This section introduces the idea of trauma, violence, and trauma- and violence- informed lawyering. Trauma-informed approaches have received significant attention in recent years in many professions. Some lawyers and judges have also come to see its value (see, for example, Myrna McCallum’s podcast). Violence-informed approaches, however, have received less attention. Both are particularly important in clinical and experiential programs. Indeed, Professor Sara Gold argued that clinic lawyers should use a presumptively trauma-informed approach when working with clients. Trauma and violence can be a relevant factor both in externship placements with a direct client-facing focus and those in indirect or policy-focused placements.

Students and lawyers themselves might have also faced or been affected by trauma before they entered a workplace setting. Even if students have not yet experienced significant traumatic events in their lives, talking about and witnessing pain can be difficult, especially if it has not been previously discussed in law school or beforehand. Many students struggle, for example, with the graphic and often depersonalized ways cases are presented in classes such as Criminal Law or Evidence Law. Working with clients who have experienced trauma – especially engaging deeply with narrative and evidence – is another way secondary trauma can manifest for students. Secondary and vicarious trauma are part of a comprehensive approach to trauma-informed lawyering. These ideas are discussed in the next Chapter on wellness in the profession.

Understanding trauma – and critiques of this approach –  at both individual and structural levels is essential in maintaining effective individual practice and in developing community-level policies, education sessions, awareness campaigns, policy submissions, and many other lawyering tasks. Over-reliance on trauma, especially without attention to context and community, however, is not without dangers. As we explore in this section, trauma informed approaches without a structural violence perspective can lead to individualizing and pathologizing clients. This section defines essential components of trauma and trauma informed lawyering as well as critical perspectives on its framing and implementation through the lens of structural violence.

Trauma has very serious health impacts and impacts not only the survivor but also future generations.

There are many identified forms and definitions of structural violence. In sum, structural violence refers to the institutions and structures that harm people and prevent them from reaching their potential. Structural violence is also sometimes referred to as “indirect violence”. Key to this concept is that this type of violence is typically avoidable – meaning, changes to policy, structures, or institutions could alleviate or eliminate the harms caused to people.

Focus on structural violence adds an important lens to trauma-informed work. First, it focuses clearly on structures rather than individuals. This means that rather than focusing on what a person can do to heal, the lens should turn to what structures caused them to be harmed in the first place.

There are endless examples of structural violence. One is briefly explored here. Most provinces set social benefits (welfare, disability benefits, etc.) at rates that are far too low for someone to afford to live with dignity. The result of having inadequate income puts people in situations where they make very difficult and often harmful choices. Many people resort to staying in unsafe living conditions, engage in unsafe work, do not eat diets that are healthy or suited to their disability, stay in abusive relationships, and so on. Many of these conditions lead to trauma. But trauma-informed approaches might focus on the individual response to these events rather than the initial cause. Indeed, it would be relatively simple to increase rates of social benefits to one where people could live with dignity. Notably, many structures operate in tandem to create complex systems of violence for people. In this way, many people are left stuck in situations of inter-generational poverty and a lack of options not only for themselves but for their children and grandchildren.

Another example of how a focus on trauma might mask true sources of violence is the harms of colonization. Many Indigenous writers and practitioners in various fields reject or at least problematize Western notions of trauma. Renee Linklater reframes trauma as follows:

“As a direct result of colonization, the vast majority of Indigenous people have lived, or are living, in trauma; in most cases, this trauma is multigenerational… and is relentlessly being reproduced and reinvented in various forms… [T]hose seeking help are often confronted with more alienation and traumatization… Furthermore, culturally influenced Indigenous behaviour is often misinterpreted by Western-oriented clinicians as evidence of psychopathology. There is a clear need to address the issues of culturally inadequate care that Indigenous peoples often encounter while seeking to address their trauma and particularly while accessing the mental health system… For the most part, Indigenous trauma has been largely ‘diagnosed’ through non-Indigenous theories. Western frameworks of psychiatry and psychology have medicalized the experiences of Indigenous peoples, applying diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorder, further pathologizing their trauma. Yet there are Indigenous health care practitioners that utilize strategies that are rooted in Indigenous philosophies, worldviews and trauma-informed approaches… Using trauma terminology implies that the individual is responsible for the response, rather than the broader systematic force caused by the state’s abuse of power.” (Renee Linklater, Decolonizing Trauma Work: Indigenous Stories and Strategies (Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2014, p 20-23).

Drawing on Bonnie Burstow’s work, Linklater notes that trauma is a reaction to a wound rather than a disorder (22).