When Overwork Becomes the Cost of Keeping the Justice System Running

On the afternoon of July 21, a disturbing scene unfolded at the Taoyuan District Court. A court clerk was found standing outside the window of a judges’ lounge on the eighth floor, in an extremely dangerous situation. Fortunately, colleagues noticed in time, immediately approached to calm him and alerted the police and emergency services. They eventually succeeded in bringing him safely back inside and accompanied him to the hospital, preventing an irreversible tragedy.

According to media reports, the clerk was believed to have been under prolonged work-related stress and suffered an emotional breakdown after being temporarily unable to locate a case file he was handling. This incident has once again exposed the long-standing staffing shortages and overwork within the judicial system—problems that have reached a point where they can no longer be ignored.

Vacancies That Cannot Be Filled

Court clerks are essential judicial administrative personnel in courts and prosecutors’ offices. Taking court clerks as an example, their duties extend far beyond recording the statements of judges, lawyers, witnesses, and parties during hearings and preparing and organizing court transcripts. They are also responsible for receiving case filings, managing case files after assignment, preparing judgments and other judicial documents, serving summonses and court decisions, safeguarding evidence, tracking procedural progress, and archiving case files after proceedings have concluded.

Court clerks must be familiar with relevant laws, regulations, and administrative procedures, and they are required to complete a large volume of documentary and procedural work within statutory deadlines. Their involvement is essential at almost every stage of judicial proceedings, making them a crucial cog in the operation of the justice system.

However, this essential cog in the justice system is now facing a serious operational crisis, as the court clerk workforce continues to shrink. According to relevant statistics, as of the end of March 2026, courts nationwide had 353 vacant clerk positions, representing a vacancy rate of approximately 10 percent. Data released by the Taiwan Court Clerks Union show that the vacancy rate at the Taipei District Court rose from 6.67 percent in 2024 to 14.33 percent in 2025. In 2025, the vacancy rate stood at 17.08 percent at the Taoyuan District Court, 17.89 percent at the New Taipei District Court, and as high as 23.87 percent at the Shilin District Court. These figures indicate that staffing shortages among court clerks are continuing to worsen across district courts.

As a result, those who remain in their positions are forced to take on heavier workloads and greater pressure, creating a vicious cycle: the more severe the staffing shortage, the greater the overwork; and the greater the overwork, the harder it becomes to retain staff.

The Hidden Overwork of Court Clerks

In recent years, reports of court clerks dying from overwork or suffering deteriorating health have become increasingly common. However, no comprehensive public statistics are currently available on court clerks’ actual working hours. According to media reports, data provided by the Judicial Yuan to the Legislative Yuan show that court clerks work more than 50 hours of overtime per month on average. Even this figure, however, may still underestimate the true extent of their workload.

Under the Regulations Governing the Payment of Overtime Compensation by Government Agencies, which were adopted pursuant to the Public Functionaries Protection Act, the number of overtime hours for which each employee may receive overtime pay is generally capped at 20 hours per month. Where operational needs require additional overtime, an agency may seek approval from its supervising authority, or an authorized subordinate authority, to provide special overtime compensation.

In practice, however, special overtime compensation is also commonly subject to a ceiling of 40 hours per month. Hours worked beyond that limit cannot be claimed for overtime pay. As a result, court clerks may continue working beyond regular hours without receiving compensation, while the true extent of their overwork remains hidden from official records.

Judicial cases are often subject to statutory deadlines and strict procedural requirements. Court clerks must therefore cope simultaneously with heavy caseloads, time pressure, responses from litigants, assignments from judges and prosecutors, and the demands of performance evaluation systems. A heavy workload does not simply disappear once the maximum claimable overtime hours have been reached; the work still has to be completed.

When caseloads are excessive and staffing levels inadequate, keeping the system running solely through workers’ sense of responsibility, overtime, and personal sacrifice effectively shifts the cost of understaffing onto individual employees, further endangering their physical and mental health.

Justice Should Not Be Built on the Exhaustion of Its Workers

The purpose of the justice system is to protect rights and uphold justice. Yet justice should not rest on the prolonged physical and mental exhaustion of judicial personnel. Court clerks play an essential role in keeping judicial proceedings functioning. If they are forced to work under chronic understaffing, long hours, and intense responsibility, while their own rights to reasonable working hours, adequate rest, and health protection remain unprotected, how can the justice system be expected to safeguard the rights of others and uphold justice?

In fact, court clerks are not alone. Judges, prosecutors, and other judicial support personnel also commonly face rising caseloads, staffing shortages, and excessively long working hours. When the entire justice system depends on employees working overtime and sacrificing their health to keep it functioning, the harm extends beyond the physical and mental well-being of individual judicial personnel. It also undermines the quality of case adjudication, procedural accuracy, and public confidence in the justice system.

Improving the working conditions of judicial personnel is therefore not merely a matter of caring for workers; it is also essential to safeguarding the quality of justice and protecting the rights and interests of the public.