“Our system could work better if there was more mutual respect”
08 December 2025
In this interview, Her Honour Judge Carol Atkinson speaks with Schwartz Facilitator and Clinical Psychologist, Dr Nicola Cosgrave, about Schwartz Rounds in the judicial system.
Nicola Cosgrave (NC) is, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and a trained Schwartz facilitator for the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.
Carol Atkinson (CA) is the designated family judge for East London. East London is one third of the family justice region of London, and I’m the senior judge responsible for the delivery of family justice in the region of East London.
NC: Carol, you and I have had a few conversations over the years about whether Schwartz Rounds could work within the judicial community. Just by way of background, you and I originally met when we worked together on the BeST services RCT in 2016, I had a fellowship with NICE and was convening a conference on mental health in the under-fives, and I invited you to take part in a Schwartz Round for the conference. The theme of the round was ‘A case I’ll never forget’, and you were one of the storytellers, along with a Social Worker, a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and a Clinical Psychologist. We had a Schwartz facilitator and the audience was predominantly mental health professionals but there were also some social work and judicial colleagues.
NC: What was your experience of participating in your first Schwartz Round?
CA: Well, first of all, I had no idea how Schwartz Rounds worked, I had to think about it. I spent a long time thinking about the story, all I knew was that I was giving a five-minute story about a baby I’d never forget. And I deal with a lot of babies and so inevitably, I was thinking about, as you do as a lawyer, different angles, things that might be of interest. So it was important for me to identify the right story. Then I prepared the story and I had a rehearsal with the facilitator.
When I was first invited, my instant reaction was, will there be any other judges in the audience, because it’s an unusual thing for a member of the judiciary to talk about a case. I’d published the judgement so the information was out there if anybody wanted to look for it, and I didn’t give any more detail away. I think what bothered me most was talking about being concerned about and emotionally connected to a child I’d made a decision about, which is a curious thing now when I look back, because really, I’m pretty emotionally connected to most of them. So the preparation was quite difficult for me in that sense. I prepared the story and we had a pre-round preparation meeting, where the four storytellers told their stories and I actually started crying during it because it was quite moving. Thinking about that child in that way is probably a way that I don’t allow myself to think about the children I deal with, because it would be too hard. So that was my experience leading up to it.
Also, I thought other people’s stories were far more interesting than mine, I was absolutely blown away by the social worker story. The minute detail and focus he had on trying to make this father a better father, and how that happened. And the other thing that I got from it was the audience, really, and the reaction that came back from them. The facilitator very skilfully drew out the themes that were common across the four stories. We all come from different perspectives in the family justice system and dealing with children, but the themes were the same. They were about how difficult the work is, and how hard it is to hold the work in mind. It felt very, very connected.
NC: You’ve talked very eloquently about your experience in the Schwartz Round. Afterwards, how did it impact on your work and on you as a professional.
CA: I think two things for me came out of it and have stuck with me. The first one is, a real sense of how important it was to offload and talk about things, but the other thing that really struck me was the ability of the method to invite and support cross-disciplinary respect and understanding for what other people do in the system. A lot of people in the audience said, oh, my goodness me, it must be really hard being a judge, and I thought to myself, gosh, that was really hard being a social worker in that situation. We’re all in this together and we’re sharing this burden across layers that you don’t generally get to have conversations in.
The other thing that really struck me was the ability of the method to invite and support cross-disciplinary respect and understanding for what other people do in the system”
NC: Leading on from that, do you think Schwartz Rounds could help your judicial colleagues?
CA: Yes, I do, I mean, we do sit around at lunch and we talk about cases. But it’s generally more jovial, it’s more light-hearted. Occasionally somebody will wander in and say, I’m really troubled by this case and there’ll be an offloading in that sense. But what we don’t do is sit down and talk about the horror of the stuff that we see children subjected to, and families, and how desperately we feel about it sometimes. And I’m pretty sure all of my judicial colleagues do feel desperate sometimes about the situation. And I think the longer I’m doing this job, the more I think that you carry it with you and it gets harder and harder, it gets heavier and heavier. So, I think that for my judicial colleagues, you know, wellbeing is an overused word, but I do think that being able to discuss things like this in a group of other judges would be helpful, and would be useful in identifying common themes.
I attended a conference of judges after I did the Schwartz Round and we had a presentation about judicial well-being, but it went nowhere. The audience was seemingly unmoved. It was almost like nobody wanted to say, ‘that would be really useful’ because it might betray something. The next presentation was from a circuit judge who told the story of a case that had been so stressful, and there had been an appeal and it got complicated, and it was just stress upon stress upon stress. And you could feel people in the audience thinking, ‘My God, he’s describing my life, actually. And you could have heard a pin drop. There he is, sharing a story about his life, which is so similar to our own lives, and we all recognise what he’s going through. And if it had been set up like a Schwartz Round it would have been better.
NC: Schwartz Rounds are very powerful spaces and at the heart of Schwartz, it’s the stories, people’s stories, on how their work has impacted on them.
NC: Do you have a vision for Schwartz Rounds in the judicial community?
CA: Yes, I do think it would provide a valuable space within which judicial colleagues can unload and de-stress. What I like about Schwartz is the idea that you invite people along for something that isn’t something that they necessarily need. And if you could add it into the contract, you know, to have Schwartz, then you’re more likely to reach more people. So that’s the first thing.
And the second thing is system wide, I think our family justice system is in trauma itself. I think that we’re all working so hard and carrying so much stress, in many different professions, I think that being able to share that and recognising it in other people will enable judges to be better judges. So, for instance, if you’re in a Schwartz Round and you’re talking about a theme or about a specific case, and if you’re in one with social work professionals who are talking about what it’s like for them at the sharp end, or a clinician that’s had to give evidence in a case and has found themselves under cross-examination, then I think you start to understand what it’s like for other people. And I really do think that our system could work better if there was more mutual respect.
I think that we’re all working so hard and carrying so much stress … I think that being able to share that and recognising it in other people will enable judges to be better judges”
NC: You’re talking respect, and I also think about compassion for one another, for one another’s work, the different types of work that we do. Maybe it feels like a less lonely place to be because we’re sharing with other people, they have an experience similar to our own.
NC: Do you envisage any particular challenges of Schwartz Rounds being implemented in the judiciary?
CA: First of all, there are going to be people who are reluctant to come into the space, even with their colleagues – you know, as I was at first. My first question was, was there going to be any other judges there? I wouldn’t have a problem with that now, now I’ve experienced it. But that’s the first challenge. Some judges are going to be reluctant. Whilst they may not be reluctant to be in a Round with other judges, they might be reluctant to be in a Round with other professionals. Some judges might feel that their professional persona is being worn away. I personally think it makes you a better judge to be seen as compassionate and be prepared to be compassionate in front of people.
NC: I think making oneself vulnerable is hard and generates a lot of anxiety, and then to expose that vulnerability to a group of professionals is difficult, particularly when there’s a lot of implicit ideas around what being a judge is and how robust they need to be.
NC: I have one more question for you. If you had one takeaway message for the audience, what would you say?
CA: That’s a tough one. I mean, there’s so much in Schwartz, I think it teaches you many things. Is it that being prepared to be vulnerable is a good thing? Or being prepared to open yourself up is a good thing? I don’t know how I’d express it.
NC: I think you’ve expressed it beautifully. Carol, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on Schwartz Rounds.