This article examines the role of law clerks in the Dutch administrative appellate courts and how they collaborate with judges in judicial decision-making. While law clerks in Dutch district courts have previously been studied, there was limited knowledge regarding their work at the appellate courts. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with both judges and law clerks, this empirical study explores how law clerks contribute to case preparation, hearings, deliberations, and drafting rulings, and how their involvement influences both procedure and outcome. Findings show that law clerks perform a broad range of substantive tasks: conducting legal triage, writing in-depth memos or draft rulings, contributing actively during deliberations, and drafting final texts after hearings. Judges generally value law clerks as equal discussion partners, appreciating their ability to provide counterarguments and prevent tunnel vision. Simultaneously, the collaboration is marked by institutional paradoxes. On the one hand, close cooperation allows judges to manage an increasing caseload effectively and efficiently. On the other hand, fundamental rule-of-law principles require that judges, not clerks, retain sole responsibility for adjudication. Law clerks thus navigate a delicate balance: they aim to contribute substantively without undermining judicial independence, impartiality, or authority. Professional standards may help clarify the law clerk’s role and strengthen their legitimacy in judicial decision-making. In this sense, law clerks, like Odysseus, navigate between Scylla and Charybdis – striving to avoid both inefficiency and the erosion of rule-of-law safeguards.
Giel Stoepker (Thu,) studied this question.