2015 Review Essay 1421 REVIEW ESSAY: COURTS AND TEAMWORK: WHAT IT MEANS FOR JUDICIAL DIVERSITY ANDREW LYNCH * I INTRODUCTION The inner workings of appellate courts, but particularly final courts at the apex of a national judicature, are an enduring source of fascination for those who spend their professional lives interacting with or observing them – practising lawyers, academics, and sections of the media. The political arms of government also have good reason to be alert to the ways in which the senior tier of judges collectively determine the outcome of litigation in which government so often has a stake. Its sense as to the orientation and collegial practices of the top court must inevitably inform whatever decision the executive is empowered to make when a vacancy on the bench arises – be that the nomination or outright appointment of a new Justice. As any of these different audiences know, courts are very human, and consequently highly dynamic, institutions. They change not only when the composition of the bench alters, but also as their individual members reposition themselves around each other or embark on new and distinctive paths in the law over time. Sometimes these developments are clearly signalled – explicitly or implicitly – in a court’s decisions. Often they, or at least their catalysts, are opaque. Essentially, and despite the fact that they conduct public hearings and provide reasons which are far more detailed than those supplied by their political counterparts, there is a great deal that we still do not understand about how, behind the veil of the law, multi-member courts really work. Specifically, there have been only limited attempts to critically appraise the nexus between individual and institutional decision-making and examine what it is we hope to achieve by having judges sit together. In Australia, this issue has prompted a * Co-Director, The Judiciary Project, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and Professor, Faculty of Law, UNSW. I thank Dr Penny Crofts, Dr Ben Golder and Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE for comments on an earlier draft, though of course the usual caveat applies.