Search

Although there have been studies about the meaning of work in fields such as health and education, there is a lack of research about the work of judges. In order to fill this gap, this article uses the dimensions centrality, social norms, objectives, and results valued at work, to describe the meaning of work for judges. Twenty judges in Brazilian state courts of first instance were interviewed using a semi-structured schedule. Data were analysed using textual and content analysis. The results show that there is no consensus on the centrality of work, in respect of either time or the work / life balance, although most interviewees stated that the family is a priority dimension, followed by work and religion. The judges interviewed held the social norm that work is more of a duty than a right. Although feelings of frustration and happiness are counterbalanced among the magistrates interviewed, research data converge on the positive conclusion that work is seen as a value-generating activity for society.

To handle increasing caseloads, the judicial systems of several countries have adopted three main strategies: developing new standards and judicial procedures; investing in information and communication technologies; and hiring additional judicial staff. This paper investigates the impact of this third strategy on the performance of Brazilian courts. We use multiple regression analysis to test an array of related hypotheses about the complex interactions between the number of judicial staff and court productivity. The empirical research uses ten-year (2003-2012) data from 27 Brazilian courts. The main findings indicate that the number of judicial assistants has a positive influence on court productivity, and the number of assistants mitigates the positive relationship between court caseload and court productivity. The results are discussed and further studies are suggested.