Roger Hanson sees a logical connection between the attributes behind good listeners in the context of a hearing and how the ingredient for listening ultimately lead to procedural fairness.  He wrote the following:

           I’ll assume efficiency, concentration, and attentiveness allow judges to listen and then speak in an authoritative manner indicating an understanding of the issues, and relevant particular circumstances. If so, doesn’t that type of behavior resemble procedural fairness?

Don’t litigants and lawyers believe that when judges allow others to speak and then respond directly and tell litigants and lawyers the basis for their decision, and do so by recognizing the particular circumstances in a case, there is an element of procedural fairness (voice, neutrality, respect, and trustworthiness)?

Focus, structure, and purpose speed up the legal process in orderly manner and recognize the importance of each case.  I get to this conclusion via a hypothetical syllogism (e.g., If focus then efficiency, and if efficiency then orderliness, Hence, if focus, then a judge is an a stronger position to control the process and schedule, arrange, and conduct hearings in an visible way.

If the syllogism is valid, then there is a need only to focus on focus, structure, and purpose. The benefit of that situation is of course, focus, structure and purpose are sufficiently tangible that they can be encouraged, taught and evaluated. Perhaps actually teaching listening requires too much individual attention and hence is labor intensive. However, focus, structure, and purpose in a sense supersede listenships and allow us to deal just with the more tangible.

So I say all of of this in my own of looking at the issue of procedural fairness and what are the ingredients to get judges acting in a way that delivers procedural justice.

You might find my argument and style irritating or unnerving, but I hope you see some small value in it.

Roger A. Hanson is an Adjunct Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Colorado. He presently serves as a consultant to the National Center for State Courts. He is a prolific writer about justice system improvement.