legal disputes. As such, it has much in common with other movements in the law, embracing new ideas of legal problem-solving, including appropriate or alternative dispute resolution, creative problem-solving, preventive law and restorative justice. Recent discussion around therapeutic jurisprudence has extended to such diverse topics as whether plea bargaining or criminal settlement processes can be therapeutic, mitigation of ‘revenge porn’ using therapeutic jurisprudence approaches, mandatory sentencing and how TJ might be used to reinvigorate child welfare practices. At the present time a lot of effort is being put into exploring ways in which therapeutic jurisprudence principles may be mainstreamed into courts of general jurisdiction, with a view to making its healing approach more widely felt and validated. Allied to therapeutic jurisprudence are other approaches which have begun to transform professional attitudes in other areas of practice, including family law, elder law, and disability law. Within the context of family law the novel approach of collaborative advocacy offers a radically different alternative to the traditional adversarial model for solving family disputes. The endorsement of this approach, which anticipates parties resolving their disputes through a collaborative discourse facilitated by appropriately trained legal advisers, has resulted in some jurisdictions establishing separate practicing bars of collaborative lawyers. It is an important component in the growth of a culture of non -adversarial justice in domains that were previously heavily conflict based. In addition, new understandings of the importance of the elements of voice, validation and respect has led to the emergence of a dedicated school of procedural justice, which increasingly informs new approaches to managerial and administrative justice. Recent writing on therapeutic jurisprudence has examined the law and its administration through the metaphor of “wine and bottles”. The law itself, the legal landscape or legal structure are the bottles, while the roles, behaviors, practices, and techniques of legal actors constitutes the liquid or “wine”. This metaphor has been used effectively in, for actors constitutes the liquid or “wine”. This metaphor has been used effectively in, for example, examining the role played by problem-solving or solution-focused courts and the extent to which they use good therapeutic jurisprudence practices. This might include for example, active listening, demonstration of empathy, and active solicitation of participation by the parties involved, an approach that might be regarded as “TJ friendly”. The wine /bottle model has been the subject of a full law review article by Professor David Wexler entitled ‘New Wine in New Bottles’ (2014) 7Arizona Summit Law Review 463. Therapeutic jurisprudence does not claim to be a cure-all problems in modern society that occur simply as a result of the operation of the law. It does not claim to be an end in itself, but rather it is simply a menu of conceptual tools that might be useful in confronting those elements within legal institutions and procedures that have become dysfunctional or are no longer fit for purpose. The goal of therapeutic jurisprudence is to facilitate change which is effective and humane, and which confirms the status of human agents as subjects rather than objects.