Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren describes her pathway to creating the first Mental Health Court in America and offers compelling insight into how education, understanding, compassion and dignity can transform lives for lawyers, judges and defendants who appear in her courtroom.
Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren describes her pathway to creating the first Mental Health Court in America and offers compelling insight into how education, understanding, compassion and dignity can transform lives for lawyers, judges and defendants who appear in her courtroom. This episode discusses mental illness, mental health, decriminalization and justice as healing.
🎵 AUDIO/MUSIC CUE🎵
>> Myrna McCallum : I'm Myrna McCallum, Metis Cree lawyer and passionate promoter of Trauma informed layering. Welcome back to the Trauma Informed Lawyer Podcast. As you know, I believe that law schools and bar courses are missing a critical competency requirement in their curriculum. Trauma Informed Lawyering. Becoming a Trauma Informed lawyer will, among other things, challenge you to critically reflect on your personal behaviors, beliefs and biases, call on you to positively transform the way you approach advocacy, guide your practice to avoid doing further harm to others, and ask that you commit to remaining open to learn new and old knowledge you didn't know you needed before beginning your career. Your education starts right here, right now.
🎵 AUDIO/MUSIC CUE🎵
>> Myrna McCallum : Before we get into today's episode, I just want to remark on a couple of things. First, huge gratitude to the BC Law foundation for covering the costs for transcripts for season two of the Trauma Informed Lawyer podcast. Thank you so much, BC Law Foundation. Also, I totally know that I have been so like absent and paying attention to this podcast. I love this podcast, I really do. It's a passion project and I've been working maybe too much and all work all the time means not a lot of time for these kinds of projects. And so I hope to find a balance in 2022. And so I could be producing more content for all of you loyal listeners on a regular basis as opposed to sporadically dropping episodes here and there and making my guests wait a really long time to hear conversations on this podcast. My apologies, can I say whoa. 50,000 downloads of the trauma informed lawyer podcast. I'm celebrating 50,000 all time downloads for someone who only thought she was going to produce maybe five episodes and this whole thing was going to disappear. This is huge. Massive. And you know, not just the 50, 000 downloads, but like the fact that folks are listening to this podcast on a regular basis from the United States and the UK and Australia and Ireland and the Netherlands and New Zealand and Germany and Switzerland and France. It blows my mind. Blows my mind. Thank you, thank you, thank you for supporting my podcast, for supporting me, for tuning in and just being a loyal listener. Thank you so very much. Today's episode is my conversation that I had last May with Judge Ginger Lerner Wren. Judge Ginger Lerner Wren was about to celebrate 25 years of her mental health court. Let me tell you just a tiny bit about her. There's so much to say about her, but she was elected in as, in the county Court Judge State of Florida back in 1990 97. Based on her specialized skills in mental health and disability rights. She was appointed to design and preside over America's first specialized mental health court. The court, a human rights diversionary Strategy, is a national and global model. Amazing. We had such an amazing conversation. I'll be really interested in hearing what you think of it. Judge Ginger Lerner ran holds many honors. She's an author, an adjunct professor, and a global speaker. When she and I met, she had recently published a book called A Court of Refuge. Stories from the Bench of, America's First Mental health Court. If you haven't read this book, go and read it. I'm going to finish mine over the holiday break. I hope to have her back on my podcast and it was such a cool conversation. I hope you enjoy it.
>> Myrna McCallum : Hello. Good morning. Judge Ginger Lerner. It is so good to meet you.
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Hi, Myrna. Well, I feel like I've been on this broadcast and I haven't, but it's such an honor, you know, to finally get here because I've been, you know, practicing trauma informed law since well before I was a judge. So it's terrific to be here. Thank you for having me.
>> Myrna McCallum : I'm so excited to have you here and to have this conversation because I know that a lot of what you do and have done, which is incredibly remarkable and that has moved really, justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, trauma informed justice, leaps and bounds ahead of where it would be otherwise, is so profound. And I want to talk about how you got here. You started the first mental health court in America.
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: That's right. that's true. And it's just really, I think, poignant to be here, today as we get ready to mark the court's 23rd, fifth anniversary.
>> Myrna McCallum : Amazing. 25 years. Do you feel like it's been 25 years?
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: I don't, I really don't. I just can't believe it. It's, I think I have some cognitive dissonance or something. But, you know, the court, as I think you're well aware, you know, was the first in the United States. We were the model for federal legislation in the United States, Congress that piloted mental health courts. And we don't get any grants, we've never got any funding. our, work is really because of the shared vision and the dedication of our mental health and behavioral health and criminal justice stakeholders. And it has sustained all these years and we've, diverted over 20,000 people out of a part time court.
>> Myrna McCallum : That is really remarkable. And my God, so life changing, I think, not just for folks who come into the courtroom as accused persons or as offenders, but I think for lawyers also to see that this is a possibility and that it doesn't. Courts don't have to be a pipeline to prison and it does have to be modeled on punishment. It's so forward thinking and so necessary given that we know a lot of the folks that come into the courtroom bring with them a lot of trauma.
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Of course, you know, we know who we see, in terms of those that are justice involved. And when we're talking with about individuals with serious mental illnesses and other kinds of, you know, cognitive, you know, neurocognitive, disorders and co occurring substance use disorders, you know, it's. And histories of adverse childhood experiences and trauma and poverty, you know, it's everybody, I don't know, who cannot relate, you know, to the adversity that judges and lawyers, try to confront every single day, on behalf of the people that they serve and we serve.
>> Myrna McCallum : Yeah, exactly. So let's talk about how you got here because your story is really interesting about where you started. And at the top of this conversation you mentioned that you were always practicing or you were practicing this trauma informed approach, before you even became a judge. And I think that recently with trauma informed becoming this like sexy language that a lot of people are, are now using and throwing around with a lot of different meanings, some people are saying, wow, this feels like validation. I'd always been practicing in this way, but I never had a name for it until now. And so tell us a little bit about how it was that you were practicing, that really made you the perfect fit for helping to establish this first mental health court.
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Yeah, it's a really interesting trajectory because m. First of all, ever since I was young, I really wanted to run for office. I mean, it really starts with that kind of a vision that. And the reason I wanted to do that is I really gravitated toward figures that were very civil rights oriented, when I was young. And I thought, well, practicing law, then running for office really would give me a platform to be able to help, you know, people and promote, you know, civil rights, etc. And sure enough, you know, when I graduated from law school, you know, I just really could not find a fit. I graduated for myself. I graduated, you know, right in the early 1980s, a very long time ago. And we have. It was during the recession and we had lost a lot of public interest positions and I practiced in a general civil area of law. And it wasn't that I wasn't doing well, it was just, I just felt that I was off my path, at the time, and I decided, I'm going to take a break. I had a little girl, who was 18 months old. I had a baby. And I decided, I'm just going to take a break from law. I'm going to reevaluate what I want to be doing. I even thought about leaving the law, and maybe going into psychology or something of that sort. Sure enough, I got a call. It was a, ah, judge friend of mine who said, a position has opened that I think you would be really, really perfect for. And it was the Office of Public Guardian in Broward County. We don't have that program anymore. It's since been privatized. But at the time it was a program under the probate, court division. And it was for individuals older. It was for adults that had been deemed incapacitated by the courts, did not have any family members to serve as guardians and were indigent. And so it was in this role that I would oversee, the administration of this program, be the attorney, be the legal guardian, if you will, for individuals that came into the program. And we had incredible social workers, that would, assist in terms of their care and providing services. I applied for the position, I really researched for the job I got. Turned out really to be just one of the most wonderful experiences I ever had. I really learned a tremendous amount about every single facet of elder law care, disability rights, system of care, how to collaborate, you name it. And sure enough, it was in that role. Not only did I attend a conference, on therapeutic jurisprudence that had, where their pioneers, Professor David Wexler, the late Professor Bruce Winnick, and Law Professor Michael Perlin from New York Law School, now retired, had come to Fort Lauderdale. And I attended that conference. And I just was really, really, just so taken by the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, and we call it TJ in the field. And basically it really does have to do with how do we humanize the law, how can we respond, to individuals in need and focus on trauma.
>> Myrna McCallum : Okay, I love that that was such a natural segue into TJ therapeutic jurisprudence. I know a little bit about it, and I got to know a little bit more about it when I was recently on a panel with David Wexler. but what I discovered on that panel though, that we had here in Canada as we were talking with, decision makers across country about both trauma informed lawyering and therapeutic jurisprudence, was that there was a lot of, confusion or a lack of knowledge around what TJ is. So for those who are listening to our conversation right now, who are like, oh, this is a new concept. What is this? Can you give us a little bit of a Coles Notes version of what it is?
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Sure. It's not a new concept, it's an older concept, number one. And actually therapeutic jurisprudence was really the power pack, if you will, from a law reform science vantage point that was the foundation for the first problem solving drug court in the United States. That ironically started in south Florida in 1989. It was established so you know how popular drug courts are. And other now there's thousands, of drug courts and other kinds of problem solving courts in so many varietals because they are able to respond to gaps in resources and policy gaps on local levels and statewide levels. The idea really behind the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence, which has a procedural justice plank to it, really is the fact that whether we know it or not, what happens in a courtroom could either lead to therapeutic effects or anti therapeutic effects. How judges act, the tone of a courtroom, whether or not individuals feel listened to and whether they have a perception of fairness, really does, indicate how they're going to feel about their court experience. And that is really the science of TJ in a nutshell. It's that whether we know it or we don't, that court experiences could lead to either a therapeutic or anti therapeutic outcome. And it really was the scholarly, view that if individuals feel that they have been treated fairly, that whether they agree with a judge's ruling or whether they don't, they're more than likely to adhere and accept that outcome. Again, that is really also the overarching, principles of procedural justice.
>> Myrna McCallum : Well, I really align with what you're saying. I love that you, spelled it out so eloquently. For those of us who were less familiar with the science. I think a lot of what I do is really promoting the message that we need to do no further harm. And as I was reading about some of your work, you were like taking it a step further and saying actually we can help. Which is I'm just like, just don't harm anyone anymore. And I look at you and what you're writing and what your messaging is, and it's not only let's not do further harm, but let's actually help people. And I think that for many people in the courtroom, they might not see the, make the connection to how courts can be therapeutic agents, which is something I've Read that you have said. And so can you share a little bit about how it is that you think courts can be therapeutic agents? And I totally understand the anti therapeutic effect, but what about the therapeutic effect in addition to feeling as though someone has been treated with fairness, how else can that be a positive, life changing experience for folks to come into the courtroom?
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Well, you know, I think too, you know, that with the, you know, with the introduction of problem solving courts, you know, if you think about juvenile courts for just a moment, Myrna, you know, juvenile courts are supposed to be rehabilitative. Correct. And the truth of the matter is that you know, we know that juvenile courts, you know, that really are supposed to be problem solving often tend not to be. And it was really through the problem solving court, ah, or justice, lens that we really started I think, think understanding that the role of judges could be altered without diminishing the rule of law. And that problem solving justice or trauma informed justice, whatever you want to call it, it's just semantic. But the idea that judges can in fact not only apply, you know, TJ or trauma informed practices to, you know, through legal process, but it doesn't have to nor, nor should it obviously diminish, due process, or you know, the rule of law. And obviously there's limits to that. So if we're in a jury trial, I have two divisions. I have a regular criminal division and I have the mental health court for example. And so it took about, after about five years of doing work in the mental health court, I realized very consciously that I really needed to give the defendants and the lawyers in my regular division that same type of benefit that can be you know, secured and achieved through a TJ trauma approach. So I, in my regular division, I carried and applied TJ into my regular division. And the way I did that was communicating to the lawyers who came in front of me, look, this is a regular division but if you at any time decide through your representation with your client that you would like to take a therapeutic approach to your criminal case, for example, just let me know. And that way we are all, there's clarity into. You're going to see my role now. Extend, expand. You're going to see that now we're going to start to have dialogues in the court. I'm going to start to talk to your client and I'm going to ask your client, you know, about their lives, about, well, you know, did something traumatic happen to you, you know, what do you think you need the most to help with, is it, you know, and really getting to know people. And through these dialogues, we can have a collective focus even in a regular division through trauma informed practices and therapeutic jurisprudence. And it's really been really, I think, not only enlightening for the lawyers, but so beneficial to the clients to be able to reframe a sentencing, to be able to tell people what a wonderful choice you're making by agreeing to go into mental health care or, by going ahead and getting substance use treatment. And really educating and integrating the research into court hearings helps educate everyone.
>> Myrna McCallum : Let me ask this question about what the impact can be on a defendant. to ask the question, what happened to you? I know that's a question that's coming up a lot right now. Bruce D. Perry just wrote a book with Oprah Winfrey called what happened to you? Last year, my very first, podcast episode was with Dr. Gabor Mate, and he calls a compassionate inquiry. That, what we need to start asking is that question, what has happened to you? As opposed to what's wrong with you? What were you thinking? Why did you do this? Or why did you make these choices? he calls it compassionate inquiry, which he has said to me, lawyers, would really benefit from learning compassionate inquiry. But you have been practicing this for a long time, asking those questions, allowing defendants to know that you see them, you want to connect with them, and you want to understand what lived experience they bring. Why is it important for lawyers and judges to ask that question?
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Well, because you have to know the research, you have to honor the research. So if you're evidence based and you're curious enough as a lawyer and a judge, as I am, in the sense that you really. We have to understand as lawyers and as judges that we have to become educated in all kinds of disciplines in public health, in trauma informed care for women, children. We need to understand the impact of social determinants of health. the idea that you have to be able to inquire and then how do you do that? I do that through talking, for example, about the ACE study. I've been talking about the ACE study in my court since 1998. because I realized that it's not enough to just go, what happened to you? Nobody, you know, we're not going to do that. That's not even kind, in my view, to set that up like that. I felt that the way to really help people feel comfortable is to go ahead and really educate people as we go in court. So, for example, if we're talking about the ACE study. And I have, you know, six or more people sitting handcuffed in a jury box. And I say, you know, let's talk a little bit about the impact of adverse childhood experiences. Let me tell you what the research says. And we know that, you know, any of the ACE events, for example, could lead not only to chronic medical conditions, but. But negative social consequences. Well, what are negative social consequences? Substance use, risky behaviors, incarceration. I mean, all of these are negative social consequences. And so when we start, and I start talking about the research way back when, in terms of gender and women, we know that a vast majority of girls and women, for example, in the criminal justice or juvenile justice system have been subjected to trauma and, or violence, victimization, however you want to term it. So let's talk about that. Once I start talking about it, you start seeing all these people start to sit up straighter in their chair because they are hearing compassion. They are saying, I am talking to you. Why? Because I care about you. And I want you to understand this isn't your fault. That, ah, these behaviors, using substance, etc. You know, these are all personal solutions. Trying to find personal solutions. And I'd say, look, you know, maybe you zigged instead of zagged. It maybe would have been better to get some psychotherapeutic care instead of, you know, going in that direction. But we can correct that and we can do it together. And then all of a sudden, you know, talk about Oprah. I mean, you know, even in my book, you know, the aha moments, the opinions, epiphany, that nobody understood the science of trauma, nobody understood the science of adversity. That's the ACE study. That is the beauty of the ACE Study. And I was very lucky, years ago, after serving on the President's commission, for Mental health, the new Freedom Commission, under President George Bush. But we all had gone, there was a meeting at the Carter center, and I got to hear Professor Valetti, Professor Andre, actually present on the ACE study many years ago. And it was just so phenomenal. And it was really just so empowering for me because I knew that every single person I was seeing, no matter what their age, was, is experiencing or was experiencing adversity, you know, the impact of adversity in their childhood. And if you accept that and you just take ownership of that evidence base, then how can you not go this direction as a lawyer or a judge?
>> Myrna McCallum : I love that you introduced the ACE study. I've had other guests who've Talked a little bit about it, and, I know that there is benefit for folks to learn more about it, particularly as they're working with people who bring so much trauma into their court cases, regardless of whether it's criminal law or some other area of law. you said something I thought was so incredibly. Well, you've been saying a lot of powerful things this morning, but I love how you connected. Not. It's not enough to just inquire. You also need to educate. Education, inquiry, need to go together. I think that that is really powerful and really effective. Let me ask you this question because this is something I have heard from a number of folks, some judges included, who have said, okay, so if we make space for conversation, communication, inquiry, and maybe also education, that takes time. We have a full docket we've got to do. We've got bail hearings, we have sentencing hearings. Maybe we have a trial. We got to go, go, go. Our dockets are full. Matters are getting delayed. being bringing a trauma, informed approach or bringing compassion, inquiry and education, doesn't work well if you have no time. What would you say to folks who argue time. We have no time, so we cannot do it.
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: I would say, well, ask yourself why you're doing this work, in the first place. You know, as, Bruce Wayne, Professor Winnick always used to say, you know, we're all social workers. The law is a helping profession. And, you know, if you really are taking a person first approach and you really want to be effective, you know, for example, in what you're doing to make a difference in people's lives, then you don't put process over person in that regard. And it just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter to me how much time a person, you know, needs or I need. I will leave the bench and have. And I can't wait to get back to the courtroom because I like, you know, it's. What. There's. There's great positives, you know, during the doing, doing virtual hearings, you know, for accessibility and such, over zoom. But I really miss that closeness, that physicality of closeness that you get in a courtroom when I need to sit with parents, you know, and family members and defendants together, because they need for me to sit down and really talk in more detail, for example, about engagement. Why is engagement in mental health care, for example, so pivotal, so vital? What do we know? And really just take my time. And it's through that personal connection, I think that people really do understand that. Yes. Am I acting as an advocate I'm acting as an advocate, but an advocate for what? I'm acting as an advocate for people, for example, to get engaged in care, right. So they don't recidivate. I'm asking for people to get engaged and understand resources in the community so they don't go into crisis. I'm advocating for suicide prevention. I'm advocating for a lot of things. I'm advocating for public safety. I'm advocating for the rule of law. But, you know, I think that when we do practice tj, when we do come from a trauma, informed approach, then we know that the culture of a courtroom must change.
>> Myrna McCallum : I like that you brought up the advocacy piece, because I've also heard, when hearing about making change, why we need to make change, why we need to bring humanity back into these spaces, and I sometimes hear, well, you know, we don't want to appear to be advocates or biased or impartial. And as you say, what you've just shared about, you're advocating for public safety, you're advocating for suicide. It just really like the lights came on for me and I'm like, yeah, judges are advocates. They are advocating for something. And as much as they say we are not advocates or activist judges, we know that that is actually not the case. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. because that's the nature of being in a helping profession. I think some people don't make that connection between law, like law, as a helping profession, and they should, given who comes in.
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Oh, sure. You know, you look at the professional rules of ethics under professional responsibility, and, you know, we are, you know, we are advocates that we are legal advocates. And then, you know, in order to really apply, the law, I think, you know, effectively, it's not just only adhering to the rule of law because that's paramount. I mean, in mental health court, for example, I have. And I'm also a professor, I'm a longtime graduate professor, for Nova Southeastern University, both in a doctoral master's class. Two different colleges teaching these skills and these principles and this theory to my students. And, you know, the idea that there's a hierarchy of values. Well, Judge, what are your hierarchy of values? Well, obviously, you know, the protection and promotion of individual constitutional rights, civil rights, and due process and public safety are paramount to everything. Everything. And, you know, you always have to promote the rule of law. We know that. And so from, from an ethics vantage point, you know, if we. The beauty of problem solving justice is that you can come from a human rights Framework. As a matter of fact, I advocate coming from a human rights framework because when you do that, then you know, everything else, all other principles flow through that. That, you know, the idea of the rule of law, the idea of choice, the idea of promoting choice when you can, the idea of promoting public safety, the idea of promoting, you know, constitutional rights, everything flows from those values, and they do become actionable when you are practicing in a problem solving type of court or that you're trained. And you can apply that, for example, even in a regular court, even in a regular court of general jurisdiction, if and when the timing is right and the attorneys are open to that. So you really have to, you know, be very sensitive in a regular division of how you do that. But let me tell you something from a restorative justice vantage point. It can be incredibly empowering, for the lawyers, for the clients and for everybody to have these kinds of court experiences. They are transformative.
>> Myrna McCallum : I'm convinced, I am totally convinced. So I know that your, mode of connection may be, unique or just something that judges listening to this conversation would be like, okay, how do I create connection in a courtroom? I know that you have a very unique way of creating connection that we probably don't often see in judges. So do you want to share with our listeners some of the things that you do to connect when you're communicating?
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: You know, oftentimes, for example, they're just. You could see that there's a lot of tension between family members and I'm m talking the mental health between family members and their adult children. And you know, it's like, okay, let's just take a break. Let me get down, you know, and let's do some, some talking and some teaching at the same time. I don't think, think this is as, you know, where, you know, I think there's, there's amazing judges practicing in problem solving courts not only in the United States, but around the world. And that, you know, for me, you know, the court process, the trauma informed process is obviously critical because we in mental health court, which I think is the easiest illustration, you know, that we're battling, battling against discrimination, against stigma, against dehumanization, against marginalization. And it is imperative that we promote dignity in everything we say and everything we do. And that was really a fundamental, and remains a fundamental principle, of the court since the minute, we opened the doors, 25 years ago. And so it's also a wonderful teaching tool for young lawyers that they can be humanistic that we can be compassionate, that it's important, as you say, to ask for lawyers to screen. And I ask lawyers, have you screened for trauma? Have you screened for suicide attempts? Have you screened for mental health? Have you screened for juvenile justice involvement, whatever? Are you doing proper screening for your clients so you could help the judges when you're coming into the court to say, judge, my client has had a trauma history. To help the judges go, oh, okay, great. I understand that and I know how to approach this person. I think the idea of being authentic, the idea of giving yourself permission to educate as you go, the idea to set a tone in the courtroom of caring and compassion is essential. And, that it's okay to give, you have to give people voice. Not that they should, in any way, you know, talk about facts of a case or somehow have their constitutional rights should never be diminished. But why can't we give litigants voice and listen to what they have to say? So they do feel that they've been hurt.
>> Myrna McCallum : Yeah, exactly. What you're sharing has echoes some of what other guests, on this podcast have said. Like my, one of my, former colleagues, and I'd like to call him friend now. Harold Jaunzems wrote this book called Peace and Good Order, the Case for Indigenous justice in Canada. He was a longtime prosecutor before becoming an author of several books. He has said, at the end of the day, people just want to feel as though somebody cares about them. And I thought about his messaging when I interviewed Ian Smith from Scotland.
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: I spent a lot of time with the end. Yeah, we had a, we had a fabulous, a fabulous whirlwind week bar, what we called Presiding with Kindness tour.
>> Myrna McCallum : Yes, he talks about Presiding with kindness. He talks about smart justice. And one of the things that he shared, I think it was on the podcast he shared how there was a young woman who had been coming into court on, like on a loop. She just kept coming back, coming back, coming back. And one day, the judge who often was hearing her matters was retiring and her last, sitting. This young woman came back into court after years of just revolving door, coming back. And the judge came down, from the bench and gave this woman a hug and said, you know, I've been seeing you here for years and I just want to, you know, say goodbye to you. But Ian talked about how it might have been life changing had that hug happened at her first appearance in court as opposed to the last, because of this need for connection, kindness and compassion that people are looking for. So let me ask this question, because I know people are like, well, what are trauma informed courts? What could that look like? And I think that through our conversation today, you've given us a fantastic, list of ingredients of what can make for a trauma informed courtroom. but let's talk a little bit about the question that I also hear often from, lawyers and judges, which is, how does this benefit me? How does doing business in this different way, how does that benefit me? Because there I'm also either a slave to the clock or a heavy schedule or, the ego that comes with lawyering sometimes that it's a little, it can be a little bit disconnected and not bringing in a lot of vulnerability or humanity. But how does it, how does it benefit the judge and the lawyer who maybe have their questions? But, what is the benefit for me?
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Yeah, I mean, you know, there's been a lot of surveys, you know that first of all, when you practice this kind of law and you know that you're really making a connection and a difference in people's lives, that you enjoy the work, you know, to a much greater degree. And we know that, you know, that the wellness surveys on lawyering have not been positive. The work of Patrick Krill, the work with the American Bar association and the research that has come out and the reports indicate that there's a high degree of stress, involved with lawyering and compassion fatigue, as well as anxiety. And then of course that turns into, higher prevalence of using substances. We have higher rates of suicide. And so the idea of, well, if you're more, if you're happier and you feel gratified in the work that you do, that's when we want to do our work. And we're very, if we have, if we feel well being in what we're doing. So this type of practice clearly, clearly, has incredible personal benefits, health and spiritual and professional. So I just can't say enough about giving yourself permission to practice this type of law or judging. And I think that you're right. There may be lawyers and judges that just are very traditional in their views and they may never feel comfortable, you know, going outside the box of that traditional, you know, type of perception. But the truth of the matter is that in these contemporary times, I've seen judges that, you know, go into these problem solving courts and oh my gosh, they are absolutely transformed themselves, you know, in terms of just loving, loving what they do.
>> Myrna McCallum : I love it. Transformation. Okay, so let's, let's sort of close Our conversation, talking about the book. This. You have this book that is a collection of some transformative stories. I think, is probably the way to describe it. Can we talk a little bit about, your, Your book, the title, where people can get it and what. What folks can expect to, to feel, to he. To hear, to see, in those stories.
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Oh, thank you. Thanks, Myrna. I really appreciate it. So we're talking really about my book, which is called the Court of Refuge, Stories from the Bench of America's First Mental Health Court. It was published, by Beacon Press, and Beacon Press, really wanted human stories, and they got it. And it really talks about many different, experiences in the court, all from a trauma informed lens, if you will, and a therapeutic, lens. And they're just really, really beautiful in the sense that not only, does it speak truth, truth that recovery is real. You know, Myrna, people don't believe that people with serious mental illnesses actually recover. That they go back to work, that they go back to college, that they have relationships. And you know, I think what one thing that this book conveys is, you know, I think we all to a large degree have a stereotypic view of what mental illness. The faces of mental illness. And I can't tell you how wrong I was even when I started this court 25 years ago. We've had individuals in this court from every single walk of life, from lawyers to professors to nurses to professional athletes to artists. You name it, we've seen them. And, it just really speaks, I think, to what happens when individuals do not get the care that they need. They can't get access to care or the stigma or the, you know, the discrimination surrounding mental illness is just, you know, keeps. Prevents people from getting care and they go into crisis and one thing leads to another, and all of a sudden, you know, you know, you're behind bars and, you know, it's really unnecessary. And I think that that's one, thing that I think that this book really speaks to, that treatment works, that there is no health. It's Mental Health Month still. That there is no health without mental health. And that mental health is essential to overall health. All of these creeds are so fundamentally true that we really must get parity, we must get access to care. And I really do. You know, when I started the court so many years ago, 25 years ago, I thought once we brought what was happening out in the open, and we took our fight, if you will, out in the open, everything is done in this court. Courtroom. We literally turned a courtroom into a psychiatric nash unit. I really thought that would, that would be it. I was so naive. I thought, we're going to have policymakers invest in mental health and we're going to get community centers all over. And all I want to see is the day there doesn't need to be a mental health. so, yes, I think the book is a great teaching tool. It's written for family members, it's written for consumers, it's written for lawyers, and it's a court of refuge. And, it took me three years to write it, and I'm very proud of it.
>> Myrna McCallum : Amazing. Amazing. I just think that the work you're doing is so incredibly forward thinking and transformation, transformative and healing. And it brings these concepts, into the minds of lawyers and judges that I think traditionally have not aligned with what people thought lawyering or judicial practice should and could look like. And so you've opened my mind even more than what I thought was possible, in terms of how I viewed the role of trauma in legal processes, I didn't even begin to think about healing. So thank you so much for this conversation. I think I'm gonna have to have you back to talk about, like, what is the future for us? What is the future for, the connection between healing and justice and what, what, what is possible? What do you envision 20, 50 years from now? How would that look? And so I'm just. This has been such an awesome conversation. Thank you so much for making time.
>> Judge Ginger Lerner: Oh, Myrna, it's such an honor. I couldn't wait to meet you. And I'm following you on Twitter and on social media and you're just such a global evangelist for trauma informed approaches and that, you know, it's okay to preside with kindness. It's the right thing to do. And, we could help so many more people and make a huge impact on the community and public safety and public health. So thank you for this wonderful opportunity.
>> Myrna McCallum : Absolutely. Thank you, Judge Lerner Wren. This has been amazing. Thank you.
>> Myrna McCallum : Well, that's my show for today, folks. I hope you enjoyed it. Thank you all so much for sticking with me and supporting me and being loyal listeners. And I'm super excited to be celebrating 50, 000 across the globe of this podcast that was only originally an envisioned to be maybe five episodes. So thank you, thank you, thank you. I hope that you continue to join me in 2022. So many cool guests and conversations. Just want to acknowledge, in closing, that this podcast comes to you from the traditional, ancestral, unceded territories of the Squamish, Tsleil Waututh and Musqueam people. Once again, happy holidays. Take care, everybody.