. Therefore, after listening to the audio recording of that hearing at the time, I felt that the judge's use of harsher measures to keep the litigation moving forward was reasonable. Moreover, judges are human too and have tempers; if parties disrupt proceedings and repeatedly ignore warnings, it is not unimaginably difficult for a judge to become emotional. Synthesizing the above thoughts, I initially believed that while the judge's trial demeanor could be adjusted, its essence was not improper.

Later, I participated in the lawyers' discussion on this case. Listening to the lawyers' deliberations brought to light several details I had not previously considered or noticed, prompting me to reflect further on the case.

First, regarding the nature of the case. This is a family law matter. Through the lawyers' discussion, I learned that family law cases possess special characteristics; it is relatively common for parties to be emotionally agitated during hearings or even break down in court. This means that when adjudicating family law cases, judges may need greater capacity to soothe the emotions of the parties in order to properly maintain litigation order. However, the remarks made by the judge in the most controversial audio segment were overly agitated and even risked compromising neutrality. Although such statements stemmed from the good intention of maintaining litigation order, their content likely did little to soothe the parties' emotions and may have even provoked them further. Finally, an opinion raised by the lawyers left a deep impression on me: suggesting that the Judicial Yuan increase education and training for judges on handling related conflicts.

Participating in this case up to this point, my inner thoughts on whether the judge should be submitted for evaluation were reignited. On one hand, I understood that judges also possess human nature and emotions, and it is understandable to feel impatient when encountering parties who constantly disrupt proceedings during a trial. On the other hand, I thought of the parties, who may be unfamiliar with the law or court hearing procedures and might not necessarily realize that their behavior constitutes "disrupting court order," simply wanting to "vent their grievances" and express their emotions. Given the characteristics of family law cases, it seemed inappropriate to place blame on the parties for holding such a mindset. Facing parties experiencing emotional breakdowns, what behaviors should, or can, a judge adopt?

Perhaps returning to the purpose of a judge's verbal rebuke, the original intent behind everything is precisely to maintain litigation order. This can be measured by whether the actions taken by the judge at the moment reasonably maintain the progress of the litigation. From a human perspective, expecting a judge who is already emotionally triggered by the parties' behavior to calmly and reasonably direct the litigation might not be entirely fair. Yet, I believe that judges, by virtue of their office when trying cases, must maintain their own composure and not dance to the tune of the parties' emotions. Parties losing control or going wild cannot serve as a sufficient justification for judges to direct the scene with provocative language. This does not mean demanding that judges refrain from slamming tables or shouting sternly; rather, it depends on whether their behavior helps restore order to the litigation. I still consider the severe or rebuking episodes by the judge in this case to be reasonable, and in some situations, even a necessary means to maintain order. However, some of the provocative language used during the February 2015 hearing—even though the parties stopped disrupting order after the judge finished speaking—carried the potential to provoke an even more intense reaction from the parties. In this regard, submission for evaluation may be warranted.

At this point, one might feel that the means available to judges when dealing with emotionally out-of-control parties will be greatly reduced, which will impact efforts to prevent litigation delays. In response, I believe that parties need to enhance their knowledge regarding how courts operate and what attitudes should be maintained toward court trials, while judges also have an obligation to learn how to skillfully soothe parties.

As legal professionals, how to interact with people and what attitude to adopt—whether acting as lawyers or judicial officials—is a very important subject, yet it is generally lacking in legal education. This is even more true for learning how to skillfully respond to various parties who may not be in a rational state. This is a necessary trial by fire for legal professionals.

Judicial officers may have their own styles regarding how they conduct trials. However, if the state can provide judicial officers with opportunities to learn how to handle related conflicts, allowing them to understand what attitude, tone, and demeanor to adopt when encountering situations to skillfully soothe parties, it might enable them to calm parties' emotions more efficiently. Moreover, knowing how to respond to parties would shield judges from being easily influenced by the parties' emotions.

I was pleasantly surprised by the lawyers' recommendation for such education and training, viewing it as a breakthrough that allowed me to reflect on this case from other perspectives. Reflecting on myself, I realized that I am also in great need of such learning opportunities. Whether a training recommendation like this will eventually receive a response, whether it can be implemented, and how effective it will be—even if one cannot place full expectations on it—at least served as a reminder to me as an observer.