The in-person conference invited attendees from various universities, lawyers, barristers and advocates, the judiciary, representatives from various Scottish justice institutions and other interested groups.

Why is vicarious trauma education needed?

The conference’s aim was to consider the increasing relevance of the knowledge and understanding of the effects of vicarious trauma on the legal profession. It started by identifying the personal, professional, and public risks to the legal profession arising from vicarious trauma.

Two speakers from Australia, principally, the keynote speaker, Chris Molnar, solicitor at Kennedys Law LLP, and Kirsty Giles, psychotherapist, powerfully stressed the relevance of vicarious trauma to the legal profession. Journalist Fin Young was able to relate how vicarious trauma arose from his experience of reporting on horrors. Lesley Allan, a solicitor from Kennedys Law LLP as a member of the profession, highlighted how vicarious trauma impacts which are not confined merely to those practising criminal law.

Learning about vicarious trauma can be obtained from other jurisdictions and other occupations/professions and this wider approach added resonance to the discussions. What was evident and emphasised, was that the risks for the legal profession arising from vicarious trauma are common, no matter what the stage of qualification may be or where indeed lawyers or indeed their staff were situated.

When asked, the general view was that the legal profession increasingly appears able to accept that these risks from vicarious trauma exist. However, acceptance that the risks exist in comparison to applying them personally is quite a different matter. Though the distressing and challenging nature of legal work may be the same as years gone by, there is a growing awareness that being able or left to cope is not good enough. Many people speaking at the conference recognised the implications for the human resources departments in addressing the health and safety aspects with ensuring wellness packages exist.

How should vicarious trauma education be best embedded?

Many attending acknowledged what work they were undertaking. That comprised, for example, the work of the Judicial Institute in respect of judicial training to judges at the height of their profession and universities who wanted to raise awareness of vicarious trauma early on in delivery of Higher Education and to identify means to obtain support then and for the future.

Elizabeth Comerford from Dundee University, highlighted how they had developed an elective for the diploma in legal practice for their students. Though too early for full evaluation, the feedback to date supported both the need to deliver such training, as well as its success when provided through members of the profession themselves in delivering experiential learning based on their experience.

The conference delegates were encouraged to promote and continue the dialogue over the need and role for vicarious trauma education in relation to the legal profession.

In conclusion, though the conference was delivered on a relatively small-scale, the discussion must continue about where and how best to embed vicarious trauma education within legal education. The conference recognised that a step forward had been taken in recognising the need and to an extent the risks. How should those within the profession ensure that education can be embedded, now or in the future? What is their individual and professional responsibility?

The conference was a first for the OU in Scotland, and for OU Law School. Holding this was only possible with funding from the Clark Foundation for Legal Education to whom many thanks are expressed. A report on the conference will be published shortly.

Gillian Mawdsley is an associate lecturer in law at the Open University