Brains Behind the Bench: Who Are Judicial Clerks and Do They Tip the Scales?

This paper explores judicial clerks' evolving role and influence at the Czech Constitutional Court (CCC), focusing on their identities and their impact on judicial decision-making. While judicial behaviour has been extensively studied in international scholarship, the role of clerks, particularly in the Czech context, remains underexplored. This study bridges the gap in understanding the institutional and individual dynamics shaping judicial outcomes. A key focus is the changing profile of judicial clerks over time, especially following the 2003 reform that allowed judges to employ up to three clerks instead of one. This paper examines how this shift has influenced the demographic and professional characteristics of clerks, considering factors such as generational changes, educational backgrounds, and prior legal experience. The study also investigates the extent to which clerks influence court decisions, particularly in procedural dismissals. Drawing on comparative studies of judicial assistants and their role in courts across Europe and the United States, this research evaluates how factors such as clerks’ tenure and professional experience shape their contributions to judicial processes. Early indications suggest that more experienced clerks tend to exercise greater discretion in procedural matters, while younger clerks often favour addressing cases substantively, reflecting a shift in the court’s operational dynamics. This paper situates the court within broader international debates about the institutional design and efficacy of judicial assistants, offering a unique perspective from a post-communist democratic state. The findings contribute to the growing body of empirical legal research by highlighting the significance of clerks in shaping judicial behaviour and institutional performance. This study not only addresses a critical gap in Czech legal scholarship but also adds valuable insights to comparative discussions on judicial decision-making, demonstrating the interplay between institutional reforms and individual contributions within the judiciary.