Judge Theresa Doyle of the Seattle Municipal Court was elected on September 14 to the King County Superior Court, with 71% of the vote. A Seattle native, Judge Doyle graduated from Rainier Beach High School, the University of Washington and Seattle University School of Law. Judge Doyle clerked for the Washington Court of Appeals, the California Court of Appeals, and worked as a public defender in San Francisco and Seattle.

Judge Doyle was appointed to the Seattle Municipal Court in 1998, and won unopposed elections in 1998 and 2002. She brings a rare perspective to the Superior Court, having presided over the Municipal Court’s Mental Health Court. It is not surprising that Judge Doyle won election to the Superior Court by such a wide margin to the 51% of attorney respondents who rated her performance as “excellent” in the 2001 King County Bar Poll.

During her campaign for the Superior Court, she was endorsed by every local major newspaper, the King County Labor Guild, the Women’s Political Caucus and the King County Democrats. She received high ratings from all six local bar associations, the King County Municipal League and SEAMEC. A look at her work presiding over the Mental Health Court helps to explain this support, and provides insight into what lawyers might expect in her courtroom in King County Superior Court.

The Mental Health Court, or MHC, is a criminal court designed specifically for cases in which someone is charged with a crime because of behavior caused by an untreated mental illness. The court uses “Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” which holds that treating the cause of the behavior will more effectively achieve the goals of public safety and the client’s best interests.

Under therapeutic jurisprudence, the prosecutor and defender have common ground. Incarceration, which is extremely expensive for taxpayers, has not been shown to be effective in modifying the behavior of those with a mental illness. Treatment, which is far less expensive than incarceration, along with assistance in obtaining benefits, housing and support structure, increases the client’s mental and overall life stability. This reduces the likelihood that the client will exhibit problem behavior, which is consistent with the prosecutor’s obligation to public safety.

Since the client’s entry into the court is voluntary, the defense as well is assisted in meeting the best interests of the client. While the prosecution and defense must still meet their obligations to their clients, the recognition of common goals in the judicial process is known as the collaborative method.

As practical as that sounds, the lawyers are still operating in a system designed to be adversarial, and new players emerged into the MHC courtroom; mental health professionals with active roles inside and out of the courtroom, monitoring the progress of clients, and advising the court, prosecution and defense on effective ways to help clients find success and experience achievement.

When she started presiding over the MHC, Judge Doyle found a courtroom filled with new players, lawyers with nontraditional aspects to their roles, an extremely large caseload, and a court for which there was virtually no template. Her response was to recognize the court’s accomplishments, its potential, and the need for a strong, rational presence on the bench. The Mental Health Court by its nature works with sensitive information, and must show a respect for the privacy and dignity of the clients. The court is also the home to the litigation and determination of whether clients are competent to stand trial, which includes the possibility of forced medication in some circumstances.

Given all of this, Judge Doyle made it clear that for the court to remain viable and meet its objectives, everyone involved must keep two things foremost in their minds at all times: 1) that the court remains a court of law; and 2) that ethical practices and procedures would be a primary focus of discussion, debate and analysis for all of those who work in the court.

While the MHC was controversial to those unfamiliar with its practices, it went on to be reviewed by a University of Washington Study, and a follow up article in the Journal of Law and Psychiatry. When the MHC was created, there were only a handful of such courts around the country, but the published reviews of the Seattle’s MHC, along with its District Court counterpart brought attention to Seattle’s MHC from around the country and beyond. Representatives from governments from as far away Russia have visited the court to learn from methods and innovations. Judge Doyle and other members of the MHC team found themselves invited to speak before various civic and governmental groups, and continue to advocate for the MHC at conventions and continuing legal education seminars.

Judge Doyle recognized the value of the additional professionals in the court. First, the Court Monitor, a mental health professional who helps determine appropriate candidates for entry into the court, determines their existing and potential resources, and monitors pre-disposition compliance with MHC “Conditions of Release.” Next are the court’s probation counselors, who assist and monitor their clients throughout their probationary period of up to two years. Finally, there is the defense social worker, who provides expertise to the defense and all the parties, and social work for the clients.

Clients who decide to participate, or opt-in to the court, are typically serviced by the county mental health agencies, where they have a case manager who assists them and coordinates their treatment and support structure. The Court Monitor and Probation Counselors maintain communication with the county mental health case managers, giving them far more immediate access to client progress than is found in regular probation. While the mental health court has a reputation for using treatment and positive reinforcement, problems with clients are also known quickly, giving the court the ability to take immediate action. This communication between Judge Doyle made use of all of these resources to their greatest potential.

Perhaps the most effective aspect of the MHC is not found in the Court Rules or applicable laws, but in the relationships that drive the court. MHC clients come in for frequent review hearings, but not just if there are problems. Many hearings occur to acknowledge successes and achievements by the clients. Judge Doyle put great effort in establishing personal relationships with the clients before her. She listened to what they had to say, and showed genuine interest in how their lives outside of court were going. Clients began to feel a personal obligation to her, and cared about what she thought of them.

The struggle clients face is played out in court, and even setbacks are seen in the context of a heroic struggle by the client, to overcome obstacles they never asked for. One such client lost his struggle, and his life in the process. His memorial service was conducted in the Downtown Emergency Service Center, which provides assistance for the homeless. At the service, sitting among his friends, people without homes, a few family members and others who had gathered to remember him, quietly sat Judge Doyle.

MHC clients will drop by when they are not required to, perhaps to share their art with her, or just to watch and visit a little. This personal accountability, earned by Judge Doyle through building relationships, rather than ordered, may be the most meaningful legacy Judge Doyle leaves for the MHC. As the MHC team watched in amazement, the announcement of Judge Doyle’s election was greeted by clients with happiness for her success, and genuine grief that she was leaving. One client said a great deal with few words: “She actually listened to me and cared about me.”

In May of this year, members of the MHC team were invited to Vancouver B.C. to present to a large group considering forming a Mental Health Court for British Columbia. It dawned on the team that during Judge Doyle’s stay with the MHC, and with her encouragement and support, it had become what may be the most reviewed MHC in the country, and the widely acknowledged example of a mature, functioning model of an MHC.

As the clients, lawyers and staff of the Mental Health Court bid farewell to Judge Theresa Doyle, the lawyers and citizens of King County will no doubt benefit from her problem solving skills, judgment and humanity.