弁護士白書

White Paper
on Attorneys
2020

Written and Compiled by

Japan Federation of Bar Associations

Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid- Human Rights Advocacy by Attorneys and Bar Associations

Part 1: Legal Profession Statistics
Part 2: Activities of Attorneys

Part 3: Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations
Part 4: Comprehensive Legal Support

定価：2,095円（税込）

00_DW6_A7196A01.indd

すべてのページ

日本弁護士連合会 編著

日本弁護士連合会 編著

2021/02/17

15:10:09

White Paper on Attorneys 2020

Contents
Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid– Human Rights Advocacy by Attorneys and Bar Associations
Chapter 1. Development and Achievements of Legal Aid Programs ............................... 2
The JFBA Legal Aid Services: Providing Counsel for Cases Ineligible for State Funded Support............ 2
Achievements of the JFBA Legal Aid Programs: Successfully Bringing State/Public Funds in Part ........ 2
Aiming towards Full State/Public Funding: Key Issues and Other Prospects ............................................ 3

Chapter 2. Funding Sources for the Legal Aid Programs ................................................. 4
2.1 Special Membership Fees .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Atonement Donation......................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 3. The Seven Aid Programs: Actual Results and Findings................................. 6
3.1 Legal Aid for Victims of Crime ......................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Legal Aid Related to Refugee Recognition ....................................................................................... 9
3.3 Legal Aid for Foreign Nationals ...................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Legal Aid for Children .................................................................................................................... 11
3.5 Legal Aid for Mentally Disabled Persons and Legal Aid Related to the Act on Medical Care andTreatment for Persons Who Have Caused Serious Cases under the Condition of Insanity ............ 12
3.6 Legal Aid for Older Adults, People with Disabilities, Homeless People, and Other Vulnerable
People ............................................................................................................................................. 13

Chapter 4. Future Outlook ................................................................................................ 15Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics
Chapter 1. Attorney Demographics .................................................................................. 18
1.1 The Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Attorney Population......................................... 18
1.2 Attorney Population by Age Group ................................................................................................. 20

Chapter 2. Legal Profession Demographics ..................................................................... 21
2.1 Number of Law School Applicants and Enrollment ........................................................................ 21
2.2 Statistics for Successful Examinees in Bar Examination ................................................................ 22
2.2.1 Pass Rate of Bar Examination ......................................................................................................... 22
2.2.2 Demographics of the Preliminary Examination for the Bar Examination ....................................... 24

2.3 Number of Apprentices Who Completed the Legal Apprenticeship Training by Career Path ........ 25
2.4 Change in the Number of Judges, Prosecutors, and Attorneys over Time ...................................... 27
2.5 Gender Ratio of Law School Students, Bar Examination, Preliminary Bar Examination, andThose Who Completed the Legal Apprenticeship Training ............................................................ 28i2.6 The Number of Attorneys in Japan Compared to Other Countries.................................................. 31
2.7 Change in Other Legal Profession Populations over Time .............................................................. 33

Chapter 3. Mergers of Law Firms and Statistics of Legal Professional
Corporations ................................................................................................... 34
3.1 Law Firm Size ................................................................................................................................. 34
3.2 Legal Professional Corporation Statistics ....................................................................................... 36
3.2.1 Number of Legal Professional Corporations ................................................................................... 36
3.2.2 Size of Legal Professional Corporations ......................................................................................... 38

Chapter 4. Facts about Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi) ..... 39
4.1 Change in the Number of Registered Foreign Lawyers over Time ................................................. 39
4.2 Registration of Registered Foreign Lawyers ................................................................................... 40
4.3 Status of Alliances in the Form of Foreign Law Joint Enterprises .................................................. 41
4.4 Incorporations of Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations (Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Hojin) ... 43
4.5 Employment Status of Attorneys Hired by Registered Foreign Lawyers or Registered Foreign
Lawyer Corporations ...................................................................................................................... 44
4.6 Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and LPCs .................................................... 44
4.6.1 By Nationality ................................................................................................................................. 44
4.6.2 By Jurisdiction Where the Attorney’s License was Obtained .......................................................... 44

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys
Chapter 1. Criminal Advocacy Activities ......................................................................... 48
1.1 Duty Attorney (Toban Bengoshi) and Court-Appointed Defense Counsel Systems for Suspects ... 48
1.1.1 Outline of Duty Attorney (Toban Bengoshi) and Court-Appointed Defense Counsel System for
Suspects........................................................................................................................................... 48
1.1.2 Current Situation of the Duty Attorney (Toban Bengoshi) System .................................................. 49
1.1.3 Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cases, and Criminal
Suspect Defense Aid Cases ............................................................................................................. 50
1.1.4 Public Defense System Available Prior to Institution of Prosecution .............................................. 51
1.1.4.1 Operation Status of Court-Appointed Defense Counsel System for Suspects .......................... 51
1.1.4.2 Permission or Rejection for Detention Requests ...................................................................... 53

1.2 The Status of Defense Attorneys’ Involvement in Overall Criminal Cases..................................... 54
1.2.1 The Status of Court-Appointed Defense Counsel Contracts and the Number of Defendants with
Court-Appointed Defense Counsel ................................................................................................. 54
1.2.2 Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Institution ofProsecution) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at District Courts .................................... 54

ii

White Paper on Attorneys 2020

Contents
1.2.3 Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Institution ofProsecution) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at Summary Courts................................. 55
1.2.4 Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Institution ofProsecution) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at High Courts ........................................ 56

1.3 Defense Activities in Juvenile Cases ............................................................................................... 57
1.4 The Lay Judge System .................................................................................................................... 59
1.4.1 Cases Determined by Lay Judges .................................................................................................... 59
1.4.2 Actual Practice of Lay Judge Trials ................................................................................................. 60
1.4.2.1 The Number of Persons Who Have Been Subjected to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials that Have
Been Disposed of ..................................................................................................................... 60
1.4.2.2 Comparison of the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations and the Average Period of
the Pretrial Conference Procedure (by confession and denial), etc. ......................................... 60

Chapter 2. Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits ........................................................... 63
2.1 Civil Lawsuits ................................................................................................................................. 63
2.1.1 Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before District Courts .................................... 63
2.1.2 Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before Summary Courts ................................. 64
2.1.3 Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instance Trials (before High
Courts)............................................................................................................................................. 65
2.1.4 Labor Tribunal Cases ....................................................................................................................... 66(1) Number of Labor Tribunal Cases Newly Accepted by and Concluded at District Courts .............. 66(2) Status of Appointing Agents in Labor Tribunal Proceedings at District Courts ............................. 67

2.2 Supporting Activities for Criminal Victims ..................................................................................... 68
2.3 JFBA Support Activities for Affected People in Relation to the Great East Japan Earthquake ...... 69
2.3.1 Recommendations, etc. the JFBA has Issued and Legislation and Systems Realized ..................... 69

Chapter 3. Expansion of Attorneys' Activities ................................................................. 71
3.1 Current Situation of In-house Attorneys.......................................................................................... 71
3.1.1 Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys ................................................................................ 71
3.1.2 Situation of Public Officers with Fixed Terms ................................................................................ 72

3.2 Diet Members and Head of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys ...................................... 74

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations
Chapter 1. Autonomy of Attorneys ................................................................................... 76
1.1 Complaints and Dispute Conciliations ............................................................................................ 76
1.1.1 Complaints against Attorneys .......................................................................................................... 76iii

1.1.2 Dispute Conciliation ........................................................................................................................ 78(1) Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received ............................................................... 78(2) Handling of Dispute Conciliation Cases (All Bar Associations) .................................................... 78

1.2 Disciplinary System for Attorneys and its Operation ...................................................................... 79
1.2.1 Summary of the Disciplinary System for Attorneys ........................................................................ 79(1) Request for Discipline .................................................................................................................... 79(2) Investigation by Disciplinary Enforcement Committee .................................................................. 79(3) Examination by Disciplinary Actions Committee........................................................................... 79(4) Filing of an Objection, etc. ............................................................................................................. 79(5) Public Notice by the Official Gazette, etc....................................................................................... 80
1.2.2 Statistics Regarding Disciplinary Action ......................................................................................... 82(1) Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Action (All Bar
Associations) .................................................................................................................................. 82(2) Details of Handling of the Requests for Disciplinary Action (All Bar Associations) ..................... 83(3) Ratio of Disciplinary Action (All Bar Associations)....................................................................... 84
1.2.3 Operation of the Disciplinary System .............................................................................................. 85(1) Cases Handled by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA ...... 85(2) Cases Handled by Disciplinary Actions Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA............... 86(3) Cases Handled by the JFBA Board of Discipline Review .............................................................. 87
1.2.4 The Flow and Current Situation of Disciplinary Procedure............................................................. 88

Chapter 2. The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Redress ............................. 89
2.1 The Operation of the Human Rights Redress System ..................................................................... 89
2.1.1 Procedures for Human Rights Redress System ............................................................................... 89
2.1.2 The Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category).......................................................... 91

2.2 Current Situation Regarding Retrial Cases Supported by the JFBA ............................................... 92
2.2.1 Retrial Cases Supported by the JFBA.............................................................................................. 92
2.2.2 Achievement by the JFBA for its Support on Retrial Request Cases............................................... 92

Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBA .............................................................. 95
3.1. International Human Rights Activities ........................................................................................... 96
3.1.1 Activities at the United Nations (UN) and International Conferences ............................................. 96
3.1.2 Activities Related to the UN Human Rights Bodies and the UPR ................................................... 97

3.2 International Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 99iv

White Paper on Attorneys 2020

Contents
3.2.1 Past and Current JFBA Assistance Projects for Bar Associations in Developing Countries (byCountry) ........................................................................................................................................ 99
3.2.2 JICA Long-Term Experts Achievement ......................................................................................... 101

3.3 International Exchange Activities.................................................................................................. 103
3.3.1 Membership of International Organization .................................................................................... 103
3.3.2 Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) Signed between the JFBA and Overseas Bar
Organizations ................................................................................................................................ 103
3.3.3 MOUs Signed between Local Bar Associations and Overseas Bar Organizations ........................ 103

3.4. Overseas Visiting Scholar Program .............................................................................................. 105
3.4.1 JFBA Visiting Scholar Program..................................................................................................... 105
3.4.2 Past Visiting Scholars .................................................................................................................... 105

3.5 Support for Career Development in International Public Service ................................................. 106
3.5.1 Implementation of Various Seminars and Events .......................................................................... 107
3.5.2 Support System for Career Development in International Public Service ..................................... 107
3.5.3 Implementation of Judicial Apprentice Training and Internships at the Offices of International
Organizations in Japan .................................................................................................................. 108

3.6 Promotion of International Practice by Attorneys ......................................................................... 108
3.6.1 JFBA’s Activities to Promote International Practice by Attorneys ................................................ 108
3.6.2 Attorney Referral System for Japanese SMEs Going Overseas ..................................................... 109

Chapter 4. Other Activities .............................................................................................. 110
4.1 Legal Expenses Insurance (Right Protection Insurance) System .................................................. 110

Part 4. Comprehensive Legal Support
Chapter 1. Japan Legal Support Center (Ho-terasu) .................................................... 112
1.1 Scope of Operations of Ho-terasu ................................................................................................. 112
1.2 Support Operations Entrusted by the JFBA .................................................................................. 113v

List of Figures
Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid

Figure (F) 1-1
Figure (F) 1-2
Figure (F) 1-3
Figure (F) 1-4
Figure (F) 1-5
Figure (F) 1-6
Figure (F) 1-7
Figure (F) 1-8
Figure (F) 1-9

Figure (F) 1-10
Figure (F) 1-11
Figure (F) 1-12
Figure (F) 1-13
Figure (F) 1-14
Figure (F) 1-15
Figure (F) 1-16
Figure (F) 1-17

Figure (F) 1-18
Figure (F) 1-19
Figure (F) 1-20

Trend in the Amount of Special Membership Fees Collected by the JFBA
Special Membership Fees for the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal Defense:
Trend in Revenues and Expenditures
Special Membership Fees for the Legal Aid Fund: Trend in Revenues andExpenditures
Trend in the Amounts of Atonement Donation
Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Victims of Crime (The
Number of Cases and Amounts Subsidized)
The Number of Cases Involving Spousal Violence or Other Abuse on
Which Police Advice Was Sought
Trend in the Number of Cases Involving Stalking on which Advice by
Spousal Violence Counseling and Support Centers Was Sought
Trend in the Number of Cases Where the Ho-terasu Made Referrals to
Crime Victim Law Specialist Attorneys
Trend in the Number of Cases Where Legal Counseling Aid Was Sought byVictims of DV and Other Offenses (by Month)
Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid Related to Refugee Recognition(The Number of Cases and Amounts Subsidized)
Trend in the Number of Applicants for Refugee Status
Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Foreign Nationals (The
Number of Cases and Amounts Subsidized)
Trend in the Number of Foreign Nationals Entering Japan
Trend in the Number of Detainees in the Immigration Control and
Residency Management Facilities
Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Children (The Number ofCases and Amounts Subsidized)
Trend in the Number of Cases Handled by Child Guidance Centers
Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Mentally Disabled Persons
and Legal Aid Related to the Act on Medical Care and Treatment for
Persons Who Have Caused Serious Cases Under the Condition of Insanity(The Number of Cases and Amounts Subsidized)
Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Older Adults, People with
Disabilities, Homeless People, and Other Vulnerable People (The Numberof Cases and Amounts Subsidized)
Trend in the Number of Cases Where Legal Counseling Aid Was Provided
to Persons Eligible for Specific Assistance (by Month)
Number of Households Receiving Public Welfare Benefits (by Month) andYear-over-Year GrowthPart 1. Legal Profession Statistics

Figure 1-1-1
Figure 1-1-2
Figure 1-1-3
Figure 1-1-4
Figure 1-2-1
Figure 1-2-2
Figure 1-2-3
Figure 1-2-4
Figure 1-2-5
Figure 1-2-6
Figure 1-2-7
Figure 1-2-8

viCategories of JFBA Membership
The Number of Attorneys (1950 - 2019)
Changes in the Number of Attorneys over Time (1950 - 2019)
Attorney Population by Age Group
Change in the Number of Law School Applicants over Time
Law School Enrollment by Background
Pass Rate of Bar Examination
Pass Rate of Bar Examination by Academic Background
Pass Rate (Cumulative Pass Rate) for Bar Examination Achieved by Law
School Graduates by School Year
Preliminary Examination Results
Bar Examination Results Achieved by Those Who Passed the Preliminary
Examination
Number of Legal Apprentices Who Completed the Legal ApprenticeshipTraining by Career Path...................... 4...................... 4...................... 5...................... 5...................... 6...................... 7...................... 7...................... 8...................... 8...................... 9...................... 9.................... 10.................... 10.................... 11.................... 11.................... 12.................... 12.................... 13.................... 13.................... 14.................... 18.................... 19.................... 19.................... 20.................... 21.................... 21.................... 22.................... 22.................... 23.................... 24.................... 24.................... 25

Figure 1-2-9
Figure 1-2-10
Figure 1-2-11
Figure 1-2-12
Figure 1-2-13
Figure 1-2-14
Figure 1-2-15
Figure 1-2-16
Figure 1-2-17
Figure 1-2-18
Figure 1-2-19
Figure 1-3-1
Figure 1-3-2
Figure 1-3-3
Figure 1-3-4
Figure 1-3-5
Figure 1-3-6
Figure 1-3-7
Figure 1-3-8
Figure 1-3-9
Figure 1-4-1
Figure 1-4-2
Figure 1-4-3
Figure 1-4-4
Figure 1-4-5
Figure 1-4-6
Figure 1-4-7
Figure 1-4-8

Change in Career Paths Chosen by Legal Apprentices Who Completed
Legal Apprenticeship Training over Time
Number of Judges, Prosecutors, and Attorneys over Time
Percentage of Females among Law School Students, Candidates, andSuccessful Candidates of the New Bar Examination
Percentage of Successful Candidates of the Multiple-Choice Test among
Bar Examination Candidates by Gender
Percentage of Successful Bar Examinees among Successful Candidates ofthe Multiple-Choice Test by Gender
Percentage of Successful Bar Examinees among Bar Examination
Candidates by Gender
Number and Percentage by Gender for the Preliminary Bar Examination
Number and Percentage of Females Who Completed the Legal
Apprenticeship Training, by Each of the Three Major Career Paths
Changes in the Number of Attorneys (compared to other countries)
Number of Attorneys in Foreign Countries (with As of Dates for
Respective Data)
Change in Other Legal Profession Populations over Time
Major Law Firms (Top 10)
Percentage of Law Firms by Size Range
Change in the Number of Law Firms over Time by Size Range
Percentages of Attorneys by Law Firm Size Ranges
Change in the Number of Attorneys over Time by Law Firm Size Ranges
Number of LPC Incorporations, LPC Members, and Employed Attorneys
by Fiscal Year
Number of Member LPCs by Bar Association (fiscal year 2019)
Breakdown of LPCs by Number of Their Attorneys (including Employed
Attorneys)
Number of LPCs by Size (Representative Members and Members Only)
Change in the Number of Registered Foreign Lawyers over Time
Breakdown of Registered Foreign Lawyers
Status of Alliances with Foreign Law Joint Enterprises
Number of Incorporations of Foreign Lawyer Corporations and Number of
their Members and Employed Attorneys over Years
Number of Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations of Each Local Bar
Association
Employment Status of Attorneys Hired by Registered Foreign Lawyers orRegistered Foreign Lawyer Corporations
Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and LPCs, by
Nationality
Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and LPCs, by
Jurisdiction Where They Obtained their Attorney’s License

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

Figure 2-1-1
Figure 2-1-2
Figure 2-1-3
Figure 2-1-4
Figure 2-1-5
Figure 2-1-6
Figure 2-1-7
Figure 2-1-8

Flow of Procedure in Criminal Cases (from Arrest to Institution ofProsecution) and the Role of Attorneys
Details of the Duty Attorney System in Recent Years
Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, AppointedCases, and Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases
Situations of Defendants with Attorney (from pre-prosecution phase) at
District Courts
Situations of Defendants with Attorney (from pre-prosecution phase) at
Summary Courts
Changes in the Permission/Rejection Rate of Detention Requests
Changes in the Number of Persons whose Detention Request has been
Rejected
Number of Defendants per Attorney Contracted as Court-Appointed
Defense Counsel.................... 26.................... 27.................... 28.................... 28.................... 29.................... 29.................... 30.................... 30.................... 31.................... 32.................... 33.................... 34.................... 35.................... 35.................... 35.................... 35.................... 36.................... 37.................... 38.................... 38.................... 39.................... 40.................... 41.................... 43.................... 43.................... 44.................... 45.................... 45.................... 48.................... 49.................... 50.................... 51.................... 52.................... 53.................... 53.................... 54

vii

Figure 2-1-9
Figure 2-1-10
Figure 2-1-11
Figure 2-1-12
Figure 2-1-13
Figure 2-1-14
Figure 2-1-15
Figure 2-1-16
Figure 2-1-17
Figure 2-1-18

Figure 2-2-1
Figure 2-2-2
Figure 2-2-3
Figure 2-2-4
Figure 2-2-5
Figure 2-2-6
Figure 2-2-7
Figure 2-2-8
Figure 2-2-9
Figure 2-2-10
Figure 2-3-1
Figure 2-3-2
Figure 2-3-3

Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense
Counsel (after Institution of Prosecution) at District Courts
Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense
Counsel (after Institution of Prosecution) at Summary Courts
Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense
Counsel (after Institution of Prosecution) at High Courts
Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and
the Proportion of Cases in which Attendants are Present
Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and
the Proportion of Cases in which Attendants are Present
The Number of Prosecuted Cases per Charges Subject to Saiban-in (Lay
Judges) Trials
Number of Persons Who Have Been Subjected to Saiban-in Trials andWhose Trials Have Been Disposed of and the Number of Such Persons per
Attorney
Comparison of the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations and the
Average Period of the Pretrial Conference Procedure (by Confession and
Denial) (by before/after the introduction of the Saiban-in system)
Number of Persons Whose Cases Have Been Disposed of (by period taken
for court deliberations) and the Average Period of Court Deliberations in2019 (by confession and denial)
Number of Persons Whose Trials Have Been Disposed of Compared to theActual Period Taken for Court Deliberations (from the first trial until thetrial has been disposed of) (by Confession and Denial) and the Average
Period Taken for Court Deliberations in 2019
Changes in the Rate of Appointed Attorneys' Involvement in the First
Instance of Ordinary Civil Lawsuit before District Courts
Attorneys' Involvement in Lawsuits at District Courts (by Purpose) (2019)
Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Civil
Lawsuits (Summary Courts)
Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second
Instances (High Courts)
Number of Newly Accepted Labor Tribunal Cases by Case Type (atDistrict Courts)
Number of Concluded Labor Tribunal Cases by Reason (at District Courts)
Changes in the Number of Newly-Accepted Labor-Related Civil Cases (atDistrict Courts)
Number of Concluded Labor Tribunal Cases by Reason and Status ofAppointing Agents (at District Courts, from 2015 through 2019)
Implementation Status of the Victim Participation System
Legislation and Systems Realized in Response to the Great East Japan
Earthquake
Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys
Public Officers with Fixed Terms as of June 1, 2020
Diet Members and Heads of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Figure 3-1-1
Figure 3-1-2
Figure 3-1-3
Figure 3-1-4
Figure 3-1-5
Figure 3-1-6
Figure 3-1-7
Figure 3-1-8

viii

Details of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks (by Applicant)(2019)
Details of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks (by Contents)(2019)
Changes in the Number of Complaints Received at Public Complaint
Desks
Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received
Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Handled
Results of Dispute Conciliation Cases
The Flow of Disciplinary Procedure for Attorneys
Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary
Action.................... 54.................... 55.................... 56.................... 58.................... 58.................... 59.................... 60.................... 61.................... 62.................... 62.................... 63.................... 64.................... 65.................... 65.................... 66.................... 66.................... 66.................... 67.................... 68.................... 69.................... 71.................... 72.................... 74.................... 76.................... 76.................... 77.................... 78.................... 78.................... 78.................... 81.................... 82

Figure 3-1-9
Figure 3-1-10
Figure 3-1-11
Figure 3-1-12
Figure 3-1-13
Figure 3-1-14
Figure 3-1-15
Figure 3-1-16
Figure 3-1-17
Figure 3-2-1
Figure 3-2-2
Figure 3-2-3
Figure 3-2-4
Figure 3-3-1
Figure 3-3-2
Figure 3-3-3
Figure 3-3-4
Figure 3-3-5
Figure 3-3-6
Figure 3-3-7
Figure 3-3-8
Figure 3-3-9
Figure 3-3-10
Figure 3-3-11
Figure 3-3-12
Figure 3-3-13
Figure 3-4-1

Details of Handling the Requests for Disciplinary Action (All Bar
Associations)
Changes in Numbers of Disciplinary Action and Their Details
Changes in Ratio of Disciplinary Action wherein Discipline was Imposedto Total Requests
Changes in Ratio of Disciplinary Action wherein Discipline was Imposedto Total Members
Details of Accepted Filings of Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement
Committee)
Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement
Committee)
Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Actions
Committee)
Details of Resolutions on Appeals (JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee)
Details of Resolutions on Cases with Applications for Discipline Review(JFBA Board of Discipline Review).................... 84.................... 84.................... 85.................... 85.................... 86.................... 86.................... 87.................... 87

Flow Chart of the JFBA's Human Rights Redress System.................... 90.................... 91
Details of the Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category).................... 91
Cases Supported by the JFBA Where a Judgment of Acquittal Has Been .................... 92
Changes in the Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category)

Finalized

Major Meetings the JFBA Sent Delegations to in the Last Three Years(2018 to 2020)
JFBA Reports Concerning International Human Rights Documents(Conventions and Covenants)
Activities Related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
Past and Current JFBA Assistance Projects for Bar Associations in
Developing Countries
JICA Long-Term Experts (Fiscal 2007- 2020.7.1)
JICA Long-Term Experts (Total by Country)
MOUs Signed between the JFBA and Overseas Bar Organizations
MOUs Signed between Local Bar Associations and Overseas Bar
Organizations
Past Visiting Scholars through the Visiting Scholar Program
Seminars and Events to Support Career Development in International
Public Service
System to Support Career Development in International Public Service
Activities Conducted by the Center for Promotion of International Legal
Services of the JFBA
Implementation Status of Attorney Referral System for Japanese SMEs
Going Overseas
Trend in the Number of Legal Expenses Insurance Policies Sold and the
Number of Claims Processed by the LAC

Part 4. Comprehensive Legal Support

Figure 4-1-1.................... 83

Contents of Ho-terasu Operations.................... 96.................... 97.................... 98.................... 99.................. 101.................. 102.................. 103.................. 103.................. 105.................. 107.................. 107.................. 108.................. 109.................. 110.................. 112

ix

Special
FeatureP001_CW6_A7196CA001.indd

1

Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid
Human Rights Advocacy by Attorneys and
Bar Associations

2021/02/17

18:46:17

Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid

Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid— Human Rights Advocacy by Attorneys and Bar Associations

Chapter 1. Development and Achievements of Legal Aid Programs
The JFBA Legal Aid Services: Providing Counsel for Cases Ineligible for State Funded Support
Whereas publicly funded systems such as court-appointed counsel and civil legal aid have been madeavailable for indigent citizens to help them find an attorney, there are cases where people who are unable toretain an attorney due to indigence fall outside the scope of these public systems. To address these cases thatare beyond the reach of state-funded support, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (the “JFBA”) has
been providing legal assistance services, funded primarily by special membership fees paid by JFBA
members, to help pay for attorney's fees and other expenses in order to defend human rights in the nine areas
listed below. From October 1, 2007 onwards, the delivery of these legal aid services has been entrusted to
the Japan Legal Support Center (generally known as Ho-terasu) under Article 30, paragraph 2 of theComprehensive Legal Support Act (Ho-terasu’s legal aid programs entrusted by the JFBA).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

Aid for defense of criminal suspects
Aid for attorney attendants in juvenile cases
Legal support for victims of crime
Legal support related to refugee adjudication
Legal aid for foreign nationals
Legal support for children
Legal support for persons with mental disability
Legal support for persons in a state of insanity, etc.
Legal support for the aged, disabled or homeless people

To secure funding for these legal aid programs, the JFBA has created funds and charges its members special
membership fees on top of general membership fees. To render services in criminal cases and juvenile
delinquency cases, the JFBA launched the Emergency Fund for Duty Attorney System in 1995, charging themembers special membership fees. Subsequently, the Government introduced the Court-appointed AttendantSystem in 2001 to address juvenile delinquency cases and broadened the scope of eligibility in 2007. Yet,cases that met the criteria entitling them to make use of the system were found to be quite limited, hence the
JFBA and the regional bar associations nationwide are still continuing to provide their legal aid services
through the legal aid system for attorney attendants in juvenile cases and the Duty Attorney Attendant System,
which they developed respectively. Meanwhile, in regard to criminal cases, the Court-appointed Defense
Counsel System for Suspects was introduced by the Government in 2006 and its scope was expanded in 2009.
However, despite the expansion, the system was still unable to cover every suspect held in detention.
Therefore, the JFBA—although having terminated its own Emergency Fund for Duty Attorney System dueto the expansion in 2009—finding the expansion had not achieved what it was aiming at for both juvenile
and criminal cases, created the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal Defense in June 2009 as a funding source,
integrating the former Emergency Fund for Duty Attorney System.
In the meantime, among the legal aid programs listed above, those numbered (3) to (9) (the “Seven Aid
Programs”) had been formerly undertaken by the Japan Legal Aid Association as its own “Seven Human
Rights Programs”. As the Association was dissolved in 2007, the JFBA took over its undertakings together
with a part of the assets and established the Legal Aid Fund. Since April 2011, “Special Membership Fee forthe Legal Aid Fund” has been collected from JFBA members and 2020 marks the tenth anniversary of thecommencement of the collection of the fee.
Achievements of the JFBA Legal Aid Programs: Successfully Bringing State/Public Funds in Part
The legal aid programs offered by the JFBA are implemented at its own expense in order to defend humanrights of economically and socially vulnerable people to help them pay for the costs of attorney's fees.
Therefore, these programs are of a highly public nature and hence, they should essentially be provided at thestate’s expense. Accordingly, by way of delivering the legal aid services, the JFBA has been reiterating theneed for appropriating state or public funds for these programs. As a result, in June 2014, the scope of cases
eligible for the Court-appointed Attendant System was broadened to ones which involve offenses that are

2

Chapter 1. Development and Achievements of Legal Aid Programs

punishable by the death penalty, or indefinite or more than three years’ imprisonment with or without work.
Additionally, in June 2018, the scope of cases eligible for the Court-appointed Defense Counsel System for
Suspects was expanded to all cases involving any suspect held in detention. Furthermore, the Act Partially
Amending the Comprehensive Legal Support Act (the “Amended Legal Support Act”) took effect on January
24, 2018, thereby the legal counseling aid for victims of DV (domestic violence towards one’s spouse),
stalking, child abuse, etc. has become available through state funds.
Aiming towards Full State/Public Funding: Key Issues and Other Prospects
What the JFBA aspires to achieve is that all the aforementioned programs are funded in full by state or publicfunds in the future. To that end, the JFBA needs to continue with the legal aid programs to build up
achievements, thereby promoting the need of supporting the advocacy of human rights to the Government
and leading the public to understand the actualities of the legal aid programs. From the standpoint of this,elaboration of publicity using various diverse tools is needed.
Meanwhile, attorneys accepting legal aid cases are paid a fixed fee as stipulated by JFBA rules, and the expert
witness fees, interpreter fees, and other expenses are reimbursed within the maximum allowable limit.
However, the amount paid to counsel is not necessarily adequate to cover the activities conducted by eachattorney due to the limited funds provided by the special membership fees collected from the JFBA members.
Consequently, in actuality, these programs are maintained by the devotion of the attorneys. Therefore, as the
JFBA works toward bringing about a state/publicly funded legal aid scheme, it needs to lead the discussion
to ensure that the fees paid to counsel will match their representation activities.
This feature article focuses primarily on the Seven Aid Programs, i.e., the JFBA legal aid programs except
those related to criminal and juvenile delinquency cases and highlights the funding sources and the overview
of the respective legal aid programs. The feature also illustrates, with statistical data, the social context andother circumstances underlying the need of counsel for defending human rights, in hopes that it would offer
an opportunity to address various challenges in rendering support to the attorneys who are dedicated totackling human rights issues.
One might also refer to some of the previous issues of the JFBA White Paper on Attorneys, which have also
overviewed other legal aid programs in the following respective features; Challenges in Criminal Justice(2011, available only in Japanese), Attorneys and Protection of the Rights of the Child (2014), and Current
Situation Surrounding Support for Crime Victims and the Role of Attorneys (2015).

3

Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid

Chapter 2. Funding Sources for the Legal Aid Programs
2.1 Special Membership Fees
Figure (F) 1-1 shows the amounts of the “Special Membership Fee for the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal
Defense” (this has been collected since June 2009) and the “Special Membership Fee for the Legal Aid Fund”(this has been collected since April 2011). The amounts have undergone revisions according to theincrease/decrease in the number of cases requiring legal aid, resulting from the proactive use of the services
to promote state/public funding for the aid programs, as well as having made state/public funds available fora portion of the programs.
Figure (F) 1-1

Trend in the Amount of Special Membership Fees Collected by the JFBA

PeriodMonthly Special Membership Fee for theFund for Juvenile and Criminal Defense

Monthly Special Membership Fee for the
Legal Aid FundJun 2009 – Mar 2011

¥3,100–

Apr 2011 – May 2014

¥4,200¥1,300Jun 2014 – May 2017

¥3,300¥1,100Jun 2017 – May 2018

¥3,300¥900

Jun 2018 – May 2020

¥1,900¥900

Jun 2020 – Jun 2023

¥1,600¥900

Figure (F) 1-2

Special Membership Fee for the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal Defense: Trend in Revenues
and Expenditures
Unit: Yen ‘000

Fiscal Yr.

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

500,841

296,557

965,232

884,781

Total Expenditures for Juvenile and Criminal Defense Aid Entrusted Program
1,056,122 1,093,239 1,256,851 1,417,443 1,522,451 1,296,607 1,122,188 1,086,740 1,027,094

Total Revenues from Special Membership Fee for the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal Defense
1,020,232 1,035,741 1,481,047 1,549,678 1,623,990 1,389,333 1,352,801 1,408,651 1,456,478[Note] Fiscal Year 2009 includes levying for the Emergency Fund for Duty Attorney System.
(Yen ‘000)
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019
(Fiscal Year)

Total Expenditures for the Juvenile and Criminal Defense Aid Entrusted Program
Total Revenues from Special Membership Fee for the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal Defense[Note] Fiscal Year 2009 includes levying for the Emergency Fund for Duty Attorney System.

4

Chapter 2. Funding Sources for the Legal Aid Programs

Figure (F) 1-3

Special Membership Fees for the Legal Aid Fund: Trend in Revenues and Expenditures
Unit: Yen ‘000

Fiscal Year
Total Expenditures for theSeven Aid Programs
Total Revenues from Special
Membership Fee for the Legal
Aid Fund

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

283,779 348,381 402,370 441,173 423,710 434,820 464,592 478,357 459,960
458,821 479,743 502,737 456,508 450,937 469,571 411,593 408,183 419,170(Yen ‘000)
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total Expenditures for the Seven Aid Programs
Total Revenues from Special Membership Fee for the Legal Aid Fund2019
(Fiscal Year)

2.2 Atonement Donation
The atonement donation refers to contributions made to the JFBA or bar associations by suspects or theaccused as an act of showing repentance in criminal cases that involve no victim or cases in which settlementwith victims cannot be reached. The atonement donations go into the account for the Seven Aid Programs as
a portion of the funds. The total amount of atonement donations has been showing a downward trend in recent
years, which is an issue to be addressed through countermeasures such as publicity to boost the fundraising.
In this respect, in criminal cases represented by court-appointed defense counsels, where receiving a reward
other than the statutory fee is prohibited, money given as a token of appreciation offered by the personnel
involved in the case after the disposition are accepted as a “charitable donation,” since “atoning” does not fit
the situation where the case has already been disposed of. This way of handling money given in appreciation
for the service is hoped to become common nationwide.
Figure (F) 1-4

Trend in the Amounts of Atonement Donation(Yen ‘000)
500,000
450,000

466,473

400,000
350,000
300,000

252,179

250,000

171,905

200,000

205,559

202,191
166,108
148,106 165,403

150,000

132,269

166,616
115,814

143,637

120,148

100,000
50,000
0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(Fiscal Year)[Note] In accordance with the Regulations for Handling of Donations established by the JFBA, donations (atonement donations
and donations given for the purpose of legal aid) received by the JFBA are accepted fifty-fifty by the Legal Aid Fund of the
JFBA and the bar association to which the defense counsel who represented the case belongs.

5

Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid

Chapter 3. The Seven Aid Programs: Actual Results and Findings
3.1 Legal Aid for Victims of Crime
For victims of crime who seek to participate in criminal proceedings at the trial level, a state-funded system,
the Court-appointed Participating Victims' Attorneys System, is available. However, the system does not fundthe legal assistance provided during the investigation before the institution of prosecution, or services—even
rendered after institution of prosecution—that are not relevant to the victim participation. Additionally,
whereas the attorney’s activities in civil lawsuits or negotiation, etc., such as claiming compensation fordamages from the offender, are entitled to civil legal aid, their activities in other procedures than these areexcluded from the scope of the aid. Therefore, the JFBA has developed the Legal Aid System for Victims of
Crime to provide legal assistance in the following actions; filing a complaint report, filing a criminal
complaint/accusation, filing a petition for commencement of examination by the Committee for Inquest of
Prosecution, accompanying victims to observe trials, obtaining opportunities for victims to be informed of
the status of the juvenile hearing, facilitating dialogue with the offender side as part of the restorative justice,making negotiation for settlement in criminal proceedings, filing applications for the Benefits for Crime
Victims, etc., proactive handling and negotiating with media, and other actions required to support victims
of crime.
The JFBA has been urging that a state or publicly funded legal aid counsel system for victims of crime beinstituted. Since 2014, the use of the services delivered through the JFBA’s Legal Aid System for Victims of
Crime has expanded to almost every prefecture in the country. It is hoped that these achievements will support
the efforts toward state/public funding.
Figure (F) 1-5

Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Victims of Crime (The Number of Cases andAmounts Subsidized)(Yen ‘000)(Cases)200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000

1,305

1,319

1,444

1,470

1,107

107,213

1,600
1,200

176,136

80,000

1,800
1,400

100,000
60,000

1,645

1,625

127,700

128,635

143,401

180,072

1,000
800

161,738600

40,000400

20,000

200

0

2013

2014

2015

2016

Amounts Subsidized

2017
Number of Cases

2018(Fiscal Year)[Note] The number of cases is the figure where legal aid was applied for and accepted by the Ho-terasu.

6

2019

0

Chapter 3. The Seven Aid Programs: Actual Results and Findings

In recent years, there has been an upward trend in the number of cases involving spousal violence or stalking
on which police advice and assistance were sought. An increasing tendency is also seen in the number ofcases where the Ho-terasu made referrals to attorneys who are well versed in crime victimization. The
phenomenon suggests that there is a growing need for the JFBA’s legal aid for crime victims.
Figure (F) 1-6

The Number of Cases Involving Spousal Violence or Other Abuse on Which Police Advice
Was Sought(Cases)90,00080,00070,00059,07260,00050,00043,95040,00077,482
82,207
69,90863,141
72,45549,53333,85230,00034,32925,21028,15818,236
14,41014,14020,992
16,8883,608
12,56820,00010,00002001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019(Year)[Note]
1. The figures show the number of cases handled by the police in which victims experienced physical violence or threats ofdeath/bodily injury committed by their spouse and consulted with the police.
2. The figure for 2001 is the number of cases handled by the police after the enforcement date of the Act on the Prevention of
Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims (October 13, 2001 forward).
3. In accordance with the amendments to the above Act which took effect on the following dates, cases involving the respective
circumstances have also been included in the counts from the respective dates onwards.
- December 2, 2004: Violence inflicted on the victim continued after divorce.
- January 11, 2008: The victim received threats of death or bodily harm.
- January 3, 2014: The victim suffered violence committed by an offender with whom he/she has a personal relationshipwhere they share the principal place of residence (excluding the relationship where they dwell in the same home but
not in a way similar to marital relationship).
Data Source: National Police Agency, Handling of Cases Involving Stalking and Spousal Violence in 2019
Figure (F) 1-7

Trend in the Number of Cases Involving Stalking on which Advice by the Spousal ViolenceCounseling and Support Centers Was Sought(Cases)
25,00022,82319,92020,00015,00014,662
12,024

13,403

11,923

10,00016,176

14,657

12,501
13,463
12,22014,82321,08922,737

21,96823,07921,556
20,912

14,618

5,000
0

2,280
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019(Year)[Note]
The figure for 2000 is the number of cases handled by the Spousal Violence Counseling Center after the enforcement date of
the Anti-Stalking Act (November 24, 2000).
Data Source: National Police Agency, Handling of Cases Involving Stalking and Spousal Violence in 20197

Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid

Figure (F) 1-8

Trend in the Number of Cases Where the Ho-terasu Made Referrals to Crime Victim Law
Specialist Attorneys(Cases)

2,000
1,800
1,600

1,603

1,491

1,400

1,677

1,705

1,795

1,355

1,330

1,200
1,000
800

929

877

2009

2010

2011

1,013

696

590

600

898

400
200

97

0

2006

2007

2008

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Data Source: Ho-terasu

2019(Fiscal Year)As the Amended Legal Support Act came into effect on January 24, 2018, the legal counseling aid for victimsof specified acts of infringement (e.g. DV, stalking and child abuse) was made available by state funds.
However, not only is the criteria for the specified acts of infringement narrow, but also victims who possessa certain amount of means are required to pay a set amount of money. Additionally, representation services
fall outside the scope of the Amended Legal Support Act, which has been pointed out to reduce the practicaleffectiveness of the aid program in helping victims of crime.
Thus, the White Paper compiled by the Ho-terasu reveals that there are only less than 100 cases each month
where the legal counseling aid was sought by victims of specified acts of infringement, due also to theinadequate publicity.
Figure (F) 1-9(Cases)100

Trend in the Number of Cases Where Legal Counseling Aid Was Sought by Victims of DV andOther Offenses (by Month)Child Abuse
Stalking
DV

90
80

84

71

70

60

57

60
50

68

67

66

90
74

83

80
66

64
57

56

60 61

70

67

84

83
68

74
67
49

43

40
30
20

13

10
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

1

2

2018

3

4

5

6

7

2019

8

9

10 11 121

2

3 (Month)

2020(Year)[Note]
1. The figures are the number of cases where the Ho-terasu provided legal counseling aid to victims of DV, etc.
2. The figure for January 2018 is the count from January 24, 2018 forward.

8

Chapter 3. The Seven Aid Programs: Actual Results and Findings

3.2 Legal Aid Related to Refugee Recognition
Rendering legal assistance in the following procedures is excluded from the scope of the civil legal aid
administered by the Ho-terasu; filing of applications for refugee recognition; filing of objections to thedecision not to recognize the refugee status; and bringing litigation for rescission of the decision not torecognize the refugee status and other dispositions. Therefore, the JFBA provides legal aid in theseprocedures through the legal aid program related to refugee recognition.
Figure (F) 1-10

Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid Related to Refugee Recognition (The Number ofCases and Amounts Subsidized)(Yen ‘000)(Cases)

70,0001,200
979

60,00050,000

833

849

820

800

40,00030,00020,000

1,000

872
599

57,96447,875600

492
53,54951,65852,215400

47,41037,945200

10,000
0

2013

2014

2015

2016

Refugee Legal Aid (Amount)

2017

2018

2019

0

(Fiscal Year)

Refugee Legal Aid (Number of Cases)[Note] The number of cases is the figure where legal aid was applied for and accepted by the Ho-terasu.

Ten years ago, the number of applicants for refugee status was in the 1000’s annually. However, it has
surpassed 10,000 over the past several years, whereas very few applicants have been granted refugee status.
This suggests that the involvement of attorneys as representing counsel is imperative, as long as the applicant
meets the criteria for refugee status, in order to claim or prove legally that they are qualified as a refugee.
Thus, there is a growing need for legal aid related to refugee recognition.
Figure (F) 1-11

Trend in the Number of Applicants for Refugee Status(Persons)

25,00019,62920,00015,00010,000

7,586

5,000
0

10,375

10,901

1,202

1,867

2010

2011

2,545

3,260

2012

2013

10,493

5,000

2014

2015

2016

2017

Data Source: Ministry of Justice, Number of Persons Granted Refugee Status and Other Data for 2019

9

2018

2019

(Year)

Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid

3.3 Legal Aid for Foreign Nationals
Representing in the following procedures are excluded from the scope of civil legal aid. Therefore, the JFBA
provides legal assistance in these processes through the legal aid program for foreign nationals.
(i) Procedure related to immigration control such as obtaining status of residence, procedure related tofamily registry/nationality such as establishing a family registry and naturalization, and theadministrative procedure related to social insurance(ii) Litigation proceedings on behalf of foreign nationals who do not have access to civil legal aid becauseof not having obtained status of residence.
Figure (F) 1-12

Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Foreign Nationals (The Number of Cases andAmounts Subsidized)(Yen ‘000)(Cases)140,000
120,000

1,772

1,644

1,700

1,514

100,000
80,00060,000113,544

115,181

40,000

1,280

1,343

98,952

100,538

2015

2016

2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0

1,167
113,165

101,728

85,05420,000
0

2013

2014

Legal Aid for Foreign Nationals (Amount)

2017

2018

2019

(Fiscal Year)

Legal Aid for Foreign Nationals (Number of Cases)[Note] The number of cases is the figure where legal aid was applied for and accepted by the Ho-terasu.

Currently, more than three times as many foreign nationals enter Japan compared to ten years ago.
Additionally, the number of foreign nationals who are sent to detention centers due to not having or having
lost status of residence shows an upward trend in recent years. The majority of foreign nationals staying inJapan—especially those who are financially disadvantaged—have difficulty understanding the Japanese legal
system partly because of language barriers, which implies the increasing need for legal aid for foreign
nationals to help them have access to legal counsel.
Figure (F) 1-13

Trend in the Number of Foreign Nationals Entering Japan(Persons ‘000)

35,00027,42930,00031,18720182019 (Year)

23,21925,00019,68820,00014,15015,00010,00030,102

9,444

7,135

9,172

11,255

5,000
0

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
[Note] Data Source: e-Stat, Statistics on Immigration Control

10

2015

2016

2017

Chapter 3. The Seven Aid Programs: Actual Results and Findings

Trend in the Number of Detainees in the Immigration Control and Residency Management
Facilities

Figure (F) 1-14
(Persons)

1,600
1,351

1,400
1,133

1,200
1,000

914

932

2013

2014

1,246
1,054

1,003

800
600
400
200
0

2015

2016

2017

2018

Data Source: Ministry of Justice, Deportation Procedures

2019(At the End of the Year)

3.4 Legal Aid for Children
The JFBA provides legal assistance in the following activities through the legal aid program for children:(i) Negotiating with Child Guidance Centers, adjusting relationships with parents who have committed
child abuse, and acting as an attendant for juveniles (under 14 years old) who have committed crimesin the course of police investigation;(ii) Litigation representation services in lawsuits such as those to dissolve the parent-child relationshipwith the parents who have committed child abuse; and(iii) Activities as legal counsel (regardless of whether court-appointed or privately hired) representing
children
Meanwhile, as mentioned in section 3.1 “Legal Aid for Victims of Crime”, the legal counseling related tochild abuse is eligible for the legal counseling aid for victims of DV, stalking, and child abuse provided by
the Ho-terasu.
Figure (F) 1-15

Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Children (The Number of Cases and Amounts
Subsidized)(Yen ‘000)(Cases)60,000408

50,000334

40,00030,000

231

0

242

19,5482013

28,531

400
300
250

47,242
26,269

450
350

268

170

20,00010,000406

30,67349,850200
150

33,014

100
50

2014

2015

Legal Aid for Children (Amount)

2016

2017

2018

Legal Aid for Children (Number of Cases)[Note] The number of cases is the figure where legal aid was applied for and accepted by the Ho-terasu.

11

2019

(Fiscal Year)0Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid

The number of cases handled by Child Guidance Centers has soared recently, indicating the growing needfor legal aid for children.
Trend in the Number of Cases Handled by Child Guidance Centers

Figure (F) 1-16
(Cases ‘000)
200

193,780*180

159,838160

133,778
122,575140120

103,286
88,931100
80
56,384

60
20
0

1,611

1,171

40

1,101

1,372

1990 91

92

2,722

94

95

96

11,631

6,932

4,102

1,961
93

5,352

97

98

17,72523,73823,27499 2000 01

33,40802

26,569
03

04

05

06

40,63944,211

07

09

08

10

73,802

59,91942,66437,323

34,472

66,701

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

(Fiscal Year)*Preliminary figure[Note] The number of cases is the figure where a given Child Guidance Center was requested to give advice on an instanceand gave instruction or took certain actions to address the matter according to the conclusion made by a support plan
determination meeting.
Data Source: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, The Number of Cases Handled by Child Guidance Centers FY2019(Preliminary Figures)

3.5 Legal Aid for Mentally Disabled Persons and Legal Aid Related to the Act on Medical Careand Treatment for Persons Who Have Caused Serious Cases under the Condition of Insanity
The JFBA provides representation services in the following procedures through the legal aid program formentally disabled persons and the legal aid program related to the Act on Medical Care and Treatment for
Persons Who Have Caused Serious Cases under the Condition of Insanity:
For mentally disabled persons; administrative procedures such as requesting discharge from hospital andrequesting improvement of treatment
For those who are subject to the Act on Medical Care and Treatment for Persons Who Have Caused
Serious Cases under the Condition of Insanity; procedures related to a due process hearing such as filingof application for permission for discharge from hospital, and administrative procedures such as
requesting improvement of treatment.
Figure (F) 1-17

Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Mentally Disabled Persons and Legal Aid
Related to the Act on Medical Care and Treatment for Persons Who Have Caused Serious
Cases Under the Condition of Insanity (The Number of Cases and Amounts Subsidized)(Yen ‘000)(Cases)60,00050,00040,000

881

965

1,024

1,028

1,098

717

34,340800

39,49845,18141,80145,22447,923

10,000
0

1,200
1,000

30,00020,0001,099

51,025

600
400
200

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

0
2019 (Fiscal Year)

Legal Aid for the Mentally Disabled and Persons Who Have Caused Serious Criminal Cases Under the Condition of Insanity (Amount)
Legal Aid for the Mentally Disabled and Persons Who Have Caused Serious Criminal Cases Under the Condition of Insanity (Number of Cases)[Note] The Number of cases is the figure where legal aid was applied for and accepted by the Ho-terasu.

12Chapter 3. The Seven Aid Programs: Actual Results and Findings

3.6 Legal Aid for Older Adults, People with Disabilities, Homeless People, and Other Vulnerable
PeopleOn behalf of older adults, people with disabilities, homeless people, etc. who are in need of urgent help froman attorney on humanitarian grounds, the JFBA provides legal representation services for them to apply forthe public assistance program and to file the request for administrative review in accordance with the Public
Assistance Act, through the legal aid system for older adults, people with disabilities, homeless people, andother vulnerable people.
Figure (F) 1-18

Trend in the Actual Provision of Legal Aid for Older Adults, People with Disabilities,
Homeless People, and Other Vulnerable People (The Number of Cases and Amounts
Subsidized)(Cases)(Yen ‘000)

90,000

1,800

1,544

80,00070,000

1,378

1,449

60,000

1,600

1,284

1,265

1,228

1,200
1,128

50,00040,0001,400

79,27773,311

30,00068,1121,000
800

66,191

59,793

57,91820,00056,014

600
400
200

10,000
0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

0

(Fiscal Year)

Legal Aid for Older Adults, People with Disabilities, Homeless People, and Other Vulnerable People (Amount)
Legal Aid for Older Adults, People with Disabilities, Homeless People, and Other Vulnerable People (Number of Cases)[Note] The number of cases is the figure where legal aid was applied for and accepted by the Ho-terasu.

As the Amended Legal Support Act took effect on January 24, 2018, the legal counseling for people withinsufficient cognitive ability due to aging, disabilities, etc. (categorized as “Persons Eligible for Specific
Assistance”) was made eligible for the state-funded on-site legal counseling aid upon application made by
their support providers such as social welfare agencies (those who possess a certain amount of means are
subject to a system requiring them to pay a set counseling fee). However, partly because of the inadequate
publicity, the use of this legal aid program has been remaining as minor as less than several dozen cases
each month.
Figure (F) 1-19

Trend in the Number of Cases Where Legal Counseling Aid Was Provided to Persons Eligible
for Specific Assistance (by Month)(Cases)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

79
67
49

51

48 47
44
43 45 43

4

5

51

56 55
44 43

58
47

42

47

86

54 53 55

51

47 49

8

9 10 11 12 1

6
1

2

3

6

7

2018

8

9 10 11 12 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2019

2

2020

3 (Month)(Year)[Note]
1. The figures are the number of cases where the Ho-terasu provided legal counseling aid to Persons Eligible for Specific
Assistance.
2. The figure for January 2018 is the count from January 24, 2018 forward.

13

Special Feature: Achievements and Challenges of Legal Aid

Meanwhile, as the Amended Legal Support Act took effect, the representation services to file administrativecomplaints related to public benefits, which are indispensable to help Persons Eligible for Specific Assistanceachieve independent living, were made eligible for civil legal aid. However, according to the White Paper
compiled by the Ho-terasu, only seven cases have actually been provided legal aid through this system
up until March 2019.
<Procedures eligible for civil legal aid under the Amended Legal Support Act> Filing of a request for administrative review, etc. under the Public Assistance Act
 Filing of a request for administrative review under the Long-Term Care Insurance Act
 Filing of a request for administrative review under the Act on the Comprehensive Support for the Daily
and Social Life of Persons with Disabilities
 Filing of a request for administrative review under the Administrative Complaint Review Act against
the disposition related to the issuance of the Mental Disability Certificate pursuant to the Act on Mental
Health and Welfare for the Mentally Disabled, or against the disposition related to the issuance of the
Physical Disability Certificate pursuant to the Act on the Welfare of Persons with Physical Disabilities
As described so far, the administrative procedures included in the scope of the Amended Legal Support Act
are quite limited, whereas the number of households that received public welfare benefits in May 2020 stands
at approximately 1,636,000. Besides, in Japan, the provision of public welfare benefits is estimated to capture
only less than 20% of households that qualify for receiving the benefits, which indicates the existence of ahuge population without access to public welfare benefits who are unable to afford the minimum standard ofwholesome and cultured living. Thus, there still is a significant need for legal aid related to the filing of
applications for public welfare benefits.
Figure (F) 1-20

Number of Households Receiving Public Welfare Benefits (by Month) and Year-over-Year
Growth(Households ‘000)
1,700

(%)
1

0.1

0
1,650

1,636,236 households

-1

1,600

0

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12

1

2

3

4

5

2018

6

7

2019

Number of households receiving public welfare benefits89

10 11 12

1

2

3

4

2020

5 (Month)(Year)

Year-Over-Year Growth Rate

[Note]
Figures through March 2019 have been confirmed.
Data Source: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Survey of Public Welfare Benefits Recipients (the figure for May 2020is an estimate)

14

Chapter 4. Future Outlook

Chapter 4. Future Outlook
As highlighted in Chapter 1, the Seven Aid Programs undertaken by the JFBA are of a highly public nature,since they provide legal aid to pay attorney fees, etc. in order to defend the human rights of economically orsocially disadvantaged people. Therefore, essentially, these programs should be fully funded by state or
public funds. The rightness of the idea is made clear in “Basic Principles” (Article 2) of the Comprehensive
Legal Support Act as follows; “… with the aim of establishing a society in which people throughout thecountry can get the information and services they need to have recourse to the law in resolving disputes
regardless of whether it relates to a civil or criminal matter.”
As mentioned earlier, although the implementation of the Amended Legal Support Act in January 2018 has
made the state funds appropriated for the Seven Aid Programs in part, the current situation signals that evengreater advocacy and time are likely to be needed before these programs are made available by state or publicfunding in full. Therefore, the JFBA intends to continue its advocating activities and maintain the Seven Aid
Programs until they are fully funded by the state or public funds.

15

PartP043_CW6_A7196CD001.indd

431

Legal Profession Statistics

2021/02/17

18:47:08

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics
Chapter 1. Attorney Demographics
1.1 The Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Attorney Population
The Japan Federation of Bar Associations (“JFBA”) is a juridical person incorporated in September 1949
based on the Attorney Act enacted in the same year. It consists of its membership, which includes attorneys,
legal professional corporations, and 52 local bar associations throughout Japan. Individual attorneys and legal
professional corporations across Japan are required to register with the JFBA when they are admitted to theirlocal bar associations. Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi) and Registered Foreign
Lawyer Corporations (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi-Hojin) are also registered with the JFBA as foreign special
members.
Furthermore, bar associations in the same jurisdictional district of each high court established a federation of
bar associations in order to jointly perform certain matters, pursuant to Article 44 of the Attorney Act.
Currently, a total of eight federations of bar associations are established in the regions of Hokkaido, Tohoku,
Kanto, Chubu, Kinki, Chugoku, Shikoku and Kyushu.
The attorney population, which was approximately 5,800 when the JFBA was incorporated, has grown to42,164 at the end of March 2020.
Please note that “attorneys” mentioned in the present White Paper refers to individuals who are JFBA
members categorized in the following four groups.
Figure 1-1-1

Categories of JFBA Membership

Regular Members

Foreign Special Member

Quasi Members

Okinawa Special Members

Those who have been qualified in accordance with Articles 4, 5, and
6 of the Attorney Act and have been registered in the roster ofattorneys held by the JFBA.
Those who have been qualified as lawyers in foreign jurisdictions and,after obtaining approval of the Minister of Justice of Japan, have beenregistered with the JFBA as Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuhojimu-bengoshi).
Foreign lawyers who were approved by the Supreme Court of Japanpursuant to Article 7 of the Attorney Act before its major revision in1955 and Article 65 of the Act on Special Measures Incidental to
Reversion of Okinawa to engage in practice as stipulated in Article 3of the Attorney Act. *As of March 31,2020, there are no membersin this category.
Those who had been qualified pursuant to the laws and regulations of
Okinawa before the reversion of Okinawa in 1972, and after thereversion, were permitted to engage in practice as stipulated in Article
3 of the Attorney Act with the title of “Okinawa Bengoshi (attorney)”
within Okinawa Prefecture. *As of March 31, 2020, there are seven
Okinawa Special Members.

18

Chapter 1. Attorney Demographics

The Number of Attorneys (1950 - 2020)

Figure 1-1-2

As of March 31 of each year

Year

Total Number ofAttorneys(No. of Female
Attorneys)

Percentage
of Female
Attorneys

Year

Total Number ofAttorneys(No. of Female
Attorneys)

Percentage
of Female
Attorneys

Year

Total Number ofAttorneys(No. of Female
Attorneys)

1950

5,827

(6)

0.1%

1968

7,918

(149)

1.9%

1986 12,830

1951

5,804

(6)

0.1%

1969

8,198

(166)

2.0%

1952

5,822

(9)

0.2%

1970

8,478

(180)

1953

5,836

(9)

0.2%

1971

8,797

(197)

1954

5,837

(10)

0.2%

1972

9,106

1955

5,899

(11)

0.2%

1973

9,541

1956

5,967

(14)

0.2%

1974

1957

6,009

(17)

0.3%

1958

6,100

(24)

0.4%

1959

6,217

(31)

0.5%

1960

6,321

(42)

1961

6,439

1962

6,604

1963
1964
1965
1966
1967

Total Number ofAttorneys(No. of Female
Attorneys)

Percentage
of Female
Attorneys

Year

Percentage
of Female
Attorneys

(620)

4.8%

2004 20,224 (2,448) 12.1%

1987 13,074

(654)

5.0%

2005 21,185 (2,648) 12.5%

2.1%

1988 13,288

(694)

5.2%

2006 22,021 (2,859) 13.0%

2.2%

1989 13,541

(721)

5.3%

2007 23,119 (3,152) 13.6%

(224)

2.5%

1990 13,800

(766)

5.6%

2008 25,041 (3,599) 14.4%

(254)

2.7%

1991 14,080

(811)

5.8%

2009 26,930 (4,127) 15.3%

9,830

(279)

2.8%

1992 14,329

(846)

5.9%

2010 28,789 (4,660) 16.2%

1975 10,115

(303)

3.0%

1993 14,596

(894)

6.1%

2011 30,485 (5,115) 16.8%

1976 10,421

(330)

3.2%

1994 14,809

(938)

6.3%

2012 32,088 (5,595) 17.4%

1977 10,689

(344)

3.2%

1995 15,108

(996)

6.6%

2013 33,624 (5,936) 17.7%

0.7%

1978 10,977

(362)

3.3%

1996 15,456 (1,070)

6.9%2014 35,045 (6,336) 18.1%

(46)

0.7%

1979 11,206

(384)

3.4%

1997 15,866 (1,176)

7.4%

2015 36,415 (6,618) 18.2%

(54)

0.8%

1980 11,441

(420)

3.7%

1998 16,305 (1,295)

7.9%

2016 37,680 (6,896) 18.3%

6,732

(60)

0.9%

1981 11,624

(446)

3.8%

1999 16,731 (1,398)

8.4%

2017 38,980 (7,179) 18.4%

6,849

(69)

1.0%

1982 11,888

(477)

4.0%

2000 17,126 (1,530)

8.9%

2018 40,066 (7,462) 18.6%

7,082

(86)

1.2%

1983 12,132

(514)

4.2%

2001 18,243 (1,849) 10.1%

2019 41,118 (7,717) 18.8%

7,343

(105)

1.4%

1984 12,377

(554)

4.5%

2002 18,838 (2,063)

11.0%2020 42,164 (8,017) 19.0%

7,645

(128)

1.7%

1985 12,604

(590)

4.7%

2003 19,508 (2,273)

11.7%

Changes in the Number of Attorneys (1950 - 2020)

Figure 1-1-3(Persons)
45,00042,16440,000

The Number of Attorneys
as of March 31, 2020: 42,164(Female: 8,017)

35,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,000
0Total Number of Attorneys(8,017)

5,827(Number ofFemale Attorneys)

(6)
1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020
(Year)[Note]
The figures above were those as of March 31 each year. The figure within the parentheses is the number of female
attorneys.

19Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

1.2 Attorney Population by Age GroupThe following graph shows the age distribution of attorneys, divided into male and female. As noted, the agegroup with the greatest number of attorneys is 30-39 for both males and females.
Figure 1-1-4

Attorney Population by Age Group(As of March 31, 2020)[Age]
80 or older(1,635)100

70 - 79(3,641)

219

3,788

60 - 69(4,187)

399

3,831

50 - 59(4,744)

1,535

Male: 34,147
3,422

8,350

40 - 49(10,841)

10,30530 - 39(13,431)

10,000(Persons)

8,000

6,000

4,000

913
2,491
3,126

20 - 29(3,685)

2,916
2,000

769
0

0

Female: 8,017

2,000

4,000

6,000

[Note] Figures within the parentheses show the total number of attorneys in each age range.

20

8,000

Chapter 2. Legal Profession Demographics

Chapter 2. Legal Profession Demographics
2.1 Number of Law School Applicants and Enrollment
The graphs below show the number of law school applicants (Figure 1-2-1) and the law school enrollment
by background, i.e., entrants who have work experience and who are non-law graduates (Figure 1-2-2). In
fiscal year 2020, there were a total of 8,161 law school applicants in Japan.
Change in the number of Law School Applicants over Time

Figure 1-2-1
Persons(in 1,000s)

Number of Law School Applicants (persons)Ratio of Applicants (%)(Compatitive Ratio)

14.0

13.0

12.0
60

10.0

72,8007.2
40

41,756

6.9

7.8

8.0

6.8

45,20740,341

5.2
39,555

20

4.9

5.1

29,71424,01422,927

4.1

18,446

3.3
13,924

0

3.0

3.3

3.0

3.2

3.4

4.0

6.0
3.7

4.0
2.0

11,450 10,370 8,278 8,160 8,058 9,117 8,161

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(Fiscal Year)

0.0[Note]
1. The above graph was created by the JFBA from the materials provided at the 97th meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Law Schools, etc., Subdivision on Universities, Central Council for Education, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (“MEXT”).
2. “Law School Applicant” means “a person who submitted an application to a law school.” Therefore, if a person submitted
an application for admission to two law schools, the person is counted as two applicants.
3. Ratio of Applicants is the ratio of the total number of law school applicants nationwide to the national total number of law
school students recruited, which is obtained by dividing the former by the latter.

Law School Enrollment by BackgroundFigure 1-2-2(Persons)
3,000

(%)
100.0

2,792

Their Percentage among the Total Number of Law School Entrants (%)
Entrants Who Had Work Experience
2,000

2,091
1,988
48.4

1,660
37.7

1,000

34.5

1,925

1,834

1,634

33.3

Their Percentage among the Total Number of Law School Entrants (%)
Entrants Who Were Non-law Graduates

1,490
32.1

28.3

26.1

29.8

26.1

70.0

50.0

1,298
1,224
26.8

29.9

80.0

60.0

1,609
1,410

90.0

25.3

993
24.1

40.0
868 763

21.1

21.1
20.7
748

689 21.9

19.1

18.6

18.4

19.8

19.8

24.0
17.0

19.5

18.8 18.6
18.6
15.2 15.9
15.8
14.6 14.6
13.9
591 514371
446
337
502 422346 405351
333
275
346
268
249
271
226

30.0
20.0
10.0

0.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(Fiscal Year)[Note]
The above graph was created by the JFBA from the materials provided at the 99th meeting of the Ad Hoc
Committee on Law Schools, etc., Subdivision on Universities, Central Council for Education, MEXT.
0

21

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

2.2 Statistics for Successful Examinees in Bar Examination
2.2.1 Pass Rate of Bar Examination
Pass Rate of Bar Examination

Figure 1-2-3

Number of Examinees(Persons)
10,000
48.3

8,765

8,163

8,000

Number of Successful Examinees

8,387
7,653

7,392

40.2

8,015 8,016
39.2
5,967

27.6

4,607

25.4

4,000

23.5

25.1

26.8
22.6

(%)
60.0
50.0

6,899

6,261
33.0

6,000

Pass Rate (%)

23.1

22.9

25.9

33.6
5,238
29.1

4466

40.0
30.0

3703
20.0

2,000

2,091

1,851 2,065 2,043

2,074 2,063 2,102 2,049

1,009
0

1,810 1,850 1,583

1,543 1,525 1502 1450

10.0

0.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(Year)

Figure 1-2-4

Pass Rate of Bar Examination by Academic Background

2006

2007

2019

2020

Law Graduates(A)*2 (persons)893

1,439 1,618 1,617 1,679 1,689 1,685 1,582 1,397 1,385 1,143 1,083 1,034 1,054

955

Examination
Pass Rate

48.8% 41.9% 35.0% 29.4% 27.5% 25.9% 26.8% 27.7% 23.1% 23.2% 22.3% 24.2% 26.5% 31.3% 35.3%

Non-law Graduates(B)*2 (persons)116

Examination
Pass Rate

44.6% 35.2% 27.3% 22.6% 19.2% 16.7% 17.7% 19.6% 14.4% 16.1% 14.7% 15.5% 17.1% 18.7% 20.5%

Total (A + B)
(persons)

1,009 1,851 2,065 2,043 2,074 2,063 2,044 1,929 1,647 1,664 1,348 1,253 1,189 1,187 1,072

Examination
Pass Rate

48.3% 40.2% 33.0% 27.6% 25.4% 23.5% 24.6% 25.8% 21.2% 21.6% 20.7% 22.5% 24.7% 29.1% 32.7%

412

2008

447

2009

426

2010

395

2011

374

2012

359

2013

347

2014

250

2015

279

2016

205

2017

170

2018

155

133

117

[Note]
1.The table above was compiled by the JFBA from the Figure published by the Ministry of Justice.
2.Law Graduates and Non-law Graduates represent those who graduated from a law-related faculty at a university andthose who graduated from a faculty other than a law-related faculty at a university, respectively, both including
individuals who studied the two-year program for experienced learners and the three-year program for novices at a law
school, respectively.

22

Chapter 2. Legal Profession Demographics

Figure 1-2-5

Pass Rate (Cumulative Pass Rate) for Bar Examination Achieved by Law School Graduatesby school Year

School Year When the Law Program Was
Completed
Law School Graduates for SY2005 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2006 and2010)
Law School Graduates for SY2006 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2007 and2011)
Law School Graduates for SY2007 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2008 and2012)
Law School Graduates for SY2008 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2009 and2013)
Law School Graduates for SY2009 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2010 and2014)
Law School Graduates for SY2010 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2011 and2015)
Law School Graduates for SY2011 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2012 and2016)
Law School Graduates for SY2012 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2013 and2017)
Law School Graduates for SY2013 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2014 and2018)
Law School Graduates for SY2014 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2015 and2019)
Law School Graduates for SY2015 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2016 and2020)
Law School Graduates for SY2016 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2017 and
2021)
Law School Graduates for SY2017 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2018 and2022)
Law School Graduates for SY2018 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2019 and2023)
Law School Graduates for SY2018 (Qualified
for taking a bar exam between 2020 and2024)(As of January 31, 2020)
Cumulative Pass Rate
Students Who Students Who
Graduated
Graduated
Total
from a Law- from a nonrelated
Law-related
Faculty
Faculty

Number ofStudents Who
Completed the
Law Program(persons)

Cumulative
Number of
Successful
Bar
Examinees(persons)

2,176

1,518

69.8%

69.8%

－

4,418

2,188

49.5%

63.4%

39.5%

4,911

2,273

46.3%

65.4%

32.6%

4,994

2,355

47.2%

68.7%

31.9%

4,792

2,261

47.2%

67.4%

33.4%

4,535

2,200

48.5%

65.9%

36.1%

3,937

1,937

49.2%

65.2%

36.1%

3,459

1,857

53.7%

69.8%

36.6%

3,037

1,714

56.4%

72.0%

37.3%

2,511

1,442

57.4%

70.0%

41.1%

2,190

1,188

54.2%

67.2%

34.2%

1,872

1,012

54.1%

64.8%

33.1%

1,625

800

49.2%

61.7%

26.1%

1,456

621

42.7%

53.8%

19.6%

1,272

609

47.9%

56.5%

26.2%

[Note]
1. The table was made by the JFBA based on the Figure provided by the MEXT.
2. Cumulative Pass Rate represents the cumulative total number of successful bar examinees expressed as a percentageof the total number of candidates who took the bar examination under the rule regarding retakes (i.e., a candidate
may take the bar examination no more than three times within a 5-year period). The rule was changed as per the
May 2014 amendment of the Bar Examination Act and, from the bar examination in 2015 onwards, candidates may
take the bar examination any number of times within a 5-year period if they (i) completed the law school program,or (ii) passed the preliminary bar examination.

23

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

2.2.2 Demographics of the Preliminary Examination for the Bar Examination
The “preliminary examination for the bar examination” was introduced to allow access to legal qualifications
for people who did not attend a law school, for financial reasons or because they have gained adequate work
experience. Passing the preliminary examination is considered equivalent to a law school diploma, thereby
allowing the successful examinees to take the bar examination.
Preliminary Examination Results

Figure 1-2-6

Total

Candidates 6,477

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Male Female Total

Male Female Total

Male Female Total

Male Female Total

Male Female

5,444

1,033

7,183

5,996

1,187

9,224

7,567

1,657 10,347 8,308

2,039 10,334 8,229

2,105

Successful
Candidates

116

103

13

219

197

22

351

307

44

356

319

37

394

354

40

Pass Rate

1.8%

1.9%

1.3%

3.0%

3.3%

1.9%

3.8%

4.1%

2.7%

3.4%

3.8%

1.8%

3.8%

4.3%

1.9%

2016
Total

2017

2018
Male

Male

Female Total

Male Female Total

Candidates 10,442 8,276

2,166 10,743

8,391

2,352 11,136 8,614

2019
Female Total

Male Female

2,522

11,7809,066 2,714

Successful
Candidates

405

334

71

444

363

81

433

352

81

476

391

85

Pass Rate

3.9%

4.0%

3.3%

4.1%

4.3%

3.4%

3.9%

4.1%

3.2%

4.0%

4.3%

3.1%

[Note] Based on the materials published by the Ministry of Justice.

Bar Examination Results Achieved by Those Who Passed the Preliminary Examination

Figure 1-2-7

Total

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Male Female Total

Male Female Total

Male Female Total

Male Female Total

Male Female

Candidates

85

76

9

167

150

17

244

212

32

301

267

34

382

343

39

Successful
Candidates

58

52

6

120

108

12

163

146

17

186

166

20

235

209

26

Pass Rate

68.2% 68.4% 66.7% 71.9% 72.0% 70.6% 66.8% 68.9% 53.1% 61.8% 62.2% 58.8% 61.5% 60.9% 66.7%

Total

2017

2018

Male Female Total

Male Female

2019

2020

Total

Male Female Total

Male Female

Candidates

400

346

54

433

369

64

385

321

64

423

347

76

Successful
Candidates

290

245

45

336

284

52

315

265

50

378

313

65

Pass Rate

72.5% 70.8% 83.3%

77.6% 77.0% 81.3% 81.8% 82.6% 78.1% 89.4% 90.2% 85.5%[Note] Based on the materials published by the Ministry of Justice.

24

Chapter 2. Legal Profession Demographics

2.3 Number of Apprentices Who Completed the Legal Apprenticeship Training by Career Path
Figure 1-2-8Training
Commenced(Completed)in:1987 (1989)
1988 (1990)
1989 (1991)
1990 (1992)
1991 (1993)
1992 (1994)
1993 (1995)
1994 (1996)
1995 (1997)
1996 (1998)
1997 (1999)
1998 (2000)
1999 (2000)
2000 (2001)
2001 (2002)
2002 (2003)
2003 (2004)
2004 (2005)
2005 (2006)
2006 (2007)
2007 (2008)
2008 (2009)2009 (2010)2010 (2011)
2011 (2012)2012 (2013)2013 (2014)2014 (2015)
2015 (2016)

Number of Legal Apprentices Who Completed the Legal Apprenticeship Training by
Career Path
Number of Apprentices
Who Completed theTraining
Total(Female)
470
(57)
489
(63)
506
(58)
508
(70)
506
(72)
594
(84)
633
(123)
699
(142)
720
(155)
726
(144)
729
(167)
742
(202)
788
(196)
975
(281)
988
(269)
1,005
(225)
1,178
(277)
1,187
(279)
1,477
(360)
2,376
(568)
2,340
(619)
2,346
(635)
2,144
(563)
2,152
(597)
2,080
(479)
2,034
(528)
1,973
(443)
1,766
(418)
1,762
(371)

JudgesProsecutors

Attorneys

Others

Proportion
Total
Proportion
Total
Proportion
Total
Proportion
Total
Proportion
Female(Female)Female(Female)Female (Female) Female (Female) Female
58
51
360
1
12.1%
17.2%
11.8%
11.1%
100.0%
(10)
(6)
(40)
(1)
81
28
376
4
12.9%
19.8%
10.7%
11.7%
0.0%
(16)
(3)
(44)
(0)
96
46
359
5
11.5%
20.8%
8.7%
9.5%
0.0%
(20)
(4)
(34)
(0)
65
50
378
15
13.8%
24.6%
16.0%
11.9%
6.7%
(16)
(8)
(45)
(1)
98
49
356
3
14.2%
20.4%
16.3%
12.4%
0.0%
(20)
(8)
(44)
(0)
104
75
406
9
14.1%
17.3%
14.7%
13.5%
0.0%
(18)
(11)
(55)
(0)
99
86
438
10
19.4%
34.3%
18.6%
16.0%
30.0%
(34)
(16)
(70)
(3)
99
71
521
8
20.3%
26.3%
16.9%
19.6%
25.0%
(26)
(12)
(102)
(2)
102
70
543
5
21.5%
25.5%
22.9%
20.8%
0.0%
(26)
(16)
(113)
(0)
93
73
553
7
19.8%
22.6%
15.1%
19.9%
28.6%
(21)
(11)
(110)
(2)
97
72
549
11
22.9%
18.6%
22.2%
24.0%
9.1%
(18)
(16)
(132)
(1)
87
69
579
7
27.2%
25.3%
23.2%
28.3%
0.0%
(22)
(16)
(164)
(0)
82
74
625
7
24.9%
31.7%
13.5%
25.3%
28.6%
(26)
(10)
(158)
(2)
112
76
774
13
28.8%
27.7%
26.3%
29.1%
38.5%
(31)
(20)
(225)
(5)
106
75
799
8
27.2%
28.3%
29.3%
26.8%
37.5%
(30)
(22)
(214)
(3)
101
75
(822)
7
22.4%
28.7%
25.3%
21.3%
28.6%
(29)
(19)
175
(2)
109
77
983
9
23.5%
32.1%
24.7%
22.6%
11.1%
(35)
(19)
(222)
(1)
96
954
(13)
124
27.4%
23.5%
31.3%
22.3%
15.4%
(34)
(30)
(213)
2
115
87
1,254
21
24.4%
30.4%
29.9%
23.2%
38.1%
(35)
(26)
(291)
(8)
118
113
2,043
102
23.9%
36.4%
34.5%
22.4%
28.4%
(43)
(39)
(457)
(29)
99
93
2,026
122
26.5%
36.4%
34.4%
26.0%
19.7%
(36)
(32)
(527)
(24)
106
78
1,978
184
27.1%
32.1%
39.7%
26.4%
25.5%
(34)
(31)
(523)
(47)
102
70
1,714
258
26.3%
31.4%
31.4%
25.8%
25.6%
(32)
(22)
(443)
(66)
102
71
1,515
464
27.7%
33.3%
33.8%
27.6%
26.1%
(34)
(24)
(418)
(121)
92
72
1,370
546
23.0%
30.4%
30.6%
23.1%
20.7%
(28)
(22)
(316)
(113)
96
82
1,286
570
26.0%
39.6%
37.8%
26.1%
21.6%
(38)
(31)
(336)
(123)
101
74
1,248
550
22.5%
28.7%
39.2%
21.6%
21.1%
(29)
(29)
(269)
(116)
91
76
1,131
468
23.7%
41.8%
32.9%
21.1%
24.8%
(38)
(25)
(239)
(116)
78
70
1,198
416
21.1%
38.5%
37.1%
19.0%
20.9%
(30)
(26)
(228)
(87)

25

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

Training
Commenced(Completed)in:2016 (2017)2017 (2018)2018 (2019)

Figure 1-2-9

Number of Apprentices
Who Completed theTraining
Total
Proportion(Female)Female
1,563
23.0%
(359)
1,517
21.0%
(319)
1,487
24.2%
(360)

JudgesProsecutors

Attorneys

Others

Total
Proportion
Total
Proportion
Total Proportion
Total Proportion(Female) Female(Female)Female (Female) Female(Female) Female
65
67
1,075
356
27.7%
35.8%
23.1%
19.4%
(18)
(24)
(248)
(69)
82
69
1,032
334
25.6%
30.4%
21.9%
15.3%
(21)
(21)
(226)
(51)
75
65
1,032
315
37.3%
43.1%
22.4%
23.2%
(28)
(28)
(231)
(73)

Change in Career Paths Chosen by Legal Apprentices Who Completed Legal ApprenticeshipTraining over Time

2,500

2,000

Others
Attorneys
Prosecutors
Judges

1,500

1,000

500

0

[Note]
1. Source: The Supreme Court of Japan, Court Data Book 2020
2. Apprentices who started the training between 1987 and 1998 completed it in April of the next year, having taken the
training for 2 years. Those who started the training between 1999 and 2005 completed their training in October, having
taken the training for one year and six months. Apprentices who started the training between 2006 and 2008 completed
the training in September or December of the next year. Those who started the training in 2009 and 2010 completed it inAugust or December of the next year. Those who started in 2011 and afterwards completed the training in December ofthe next year.
3. These numbers were taken immediately after the apprentices completed the training.

26

Chapter 2. Legal Profession Demographics

2.4 Change in the Number of Judges, Prosecutors, and Attorneys over Time
Figure 1-2-10

Number of Judges, Prosecutors, and Attorneys over Time

Judges*1(excl. those in summary courts)

Prosecutors*2(excl. assistant public prosecutors)

Total(persons)

Total(persons)

Attorneys*3

Year

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

2,022
2,029
2,036
2,046
2,058
2,073
2,093
2,113
2,143
2,213
2,243
2,288
2,333
2,385
2,460
2,535
2,610
2,685
2,760
2,805
2,850
2,850
2,880
2,944
2,944
2,755
2,775
2,782
2,774
2,798

Proportion Proportion
Male
Female
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
83.5%
83.1%
82.6%
81.4%
80.4%
79.7%
79.1%
78.1%
77.5%
76.9%
76.0%
74.4%
73.8%
73.5%
73.3%
73.0%

－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
－
16.5%
16.9%
17.4%
18.6%
19.6%
20.3%
20.9%
21.9%
22.5%
23.1%
24.0%
25.6%
26.2%
26.5%
26.7%
27.0%

Proportion Proportion
Male
Female

1,172
1,174
1,184
1,190
1,229
1,270
1,301
1,325
1,363
1,375
1,443
1,484
1,521
1,563
1,627
1,648
1,667
1,739
1,779
1,806
1,816
1,839
1,847
1,877
1,896
1,930
1,964
1,957
1,976
1,977

96.2%
95.9%
95.4%
95.0%
94.3%
93.6%
92.9%
92.0%
91.6%
90.8%
89.4%
88.4%
87.4%
87.2%
86.2%
85.2%
84.4%
82.8%
81.8%
81.0%
80.3%
80.2%
79.6%
78.6%
77.6%
77.1%
76.5%
75.4%
75.0%
74.6%

3.8%
4.1%
4.6%
5.0%
5.7%
6.4%
7.1%
8.0%
8.4%
9.2%
10.6%
11.6%
12.6%
12.8%
13.8%
14.8%
15.6%
17.2%
18.2%
19.0%
19.7%
19.8%
20.4%
21.4%
22.4%
22.9%
23.5%
24.6%
25.0%
25.4%

Total
(persons)
14,08014,32914,596
14,80915,10815,456
15,866
16,305
16,731
17,126
18,243
18,83819,50820,224
21,18522,021
23,11925,041
26,93028,78930,48532,08833,62435,04536,41537,68038,98040,066
41,11842,164

Proportion Proportion
Male
Female
94.2%
94.1%
93.9%
93.7%
93.4%
93.1%
92.6%
92.1%
91.6%
91.1%
89.9%
89.0%
88.3%
87.9%
87.5%
87.0%
86.4%
85.6%
84.7%
83.8%
83.2%
82.6%
82.3%
81.9%
81.8%
81.7%
81.6%
81.4%
81.2%
81.0%

5.8%
5.9%
6.1%
6.3%
6.6%
6.9%
7.4%
7.9%
8.4%
8.9%
10.1%
11.0%
11.7%
12.1%
12.5%
13.0%
13.6%
14.4%
15.3%
16.2%
16.8%
17.4%
17.7%
18.1%
18.2%
18.3%
18.4%
18.6%
18.8%
19.0%

[Note]
1. The numbers of judges were cited from the results of the surveys conducted by the Supreme Court of Japan and exclude
judges of Summary Courts. The data are as of April each year excluding those for 2016 and thereafter, when the recording
method was changed so that the count is as of December of the previous year. “－” represents the gender ratio being
unknown.
2. The numbers of prosecutors, cited from the results of the surveys conducted by the Ministry of Justice, are as of March 31
each year and exclude assistant public prosecutors.
3. The number of attorneys represents the number of regular members of the JFBA as of March 31 of each year.

27Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

2.5 Gender Ratio of Law School Students, Bar Examination, Preliminary Bar Examination, andThose Who Completed the Legal Apprenticeship Training
Figure 1-2-11 through 1-2-14 show the gender ratio, etc. related to law school students, candidates andsuccessful candidates who took the new bar examination and the preliminary bar examination, as well as thenumber of females and their percentage among those who completed the legal apprenticeship training, by
each of the three major career paths.
Percentage of Females among Law School Students, Candidates, and Successful Candidatesof the New Bar Examination

Figure 1-2-11

Percentage of Female Law School Students
Percentage of Female Examinees Among New Bar Examination Candidates
Percentage of Successful Female Examinees Among New Bar Examination Candidates
34%
32%

31.3%

30.9%

29.8%

30%
28%
26%

28.7%

29.6%
25.8%

27.3%

28.5%
28.2%

22%
20%

27.8%

27.6%

26.4%

27.6%
26.5%

25.9%

24%

32.3%

29.3%

28.2%

24.6%

23.4%

28.6%

24.4%
22.6%
2006

22.5%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(Year)[Note]
Numbers were calculated by the JFBA from the following source data:
Percentage of females among law school students: “Number of students by principal area of study” presented in School
Basic Survey published yearly by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
Percentage of females among candidates of the new bar examination: Data published by the Ministry of Justice
Percentage of females among successful candidates of the new bar examination: Data published by the Ministry ofJustice
Figure 1-2-12

Percentage of Successful Candidates of the Multiple-Choice Test among Bar Examination
Candidates by Gender

90%
80%
70%

73.2%

72.7%

2007

2008

2009

2010

67.7%

59.7%
54.9%

2011

2012

[Note] Calculated from source data published by the Ministry of Justice

28

61.8%

52.5%

2013

2014

76.0%

69.6%

67.3%

61.5%

66.7%

2006

Female

74.4%
67.1%

60%
50%

Male

77.6%

83.2%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

(Year)

Chapter 2. Legal Profession Demographics

Percentage of Successful Bar Examinees among Successful Candidates of the MultipleChoice Test by Gender

Figure 1-2-13

70%
60.4%

Male

60%

Female
52.9%

58.2%
50%

42.0%

41.1%

44.0%

40%
30%

46.9%

45.3%

2007

2008

2009

36.6%

38.5%

34.2%
2006

41.7%

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

42.4%

41.5%

34.3%

35.4%

49.3%

34.2%
2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

[Note] Calculated from source data published by the Ministry of Justice
Figure 1-2-14
60%
50%
40%

Percentage of Successful Bar Examinees among Bar Examination Candidates by Gender

50.3%

Male

30.3%

20%

25.5%

25.9%

25.3%

23.0%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

[Note] Calculated from source data published by the Ministry of Justice

29

2014

25.8%

20.4%

19.2%

2013

30.4%

23.9%

23.8%

10%
0%

Female

34.1%

42.3%

30%

2020

(Year)

2015

2016

2017

2018

35.6%

28.7%

2019

(Year)

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

Number and Percentage by Gender for the Preliminary Bar Examination

Figure 1-2-15(Persons)
16,000

Male
Percentage of Female Applicants
Percentage of Successful Female Bar Examees

14,00040%

FemalePercentage of Female Examinees

35%
3,303

12,0002,542
2,060

10,000
8,000

1,522

1,533

1,187
17.0%
16.6%
15.9%
16.5%
1,033

6,000

7,585

4,000

7,449

11.2%

18.0%
9,195

9,972

12.5%
7,567

8,276

10.4%

8,308

5,996

10,692

10,301

10.2%

18.7%

18.2%

17.5%

10,10910,080

10.0%

5,444

19.7%

25%

23.0%

21.9%

20.7%

20.4%

2,714
22.8%

22.2% 22.6%

21.8%

20.8%

20.5%

20.1%

1,657
18.3%

30%

2,522

2,352

2,166

2,105

2,039

2,877

2,658

2,571

3,054

17.9%

11,191
9,066

8,614

8,391

20%

10%

8,229

5%

2,000

2012

2013

2016

85
391

2017

2018

0%

Successful Examinees

Applicants

Exam Takers

Exam Takers

81352

Successful Examinees

Examinees

Successful Exam Takers

Applicants

Successful Examinees

Applicants2015

Examinees

Successful Examinees

ApplicantsExaminees

Examinees

Successful Examinees

2014

81
363

71
334

Applicants

40
354

37
319

Applicants

Successful Examinees

Examinees

Applicants

Successful Examinees

Applicants2011

Examinees

Examinees

Successful Examinees

Applicants

0

44
307

22
197

13
103

15%

2019

[Note] Calculated from source data published by the Ministry of Justice
Figure 1-2-16

Number and Percentage of Females Who Completed the Legal Apprenticeship Training, by
Each of the Three Major Career Paths(Persons)
600

50%

500

39.7%

39.6%

36.4%
31.4%

400 34.4%
300

32.1%

26.0%

26.4%

527

523

200

31.4%
25.8%

443

33.8%
33.3%

30.6%

39.2%

27.6%
23.1%

418

316

38.5%
37.1%

35.8%

28.7%

25.6%

27.7%

26.1%
21.6%

21.1%

269

239

23.1%
19.0%

40%

228

35%

248

30%
22.4%

20%

226

15%
231

36 32

34 31

32 22

34 24

28 22

38 31

29 29

38 25

30 26

18 24

21 21

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Percentage of Newly Appointed Female Judges
Percentage of Newly Appointed Female Prosecutors
Percentage of Newly Registered Female Attorneys[Note] Source: The Supreme Court of Japan, Court Data Book 2020

30

Newly Appointed Female Judges
Newly Appointed Female Prosecutors
Newly Appointed Female Prosecutors

25%

21.9%

100
0

37.3%
30.4%

32.9%

336

45%

41.8%

37.8%

30.4%

43.1%

28 28

2019

10%
5%
0%

Chapter 2. Legal Profession Demographics

2.6 The Number of Attorneys in Japan Compared to Other Countries
The figure below compares the number of attorneys among several countries. The national attorney
population is also presented by country on the next page.
Figure 1-2-17

Changes in the Number of Attorneys (compared to other countries)

Persons
1,400,000
650,000Japan

1,350,000
600,000

U.K.

Germany

FranceU.S.

1,328,692

1,300,000
550,000
1,250,000
500,000
1,200,000
450,000

1,166,269

1,188,537

1,202,380

1,219,607

1,235,819

1,255,146

1,257,732

165,538

166,370

1,150,000
400,000
1,100,000
350,000
1,050,000
300,000
1,000,000
250,000
200,000

160,894

162,695

163,540

163,513

163,772

150,000
100,000

130,474

137,645

56,27858,329136,666
60,329141,355
62,184144,41464,035

165,901
166,231

147,603

153,906

65,592

67,081

69,90042,16450,000033,62435,04536,41537,68038,98040,066

41,118

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

[Note]
1. The number of attorneys in Japan is as of March 31 of each year.
2. For the U.S., the U.K., Germany, and France, the data sources have been changed for 2020. Please refer to Figure 1-2-18.

31

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

Figure 1-2-18

Number of Attorneys in Foreign Countries (with As of Dates for Respective Data)(Upper Cell: As of Date, Lower Cell: Number of Persons)

Japan

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Mar. 31, 2013 Mar. 31, 2014 Mar. 31, 2015 Mar. 31, 2016 Mar. 31, 2017 Mar. 31, 2018 Mar. 31, 2019 Mar. 31, 2019

Attorneys

33,62435,04536,41537,68038,98040,066

41,11842,164

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

U.S.

Dec. 31, 2011 Dec. 31, 2012 Dec. 31, 2013 Dec. 31, 2014 Dec. 31, 2015 Dec. 31, 2016 2017

Attorneys2020

1,166,269

1,188,537

1,202,380

1,219,607

1,235,819

1,255,146

1,257,732

1,328,692

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

U.K.
Attorneys(Barristers) Dec. 2010
Dec. 2011
2012
2015
2015
2017
2018
2019
(Solicitors) Jul. 2011
Jul. 2012
Jul.31, 2013 Jul. 31, 2014 Jul. 31, 2015 Jul. 31, 2016 20172019
130,474
137,645
136,666
141,355
144,414
147,603
153,906
161,639
Germany
Attorneys

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Jan. 1, 2013

Jan. 1, 2014

Jan. 1, 2015

Jan. 1, 2015

Jan. 1, 2016

Jan. 1, 2017

160,894

162,695

163,540

163,513

163,772

165,538

166,370

165,901

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Jan. 1, 2012

Jan. 1, 2013

Jan. 1, 2014

Jan. 1, 2015

Jan. 1, 2016

-

-

-

-

-

-

Oct. 1, 2011

Jan. 1, 2013

Jan. 1, 2014

Jan. 1, 2015

Jan. 1, 2016

Jan. 1, 201756,27858,32960,32962,18464,03565,592

FranceAttorneys(avoué près la
Cour d'appel)(avocat au
Conseil d'Etat eta la Cour decassation)

2019
2019

2020
2020

Jan. 1, 2017 20182019

67,081

69,900[Note]The number of attorneys in Japan from 2013-2019 were cited from the Court Data Book published in the relevant years by theSupreme Court of Japan.
Source Data for 2013-2019
U.S.

Data Source: American Bar Association’s survey. The figures were obtained by subtracting judge and prosecutor counts
from the number of resident and active legal professionals licensed to practice law in the 50 states and Washington, D.C.
(The Court Data Book published by the Supreme Court of Japan also presents the number of federal and state judges andprosecutors for reference as follows: Federal judges, 1,785 (as of 2019); State judges, 30,751 (as of 2010); Federal
prosecutors, 6,075 (as of 2010); State prosecutors, 27,094 (as of 2007))

U.K.

The figures are for England and Wales combined, and were obtained by subtracting the number of barristers and solicitors
working for the Crown Prosecution Service plus the Attorney General for England and Wales from the total number ofbarristers in practice and solicitors holding the Practicing Certificate.

Germany

Data Source: The German Federal Bar’s survey

FranceData Source: The Ministry of Justice’s survey

Source Data for 2020
U.S.

Data Source: American Bar Association’s survey. The figure includes the number of federal judges and prosecutors andstate judges and prosecutors combined.

U.K.

Data Source: BSB (Bar Standards Board) website. The figure is for England and Wales combined, and was obtained bysubtracting the number of barristers and solicitors working for the Crown Prosecution Service plus the Attorney General for
England and Wales from the total number of barristers in practice and solicitors holding the Practicing Certificate.

Germany

Data Source: The German Federal Bar website

France

The figure is the number of avocats presented on the CNB (Conseil Nationale des Barreaux) website.

32

Chapter 2. Legal Profession Demographics

2.7 Change in Other Legal Profession Populations over Time
There are several qualified professions related to the practice of law other than attorneys: judicial scrivener,
certified public tax accountant, patent attorney, certified public accountant, administrative scriveners, andso forth. When making international comparisons of the population of these legal professions, it should be
noted that, in certain other countries, some of the functions of such other legal professions are performed bylawyers.
The number of people engaged in these professions is shown below.
Figure 1-2-19

Change in Other Legal Profession Populations over Time
(Unit: Persons)
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

30,48532,08833,62435,04536,41537,68038,98040,066

41,11842,164

Number of Female

5,115

5,595

5,936

6,336

6,618

6,896

7,179

7,462

7,717

8,017

Ratio of Female(16.8%)(17.4%)(17.7%)(18.1%)(18.2%)(18.3%) （18.4%）(18.6%)(18.8%)(19.0%)

8,684

9,145

9,644

10,171

10,655

10,871

11,057

11,185

11,336

11,460

Number of Female

1,107

1,201

1,300

1,428

1,530

1,596

1,650

1,687

1,732

1,801

Ratio of Female
Those who may representclients in specified
infringement litigation
Certified Public Tax
Accountants(12.7%)(13.1%)(13.5%)(14.0%)(14.4%)(14.7%)（14.9%)(15.1%)(15.3%)(15.7%)

2,563

2,735

2,863

2,971

3,089

3,199

3,297

3,354

3,393

3,449

72,03972,63573,72574,50175,14675,64376,49377,32778,02878,795

Number of Female

9,438

9,710

10,03910,312

10,593

10,85911,124

11,423

11,64911,906

Ratio of Female(13.1%)(13.4%)(13.6%)(13.8%)(14.1%)(14.4%)(14.5%)(14.8%)(14.9%)(15.1%)

20,313

20,67020,97921,366

21,65822,01322,28322,48822,632

22,724

Number of Female

3,020

3,171

3,262

3,395

3,506

3,639

3,747

3,869

3,972

4,067

Ratio of Female(14.9%)(15.3%)(15.5%)(15.9%)(16.2%)(16.5%)(16.8%)(17.2%)(17.6%)(17.9%)

Those who may representclients in summary courts

13,25813,89814,48315,096

15,613

16,10816,512

16,827

17,002

17,47541,58442,177

43,12644,05744,74045,441

46,205

46,91547,901

48,639

Attorneys

Patent Attorneys

Judicial Scriveners

Administrative Scriveners
Number of Female

4,827

4,977

5,216

5,460

5,711

5,910

6,172

6,449

6,773

7,087

Ratio of Female(11.6%)(11.8%)(12.1%)(12.4%)(12.8%)(13.0%)(13.4%)(13.7%)(14.1%)(14.6%)

21,325

23,11924,96426,26027,31628,28929,36930,35031,18931,793

Certified Public
Accountants
Number of Female
Ratio of Female
Public Consultants on
Social and Labour

2,853

3,141

3,388

3,598

3,818

4,034

4,229

4,411

4,573

(12.3%)(12.6%)(12.9%)(13.2%)(13.5%)(13.7%)(13.9%)(14.1%)(14.4%)

35,80136,85037,78438,44539,331

40,11040,535

41,18742,05642,887

Number of Female

9,489

9,987

10,383

10,79011,275

11,773

11,973

12,397

12,91013,414

Ratio of Female(26.5%)(27.1%)(27.5%)(28.1%)(28.7%)(29.4%)(29.5%)(30.1%) (30.7%)(31.3%)

17,487

17,32817,26917,112

17,017

16,94016,761

16,625

16,471

16,240

－
－

－
－

－
－

－
－

－
－

－
－

－
－

－
－

－
－

－
－

254,012 261,115

266,957

272,278

276,987

281,683

286,143

290,731294,702

Land and House
Investigators
Number of Female
Ratio of Female
Total

2,560
(12.0%)

247,718[Note]
1. The statistics are based on the results of the research conducted by each professional association.
2. All statistics are as of March 31 of each year except those for Judicial Scriveners, Administrative Scriveners, and Landand House Investigators, which are as of April 1 of each year. The ‘－’ denotes Not Available.

33

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

Chapter 3. Mergers of Law Firms and Statistics of Legal Professional Corporations
3.1 Law Firm Size
Figure 1-3-1 lists law firms in Japan by size. Figure 1-3-2 through 1-3-5 present the change in the number oflaw firms and attorneys over time based on law firm size ranges. Law firm mergers are increasing particularly
in urban areas, which contributes to the rise in the number of law firms with more than two attorneys.
Figure 1-3-1

Major Law Firms (Top 10)(As of March 31, 2020)

Ranking1
2
3
4

Law Firm (Corporate Name)
Nishimura & Asahi (Nishimura & Asahi LPC / LPC
NISHIMURA & ASAHI LAW FIRM)
Anderson Mori & Tomotsune (Anderson Mori & Tomotsune
LPC)
Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Nagashima Ohno &Tsunematsu LPC)
Mori Hamada & Matsumoto (Mori Hamada & Matsumoto
LPC)

Location

Number of
Attorneys

Tokyo

582

Tokyo

484

Tokyo

475

Tokyo

452

5

TMI Associates (TMI Partners LPC)

Tokyo

447

6

Verybest Law Offices (Verybest LPC / VERYBEST LPC)

Tokyo

227

7

City-Yuwa Partners (City-Yuwa LPC)

Tokyo

158

8

Adire LPC (Adire LPC)

Tokyo

151

9

Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners (Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners)

Osaka

142

10

Atsumi & Sakai (Atsumi & Sakai LPC)

Tokyo

138

[Note]
1. As for the Legal Professional Corporations in the list above, the name and location of their principal offices are listed,
and the legal name of such Legal Professional Corporations are put in parentheses.
2. The number of attorneys for each Legal Professional Corporation counts those who belong to the principal office,secondary offices, and joint offices (same for Figures 1-3-2 and 1-3-3).
3. In instances where multiple corporations are located in a single firm, they are counted together as one firm (same for
Figures 1-3-2 and 1-3-3).

34Chapter 3. Mergers of Law Firms and Statistics of Legal Professional Corporations

Figure 1-3-3 Change in the Number of Law Firms

Figure 1-3-2 Percentage of Law Firms by Size Range

over Time by Size Range(Unit: Number of offices)
11-20
attorneys
1.40%

21-30
attorneys
0.32%

6-10 attorneys
4.46%

Law Firm Size
(Number ofAttorneys)

31-50 attorneys
51-1000.19%
attorneys
0.05%
101 or more
attorneys
0.06%

3-5 attorneys
15.15%

One attorney
60.43%

Two attorneys
17.94%

Figure1-3-4 Percentages of Attorneys by Law Firm
51-100 attorneys
1.52%

21-30 attorneys
3.32%

1

10,038

10,374

10,525

2

2,968

3,145

3,124

3 to 5

2,638

2,650

2,639

6 to 10

746

751

776

11 to 20

232

230

244

21 to 30

52

58

56

31 to 50

27

26

33

51 to 100879101 or more

11

11

11

Total

16,72017,252

17,417over Time by Law Firm Size Ranges(Unit: Number of attorneys)

Law Firm Size
(Number ofAttorneys)

101 or more
attorneys
7.94%

One attorney
24.96%

Two attorneys
14.82%

6-10 attorneys
13.58%

2020

Figure1-3-5 Change in the Number of Attorneys

Size Ranges

11-20 attorneys
8.25%

2019

[Note] As of March 31 of each year

[Note] As of March 31, 2020

31-50 attorneys
2.97%

2018

3-5 attorneys
22.64%[Note] As of March 31, 2020

2018

2019

1

10,0382

Female10,374

10,525

1,403

5,936

6,290

6,248

1,379

3 to 5

9,540

9,586

9,546

1,959

6 to 10

5,469

5,515

5,727

1,245

11 to 20

3,282

3,261

3,479

745

21 to 30

1,278

1,410

1,399

286

31 to 50

997

997

1,254

233

51 to 100

536

519

640

109

101 or more

2,990

3,166

3,346

658

Total

40,066

41,11842,164

8,017[Note] As of March 31 of each year

35

2020
Total

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

3.2 Legal Professional Corporation Statistics
On April 1, 2002 the Legal Professional Corporation (LPC) system came into effect. The system wasestablished in the hope that it enables a law office, which had been managed by individual attorneys, tobecome a juridical person, and ensures continuity of its legal services. It is also expected that the LPC systemenhances efficiency of law firm management and promotes the establishment of joint offices.
An LPC becomes a member of the bar association of the region where its principal office is located. If an
LPC establishes a secondary office, the LPC also becomes a member of the bar association in the region
where the secondary office is located.
3.2.1 Number of Legal Professional Corporations
One hundred four LPCs were incorporated from April 2019 to March 2020. As of March 31, 2020, there are
1,302 LPCs in Japan including ones that are in liquidation, etc.
Tables 1-3-6 through 1-3-7 present the number of LPCs by establishment year and bar associations they belong to.
Figure 1-3-6

Number of LPC Incorporations, LPC Members, and Employed Attorneys by Fiscal Year

Fiscal2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year2017 2018 2019

Number of Incorporations
77

37

47

38

33

56

82

69

79

90

81

96

108

101

122

111

98

104

194

223

277

357

421

497

581

657

743

839

929 1,035 1,134 1,217 1,302

497

613

790

956 1,156 1,366 1,548 1,778 1,999 2,186 2,440 2,687 2,894 3,079

Total Number of LPCs
76

112

157

Number of Members (persons)
200

274

365

448

Number of Employed Attorneys (persons)
128

226

331

508

613

759

997 1,253 1,495 1,760 1,988 2,289 2,527 2,793 3,172 3,311 3,544 3,883

4.3

4.8

5.5

6.6

Incorporation Ratio (%)
1.7

2.5

3.3

7.7

8.7

9.7

10.5

11.6

12.4

13.2

14.4

15.0

15.7

16.5

[Note]
Incorporation Ratio is obtained by dividing the sum of the numbers of members and employed attorneys of LPCs by the total
number of attorneys as of March 31 of each year (42,164 in 2020).
(%)(LPCs)
1,400

16.5

Number of Incorporations
Total Number of LPCs
Incorporation Ratio (%)

1,200

15.0

12.0

10.5

800

10.0
8.0

600

5.5

6.0

400

0

16.0
14.0

1,000

200

18.0

4.0

1.7

2002

2.0
2007

2012

36

2017

0.0
2019
Fiscal Year

Chapter 3. Mergers of Law Firms and Statistics of Legal Professional Corporations

Figure 1-3-7

Number of Member LPCs by Bar Association (Fiscal Year 2019)

SapporoHakodate
Asahikawa
KushiroSendai
Fukushima
Yamagata
Iwate
Akita
AomoriTokyo
Dai-ichi Tokyo
Daini Tokyo

54
3
9
12
27
16
6
4
3
8
252
144
140

76
56
41
21
20
19
29
2
12
14
117
6
17

Kanagawa
Saitama
Chiba
IbarakiTochigi
Gunma
Shizuoka
Yamanashi
NaganoNiigata
Aichi
Mie
Gifu

Fukui
Kanazawa
Toyama
Osaka
Kyoto
Hyogo
Nara
Shiga
Wakayama
Hiroshima
Yamaguchi
Okayama
Tottori(Unit: Corporation)
Shimane
4

7
11
5
197
46
51
7
8
4
29
17
23
6

KagawaTokushima
Kochi
Ehime
Fukuoka
Saga
Nagasaki
Oita
Kumamoto
Kagoshima
MiyazakiOkinawa
Total

7
7
0
16
93
8
16
21
17
27
22
24
1,781
(Corporations)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

SapporoHakodate
Asahikawa
KushiroSendai
Fukushima
Yamagata
Iwate
Akita
AomoriTokyo
Dai-ichi Tokyo
Daini Tokyo
Kanagawa
Saitama
Chiba
IbarakiTochigi
Gunma
Shizuoka
Yamanashi
NaganoNiigata
Aichi
Mie
Gifu
Fukui
Kanazawa
Toyama
Osaka
Kyoto
Hyogo
Nara
Shiga
Wakayama
Hiroshima
Yamaguchi
Okayama
Tottori
ShimaneKagawaTokushima
Kochi
Ehime
Fukuoka
Saga
Nagasaki
Oita
Kumamoto
Kagoshima
MiyazakiOkinawa[Note]
1. The number of member LPCs shown in Figure 1-3-7 exceeds the total number of LPCs as of March 31, 2020
presented in Figure 1-3-6, since some LPCs belong to multiple bar associations.
2. The statistics are based on notifications submitted by March 31, 2020.

37

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

3.2.2 Size of Legal Professional Corporations
Figure 1-3-8 below provides a breakdown of LPCs by number of attorneys belonging thereto including
representative members, members, and employed attorneys.
Breakdown of LPCs by Number of Their Attorneys (including Employed Attorneys)

Figure 1-3-8(Unit: Persons, except the number of LPCs)
Number of Attorneys per LPC
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

191

157

106

66

37

35

32

17

13

6

14

7

4

10

5

573

628

530

396

259

280

288

170

143

72

182

98

60

160

85

79

112

97

64

49

53

72

29

39

18

33

20

8

23

18

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

32

34

35

38

39

9

1

3

3

4

4

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

180

21

66

69

96

100

52

27

28

90

32

34

35

38

78

38

3

11

16

9

17

5

4

5

20

0

6

5

4

8

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

48

52

55

63

72

83

84

90

134

148

151

155

Total

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1,268

48

52

55

63

72

83

84

90

134

148

151

155

6,962

2

15

6

11

14

15

12

15

37

35

21

36

1,219

0

0

1

0

2

0

0

1

6

5

0

0

24

Total Number of LPCs*3
270

242

Total Number of Attorneys*2
270

484

Number of Females
28

70

Total Number of GJBs*400

Number of Attorneys per LPC
18

19

Total Number of LPCs

*3

3

1

Total Number of Attorneys*2
54

19

Number of Females
11

5

Total Number of GJBs*4
10

Number of Attorneys per LPC
40

45

Total Number of LPCs*3
1

2

Total Number of Attorneys*2
40

90

Number of Females
8

13

Total Number of GJBs*400

Number of LPCs by Size (Representative Members and Members Only)

Figure 1-3-9(Unit: Corporations)
Number of Attorneys per LPC
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

19

20

22

25

33

38

39

46

73

Total

32

21

10

9

9

3

2

4

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1,268

Number of LPCs*3
572 358 161 72[Note]
1. The statistics are based on notifications submitted by March 31, 2019.
2. The number of attorneys belonging to LPCs is a total count for each LPC combining its principal and secondary offices.
3. The number of LPCs excludes those in liquidation.
4. The number of GJBs means the number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyer). For details, pleaserefer to Chapter 4.

38

Chapter 4. Facts about Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi)

Chapter 4. Facts about Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi)
The system of Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi in Japanese) was instituted under the
Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services by Foreign Lawyers (Act No. 66 of1986, hereinafter referred to as “Registered Foreign Lawyer Act”). A Registered Foreign Lawyer is a person
whose professional duties are to provide legal services in a foreign jurisdiction and who holds a qualificationequivalent to the Japanese attorney’s license (i.e., a foreign lawyer’s license) and is registered in the JFBA’s
Roll of Registered Foreign Lawyers after obtaining approval from the Minister of Justice.
The Registered Foreign Lawyer Act prior to the amendment (hereinafter referred to as “Former Registered
Foreign Lawyer Act”) prohibited Registered Foreign Lawyers from employing attorneys (Former Registered
Foreign Lawyer Act Article 49, paragraph 1). Additionally, it prohibited, in principle, Registered Foreign
Lawyers from entering into joint enterprises and sharing profit with attorneys or LPCs (Former Registered
Foreign Lawyer Act Article 49, paragraph 2) with an exception that entering into specified joint enterprises
was allowed only if certain requirements were met (Former Registered Foreign Lawyer Act, Article 49-2),
that is, only when a Registered Foreign Lawyer formed a joint enterprise with a certain Japanese attorney(s)with five years or more practicing experience through a partnership agreement or other continuous contract
to provide legal services in a specific area.
In the process of rapid socio-economic globalization in Japan, however, in order to meet the increasing needs
for comprehensive and integrated legal services encompassing Japanese and foreign laws, the necessity offorging closer alliances and collaborative relationships among Japanese attorneys and Registered Foreign
Lawyers grew stronger. Thus, the Former Registered Foreign Lawyer Act was partially amended (and tookeffect on April 1, 2005) to repeal the prohibitions against Registered Foreign Lawyers on hiring attorneys,establishing joint enterprises, and sharing profit. Alternatively, the amended Registered Foreign Lawyer Act
requires Registered Foreign Lawyers who intend to employ or enter into joint enterprises with Japanese
attorneys to submit a notification to the JFBA (amended Registered Foreign Lawyer Act Article 49-3).
Furthermore, in order to prevent Registered Foreign Lawyers from engaging in conduct beyond the scope of
the authorized qualification by leveraging the fashion of employment or the joint enterprise as a loophole,
the amended Registered Foreign Lawyer Act imposes certain restrictions on the conduct of Registered
Foreign Lawyers and employed attorneys (amended Registered Foreign Lawyer Act Article 49 and 49-2).

4.1 Change in the Number of Registered Foreign Lawyers over Time
Figure 1-4-1 presents the change in the number of Registered Foreign Lawyer registrations over time. Since
the launch of the Registered Foreign Lawyer system in 1987, the number of Registered Foreign Lawyers has
been increasing in the long term, albeit it reached a plateau at one point in time. As of April 2020, the numberof registered foreign lawyers is 436.
Figure 1-4-1

Change in the Number of Registered Foreign Lawyers over Time

(Persons)
450
400

360

436

350
300

267

250
189

200
150
100
50
0

78

87

1993

1998

31

1988

2003

2008

2013

2020
(Year)[Note]
1. The numbers are as of April 1 of each year.
2. The Registered Foreign Lawyer Act took effect on April 1, 1987. Therefore, there was no registered foreign lawyer
registered on the date.

39

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

4.2 Registration of Registered Foreign Lawyers
Figure 1-4-2

Breakdown of Registered Foreign Lawyers(As of April 1, 2020)[By Bar Association]
Daini Tokyo
Dai-ichi Tokyo
Tokyo
Osaka
Aichi Prefecture
Kanagawa Prefecture
Fukuoka Prefecture
Hyogo Prefecture
Ibaraki Prefecture
Shizuoka Prefecture
Gifu Prefecture
Okinawa
Iwate Prefecture[By nationality]*1
U.S.A.
Japan
U.K.
China
Australia
CanadaGermany
New ZealandFranceIndia
TaiwanPhilippines
Singapore
BrazilSouth Korea
Ireland
Switzerland
PolandBulgaria
Spain
Nepal
Samoa
GreeceBelgium
Russia(Total: 436 persons)
183
137
88
8
5
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1

[By Home Jurisdiction]*2
Numbers in parentheses show female lawyers.
Total: 436 (79) persons(Total: 442 persons)
143
83
46
44
28
18
14
7
6
6
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

U.S.A.
225 (27)
New York ·························· 106 (16)
California ··························· 57 (3)Hawaii ······························· 16
Washington DC ···················· 14 (1)Illinois ································· 9 (1)Virginia ································ 5 (1)Massachusetts ························ 3 (2)Washington ··························· 3
New Jersey ···························· 2 (1)North Carolina························ 2 (1)Georgia ································ 1Tennessee ····························· 1
Texas ··································· 1Connecticut ··························· 1Louisiana ······························ 1 (1)Missouri ······························· 1
Colorado ······························ 1
Oregon ································· 1
U.K.
77 (13)China
45 (16)Australia
28 (7)New South Wales ·················· 15 (3)Victoria ······························ 8 (4)Western Australia ···················· 2
Queensland ··························· 3
Germany
11 (1)
Canada10
Ontario ································ 6
British Columbia ····················· 4France6Singapore
3 (3)New Zealand
4 (3)Philippines
4 (3)
India
6 (1)
Hong Kong
2 (1)Brazil3 (1)Taiwan5 (3)Switzerland
2
Spain
1
Russia1
Nepal
1
South Korea
2[Note]
1. Some individuals are of dual nationalities, in which case both nationalities were counted.
2. Some individuals have licenses in multiple jurisdictions, in which case all jurisdictions were counted.
3. In principle the country names are as described in the Roll of Registered Foreign Lawyers.

40Chapter 4. Facts about Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi)

4.3 Status of Alliances in the Form of Foreign Law Joint Enterprises
A foreign law joint enterprise (Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo) means an enterprise jointly operated by a Registered
Foreign Lawyer or a Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporation and an attorney or a legal professional
corporation under a partnership agreement or other continuous contract for the purpose of providing legal
services (Registered Foreign Lawyer Act Art. 2, item 15). Registered Foreign Lawyers and Registered
Foreign Lawyer Corporations who are going to enter into foreign law joint enterprises are required to submit
a notification to the JFBA (Registered Foreign Lawyer Act Art. 49-3 and Art. 50-13). As of April 1, 2020, theforeign law joint enterprises which submitted the notification are as follows.
Figure 1-4-3

Status of Alliances with Foreign Law Joint Enterprises(As of April 1, 2020, in order of the date of notification submission)(Unit: Persons)Registered
Attorneys*1 LPCs*2 Foreign(Females)
Lawyers*3(Females)Name of Registered Foreign Lawyer Office
Name of Law Firm
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Horitsu Jimusho
Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny & Myers Horitsu Jimusho
Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny & Myers Horitsu Jimusho
White & Case Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
White & Case Horitsu Jimusho
Skadden Arps Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Skadden Arps Horitsu Jimusho
Clifford Chance Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Clifford Chance Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Linklaters
Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Linklaters
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Orrick Tokyo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Ashurst Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Ashurst Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo･Jones Day Horitsu Jimusho
Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo·Jones Day Horitsu Jimusho
Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Morrison & Foerster Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Morrison & Foerster Horitsu Jimusho
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho
Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Bengoshi Hojin Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho
Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Baker & Mckenzie Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Baker & Mckenzie Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Nishikawa Sidley Austin Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Nishikawa Sidley Austin Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
DLA Piper Tokyo Partnership Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
DLA Piper Tokyo Partnership Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Hogan Lovells Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Hogan Lovells Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho
Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho

41

Registered
Employed
Foreign Employed Registered
Lawyer Attorneys*4 Foreign
CorporaLawyers*5
tions

2 (1)

1

7

1

1

6

5 (1)

5

2

19

4

1

2

1

3

4 (2)

24

2

4 (1)

4

22

3

5 (1)

2

11

2

1

1

4

4

3

2

13

5

1

3

1

4

3

2 (1)

5

4

1

3

1

90

1

2

1

4

4

28 (3)

11 (1)

74

3

1

1

3

1

5 (1)

3 (1)

1

1

2

1

6

1

1

1

0

1

1

2

4
1
1
2

1

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

Registered
Attorneys*1
Foreign
LPCs*2(Females)
Lawyers*3(Females)Name of Registered Foreign Lawyer Office
Name of Law Firm
K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Nihon Saitsu Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Bengoshi Hojin Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho
Kobe Sejong Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Kobe Sejong Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Janssen Foreign Law Joint Enterprise with Atsumi & Sakai
Atsumi Sakai Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Atsumi Sakai Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Atsumi Sakai Horitsu Jimusho Bengoshi Hojin
Squire Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Squire Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Anli Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Toranomon Chuo Horitsu Jimusho
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Horitsu Jimusho
Shikuma Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Takagi Horitsu Jimusho
Southgate Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Southgate Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Debevoise & Plimpton Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Debevoise & Plimpton Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Okuno Sogo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Bengoshi Hojin Okuno Sogo Horitsu Jimusho
Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
King & Wood Mallesons Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
King & Wood Mallesons Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Dacheng Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Verybest LPC
Samon Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Hojin
Hayashi Yasuhiro Horitsu Jimusho
Wizardz Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Hojin
Wizardz Bengoshi Hojin
Simmons & Simmons Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho
Shimin Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Tsuyuki∙Akazawa Horitsu Jimusho
Asai·Dadi Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Asai·Dadi Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Hojin
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Horitsu Jimusho
Lefèvre Pelletier & Associés Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Hojin
Kanezuka Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Shimin Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
Bengoshi Hojin Prelude
Tozai Sogo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Tozai Sogo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo
Total

4
0

1

3

Registered
Employed
Foreign
Employed Registered
Lawyer4
Attorneys*
Foreign
CorporaLawyers*5
tions

5

4

1

1

1

1

8 (4)

1

1

131

6

0

1

3

124

6

5

4

10

1

14 (2)

1

31

1 (1)

1

5

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

1 (1)

1

0

1

25

1

1

2

2

1

4

1 (1)

35

0

1

1

1
0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1
8

4

17

1

1

1

1 (1)

1 (1)

1 (1)

0

1

5

1

1 (1)

0

1

1

1

0

1

1
146 (19)

8

1

1

1

2

6

80 (7)

5688

72[Note]
1. “Attorneys” represent the number of attorneys who are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises.
2. “LPCs” represent the number of LPCs engaging in foreign law joint enterprises.
3. “Registered Foreign Lawyers” represent the number of Registered Foreign Lawyers who are engaged in foreign law joint
enterprises.
4. “Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations” represent the number of Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations engaging inforeign law joint enterprises.

42Chapter 4. Facts about Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi)

5. “Employed Attorneys” represent the number of attorneys who are hired by attorneys, LPCs, registered foreign lawyers orRegistered Foreign Lawyer Corporations that are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises and it includes corporate
members of LPCs.
6. “Employed Registered Foreign Lawyers” represents the number of Registered Foreign Lawyers who are hired byattorneys, LPCs, Registered Foreign Lawyers or Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations that are engaged in foreign law
joint enterprises and it includes members of Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations.
7. Attorneys whose registration was cancelled were excluded from the above data. For those who transferred to another law
firm, their count was excluded from the number for the former firm regardless of whether or not a notification of
employment termination was officially filed with the JFBA.

4.4 Incorporations of Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations (Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Hojin)
A Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporation (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi-Hojin) is a corporation comprised of
exclusively Registered Foreign Lawyers (Registered Foreign Lawyer Act Art. 50-4) which provides legal
services related to foreign laws (Registered Foreign Lawyer Act Art. 50-5). The partial amendment to theRegistered Foreign Lawyer Act (effective March 1, 2016) enabled Registered Foreign Lawyers to form
Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations.
One Foreign Lawyer Corporation was incorporated between April 2019 and March 2020. As of April 1, 2020,
there are eight Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations in Japan.
The tables below show the number of incorporations of Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporations by fiscal
year and by the local bar association to which they belong.

Figure 1-4-4

Number of Incorporations of Foreign Lawyer
Corporations and Number of their Members
and Employed Attorneys over Years

Figure 1-4-5

Year of Incorporation
2016 2017 2018 2019
(Fiscal Year)
Number of Incorporations
5
0
3
1
of Corporations
Total Number of5588Corporations
Number of Corporate
5588Member Attorneys(Number )of Employed0036
Attorneys()[Note]: Based on notifications of incorporation received up
to March 31, 2020.

Number of Registered Foreign Lawyer
Corporations of Each Local Bar Association

Year of Incorporation(Fiscal Year)
Tokyo

2016

2017

2018

2019

0

0

2

1

1
1

1

Dai-ichi Tokyo
Daini Tokyo

2

3

4

5

Kanagawa

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

5

5

8

8

Hyogo
Total

2

[Note]: Based on notifications of incorporation received up
to March 31, 2020.

43

Part 1. Legal Profession Statistics

4.5 Employment Status of Attorneys Hired by Registered Foreign Lawyers or Registered
Foreign Lawyer Corporations
When a Registered Foreign Lawyer or a Registered Foreign Lawyer Corporation (gaikokuho jimu bengoshi
hojin) intends to employ an attorney, they must provide advance notification to the JFBA (Registered Foreign
Lawyer Act Art. 49-3 and 5-13). The employment status reported by the notifications is presented below.
Figure 1-4-6

Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Employment Status of Attorneys Hired by Registered Foreign Lawyers or Registered
Foreign Lawyer Corporations

Number of Employers
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1

Female
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

(As of April 1, 2020) (Unit: Persons)
Number of Employed
Number of Employed Attorneys
Registered Foreign Lawyers
Total
Total
FemaleFemale
2
1
1
0
4
2
4
1
10
3
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
8
3
2
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
6
2
1
0
1
1
5
2
22
7
3
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
0

[Note]
Attorneys whose registration was cancelled were excluded from the above data. For those who transferred to another law
firm, their count was excluded from the number for the former firm regardless of whether or not a notification of employment
termination was officially filed with the JFBA.

4.6 Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and LPCs
When an attorney or an LPC intends to employ a foreign lawyer, they must submit a notification to the JFBA.
The “foreign lawyer” is defined as an individual whose professional function is to provide legal services ina foreign jurisdiction* and whose qualification is equivalent to that of the Japanese attorney at law(Registered Foreign Lawyer Act Art. 2, para. (ii)).
* In the case of a federal state stipulated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, the “foreign
jurisdiction” refers to its constituent units including federated states, territories, and others specified
by the Ordinance)
Figure 1-4-7 and Figure 1-4-8 display the number of foreign lawyers employed by attorneys and LPCs indescending order of the number of notification submissions, by their nationality, and by jurisdiction where
they obtained the attorney’s license, respectively. Registered Foreign Lawyers are not included in the countsof these tables (see p. 39 for information about Registered Foreign Lawyers).
4.6.1 By Nationality
Of the five largest nationalities, U.S. lawyers form the biggest group, followed by Australian, British,
Japanese, and Chinese lawyers.
4.6.2 By Jurisdiction Where the Attorney’s License was Obtained
Attorneys who hold a U.S. license outnumber those who are of U.S. nationality, implying a large number ofpeople who are licensed as an attorney in the U.S. The second largest group is attorneys with the British(U.K.) license, followed by those licensed in Australia.

44Chapter 4. Facts about Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi)

Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by

Figure 1-4-7 Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by

Figure 1-4-8 Attorneys and LPCs, by Jurisdiction Where

Attorneys and LPCs, by Nationality

They Obtained their Attorney’s License

As of April 1, 2020 (Unit: Persons)FiscalYear
Nationality

U.S.
Australia
U.K.
Japan*1
China
CanadaSingapore
South Korea
Germany
India
TaiwanNew ZealandPhilippines
Indonesia
BrazilFranceIreland
Malaysia
RussiaVietnam
Netherlands
SwedenIceland
Italy
Malta
Slovakia
Belgium
Jamaica
Sri Lanka
IsraelPolandZimbabwe
Kenya
Uzbekistan
Total

18
3
11
11
7
3
1
3
1

2
1

13
8
10
14
2
1
1

1
1

15
21
14
11
6
2
3
1
1
2
1

2

1

1

1

14
10
6
2
4

1

1

3
1
1

1
1

12
12
3
8
3
3
1
2
3
3
1

5
2
1
1

2

1
1

2

1
1

53

1
2
1
2

22
9
16
6
3
4
2
1
3
2
1
1

18
13
10
11
16
3
1
6
1

2
2
1

1
1
2
3
2
1
2

1
2
1

1
1
1

18
9
7
4
4
2
1
1

1

1

1

1

1

81

59

U.S.
34
U.K.
18
Australia
3
China
6
Germany
1Singapore
1
India
New Zealand 1
Philippines
1
Hong Kong
1
CanadaTaiwanBrazil1
Indonesia
Russia1South Korea
FranceBulgaria
Malaysia
Ireland
Malaysia
Vietnam
Netherlands
Italy
MexicoSouth Africa
SwedenJamaica
Belgium
Uzbekistan
Spain

19
11
12
11
7
3
4
2
4
6
4
4
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1

1

1

65

9
9
8
4
2
4
2
1
4
1

51

55

1

71

56

As of April 1, 2020 (Unit: Persons)FiscalYear
Licensing
Jurisdiction

1
1
1
1

Total

68

20
20
7
2
1
1
1
1

1

28
32
18
5
1
4
2

1
1

24
9
6
3
2

18
12
9
4
1
3

17
15
10
2
4
2
1

1

1

1

1

1
2

4

1
1
1
3
1

1

1
2
2
1
2

1

1

25
11
10
4
1

36
20
11
16
1

2
1
1

1
2
1

1
1

1
2
3
2

1
1

1

1

35
21
10
5
4
4
6
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1

2
1

1
1

2

1

1

55

4
2

1

1
1

1

35
22
12
7
2
2
3
1

1
1
1
93

57

55

62

93

60

97

109

[Note]
1. The above data were organized based on the date of
employment shown on the notifications submitted up to
April 1, 2020.
2. Because some individuals are licensed in multiple
jurisdictions, the above numbers are running totals.

92 103[Note]
1. “Japan” represents the number of lawyers who are ofJapanese nationality and licensed in foreign
jurisdictions.
2. The above data were organized based on the date of
employment shown on the notifications submitted up
to April 1, 2020.

45

PartP043_CW6_A7196CD001.indd

43

2

Activities of Attorneys

2021/02/17

18:47:08

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys
Chapter 1. Criminal Advocacy Activities
Attorneys have wide-ranging duties that are continually expanding. One of the most important activities inwhich only attorneys are allowed to engage is that of acting as a criminal advocate. Recently, various changes
in criminal defense practices have started to occur, due partly to the series of criminal justice reforms suchas the introduction of the lay judge system in trials. The various ways in which attorneys are engaged as
criminal advocates are outlined below.

1.1 Duty Attorney (Toban Bengoshi) and Court-Appointed Defense Counsel Systems for Suspects

Figure 2-1-1

Flow of Procedure in Criminal Cases (from Arrest to Institution of Prosecution) and the Roleof Attorneys[Activities toward prevention of detention]
Interview, Settlement negotiation, etc.

Occurrence of
Crime

ArrestA court-appointed defense
counsel for suspects is
appointed (depending on thecase）.

Institution ofProsecution

Detention

Commencementof Investigation
Duty attorney can be requested.
→ Request→ Appoint as a private defense counsel

Charges
Dropped[Activities toward dropping of charges and release from physicaldetention]
Interview, Request for disclosure of the grounds for detention, Request
for rescission of the detention, Appeal against the detention and theextension thereof, Settlement negotiations, etc.

[Note]
1. At any stage, it is possible to appoint a private defense counsel.
2. In appointing a private defense counsel, the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System can be used under certain
conditions.

1.1.1 Outline of Duty Attorney (Toban Bengoshi) and Court-Appointed Defense Counsel System
for Suspects
Under the duty attorney system, a bar association dispatches an attorney when it receives a request from anarrested and detained suspect or from a member of their family, etc. In principle, an attorney visits them on
the day of the request, and the first consultation is provided free of charge.
The court-appointed defense counsel system is a system in which a court appoints an attorney as counsel fora defendant (a person who has been indicted) or a suspect (a person who has not been indicted) when adefendant or a suspect is unable to appoint counsel privately because of indigence or other reasons andrequests that the court appoint an attorney. Also, a court may appoint one ex-officio under certain conditions.
Until September 2006, there was no court-appointed defense counsel system for suspects. This changed in
October 2006, when the court-appointed defense counsel system for suspects was introduced to cover casesthat should be tried by a panel court, and this system was extended in May 2009 to cover all cases in which
the presence of a defense counsel is mandatory. In accordance with the amendment of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in May 2016 (effective as of June 1, 2018), the scope has been further expanded to cover all cases
where a detention warrant has been issued to a suspect. For cases which will not be covered by this system,
suspects can still use the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System, which has been self-funded by the JFBA andother bar associations.

48

Chapter 1. Criminal Advocacy Activities

1.1.2 Current Situation of the Duty Attorney (Toban Bengoshi) System
The duty attorney system plays an important role in ensuring access to counsel for suspects for whom adetention decision has not been made or suspects in criminal cases that fall outside the scope of the courtappointed defense counsel system (the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in May 2016, andaccordingly, the scope of cases eligible for the court-appointed defense counsel system was expanded
effective June 1, 2018 to all criminal cases where a detention warrant has been issued to a suspect).
The following table shows the details of the duty attorney system in recent years.
The number of “Cases Undertaken” is the number of cases in which attorneys who had interviewed suspects
or defendants as duty attorneys accepted to privately undertake the cases. The number of “Criminal Suspect
Defense Aid Cases” is the number of cases for which the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System granted aid
for defense expenses due to financial difficulties of the suspects. The number of “Juvenile Attendant Aid
Cases” is the number of the juvenile cases for which the Juvenile Attendant Aid System granted aid forattendant expenses. Attorneys who were dispatched as duty attorneys undertook most of the cases coveredby both systems.
Figure 2-1-2

Details of the Duty Attorney System in Recent Years
Duty Attorney Registrations

Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Attorneys
Registered(persons)
13,843
14,447
16,59016,84017,744
18,266
17,214
17,171

Amount ofAttorneys
Registered
43%
43%
47%
46%
47%
45%
43%
42%

Criminal Suspect
Defense Aid Cases*3
Rate of
Cases
Increase
8,503
30%
10,05918%
11,182
11%
11,716
5%
12,455
6%
12,613
1%
6,446
-49%
4,456
-31%

Duty Attorney Requests
Rate of
Increase

Cases
43,67445,803
48,21050,70551,37052,98047,264
41,160

15%
5%
5%
5%
1%
3%
-11%
-13%

Juvenile Attendant Aid
Cases*3
Rate of
Cases
Increase
8,104
1%
7,781
-4%
4,887
-37%
3,423
-30%
2,681
-22%
2,012
-25%
1,591
-21%
1,334
-16%

Cases Undertaken by Duty Attorneys
Cases
18,17920,31021,55422,85825,382
24,363
21,636
20,240Rate of
Increase
22%
12%
6%
6%
11%
-4%
-11%
-6%

Amount of
Cases
Undertaken*2
45%
49%
48%
49%
53%
50%
50%
53%

Number of
Detention Requests*4
Rate of
Cases
Increase
113,6172%
111,476-2%
109,258-2%
109,8451%
105,669-4%
101,258-4%
99,967-1%
95,278-5%[Note]
1. Statistics related to duty attorneys are based on calendar years (from January 1 to December 31 of each year), except for
the numbers of duty attorney registrations and the rate of duty attorneys registered, which are as of February 1 of eachyear.
2. The denominator of “Rate of Cases Undertaken” is the number of cases undertaken by duty attorneys except for cancelled,unclear, or uncertain cases.
3. The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases” and “Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases” is that of completed cases ineach financial year of the Japan Legal Support Center.
4. The “Number of Detention Requests” is based on the added number of cases involving both “detention permitted” and“detention rejected” in the “measures taken after arrest” section of the “Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution” foreach year.
5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole numbers.

49

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

1.1.3 Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cases, and Criminal
Suspect Defense Aid Cases
The number of requests for duty attorneys nationwide has gradually decreased from the peak seen in 2006,
due to the court-appointed defense counsel system for suspects launched on October 2, 2006. Since 2012,
however, the number of requests has been increasing. Even after the scope of the court-appointed defense
counsel system for suspects was expanded in 2009, between 40,000 and 50,000 cases are still undertaken by
duty attorneys each year. This illustrates the fact that the duty attorney system continues to be both necessary
and important.
The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases” is the number of cases in which suspects without
enough financial resources used the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System and were granted aid for defense
expenses before the institution of prosecution. The number of these cases dropped significantly in 2019 to
4,456, reflecting the expansion of the scope of the court-appointed defense counsel system effective June 1
in the same year to cover every suspect against whom a detention warrant was issued.
The Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System was operated by the Japan Legal Aid Association from 1990 by
the request of the JFBA. The system provided aid for defense expenses in cases where attorneys wereprivately appointed but it was difficult for the suspects to afford the attorneys' expenses. This system has
always suffered from budget shortages so the JFBA established the Emergency Fund for Duty Attorney
System in 1995 to support the system. This fund was replaced with the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal
Defense in June 2009.
Figure 2-1-3

Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cases, andCriminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases(Cases)80,00070,000 67,711 67,826

Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases
Number of Duty Attorney Appointed Cases
Number of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases

63,396 64,708

60,00051,46250,00040,00043,67445,803

48,21050,705 51,370

10,00047,264
41,16038,074 37,952

30,00020,00052,98013,808 14,250 13,050 14,901
12,237 12,524 12,438
7,556 11,457 6,956
5,318 6,565
8,290 8,480

18,1790

20,310 21,554

22,85825,382 24,363

11,182 11,716
8,503 10,059

21,636 20,240

12,455 12,613
6,446

4,456

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019(Year)[Note]
1. The number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases and the number of Duty Attorney Appointed Cases are based on
calendar years (from January 1 to December 31 each year).
2. The number of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases in 2007 is the sum of the cases for which aid was actually grantedby the JFBA from April to September 2007 (statistics taken as of the end of March 2008) and the number of cases inwhich aid commencements were decided by the Japan Legal Support Center from October 2007 to March 2008. The
number after 2008 is that of completed cases of each fiscal year at the Japan Legal Support Center. The numbers
before 2006 are the numbers of cases for which aid was actually granted by the Japan Legal Aid Association.

50

Chapter 1. Criminal Advocacy Activities

1.1.4 Public Defense System Available Prior to Institution of Prosecution
1.1.4.1 Operation Status of Court-Appointed Defense Counsel System for Suspects
Since the Court-Appointed Defense Counsel System for Suspects has been introduced, the rate of cases inwhich attorneys are appointed prior to the institution of prosecution has increased remarkably.
In the period shortly after arrest, attorneys are required to provide various types of support, such as giving
advice on how to deal with interrogation by the investigating authority and working on achieving earlier
release from detention, among others. The court-appointed defense counsel system for suspects has been
expanded to all cases for detained suspects since June 1, 2018, but it is desirable if the scope of the publicdefense system can be further expanded in the future to also include arrested suspects prior to the decision toplace them in detention.
The following charts show the respective situations of defendants who have been represented by attorneys
from the pre-prosecution phase of ordinary first instance cases at district or summary courts. (It should be
noted that the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure came into force in June 2018 and the scope ofcases covered by the court-appointed defense counsel system for suspects was expanded accordingly.)
Figure 2-1-4

Situations of Defendants with Attorney (from pre-prosecution phase) at District Courts(%)(Persons)

80,00070,00070,61067,64465,875 64.2

66.5

60,00056.0

50,00040.7

51.7

40,00030,00020,00068.0

19.8

22.1 24.5

10,000

14.1

14.9

0

4.4

5.9

2007

2008

15.0
2009

62,840

69.7
56.3

69.2
55.6

68.5

52,229 52,502

67.6

68.4

71.3

70.0

60.5
54.2

54.6
57,968 56,734

67.8

80.0

53.3

52.9

60.0

55.4

50.0
40.0

54,297 53,247
50,591 49,811

48,751

30.0
20.0
10.0

11.8

10.8

12.0

13.5

13.6

14.3

14.4

14.7

12.9

10.8

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

0.0

(Year)

Total (Finalized) Cases (persons)Rate of Defendants with Counsel (%)

Rate of Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel (%)

Rate of Defendants with Court-appointed Counsel (%)

51

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

Figure 2-1-5

Situations of Defendants with Attorney (from pre-prosecution phase) at Summary Courts(%)(Persons)

80.0

14,00012,000

11,482

10,632 10,715

10,0000

64.8

61.0 61.4

62.3

60.2

9,142

8,340 8,109

68.0
63.3
7,165

34.2

6,000

2,000

66.1

9,876

8,000

4,000

65.2

64.2

64.9

64.7

59.2

60.0

58.3

5,856

5,524

6,590

64.8

67.4

67.9

62.3

63.2

0.6
2007

5.0

40.0
5,051

4,511

2009

30.0
20.0

2.8

3.2

3.9

4.6

4.7

5.7

4.7

6.4

5.1

4.7

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

0.6
2008

60.0
50.0

27.8
4.7
4.1
6.5
5.6

70.0

10.0
0.0

(Year)

Total (Finalized) Cases (persons)Rate of Defendants with Counsel (%)

Rate of Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel (%)

Rate of Defendants with Court-appointed Counsel (%)[Note]
1. The data is based on the “Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal Part)”.
2. “Total (Finalized) Number of Cases” indicates the actual number of persons whose cases have been finalized, namely,by either the rendering of a judgment of conviction, the making of a decision to close a trial, or the withdrawal of aclaim for a formal trial, in the applicable period (year).
3. In cases in which a defendant has retained private counsel and has had counsel appointed by the court, both counsel
are counted.
4. All the rates are relative to “Total (Finalized) Number of Cases”.

52Chapter 1. Criminal Advocacy Activities

1.1.4.2 Permission or Rejection for Detention Requests
It is difficult to quantify the results from the increased appointments of attorneys in the pre-prosecution phase.
However, some results could be inferred from the statistics of permission or rejection of requests for detention.
Although the number of persons for whom a detention request was dropped had remained roughly under 200
from 1990 to 2002, it has increased since 2003, and continued to rise to 4,919 persons in 2019 (see Figure 21-7 below). An increasing trend can also be seen in the rejection rate of requests for detention, although thesechanges are very slight. Thus, while other factors may have influenced this, it appears that the early
involvement of attorneys in criminal cases through the Duty Attorney System has contributed to these trends.
Figure 2-1-6

Year
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Changes in the Permission/Rejection Rate of Detention Requests
Detention
Request(persons)
72,597
87,156
115,625
142,272
115,804
111,699
113,617
111,476
109,258
109,845
105,669
101,258
99,967
95,278Permitted(persons)

Rejected(persons)

72,47187,058115,391
141,775
114,567
110,373
112,047
109,686
106,806
106,979
102,089
97,357
95,07990,359Permission Rate

Rejection Rate

99.8%
99.9%
99.8%
99.7%
98.9%
98.8%
98.6%
98.4%
97.8%
97.4%
96.6%
96.1%
95.1%
94.8%

0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
1.1%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
2.2%
2.6%
3.4%
3.9%
4.9%
5.2%

126
98
234
497
1,237
1,326
1,570
1,790
2,452
2,866
3,580
3,901
4,888
4,919

[Note] Data up to 2010 is shown in five-year increments.
Figure 2-1-7

Changes in the Number of Persons whose Detention Request has been Rejected(Persons)
5,000

4,919

4,500
4,000
3,500
2,866

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500

1,237

1,000
500
0

126

98

234

1990

1995

2000

497
2005

2010

2015

[Note]
The above graph was made by the JFBA based on the statistics of measures taken at the time of and after arrest in
the “Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution”.

53

2019
(Year)

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

1.2 The Status of Defense Attorneys’ Involvement in Overall Criminal Cases
1.2.1 The Status of Court-Appointed Defense Counsel Contracts and the Number of Defendants with
Court-Appointed Defense Counsel
Since October 2006, courts, etc. have appointed court-appointed defense counsel from the list of courtappointed defense counsel contracted with the Japan Legal Support Center (“Contracted attorneys”).
The table below shows the number of Contracted attorneys, the number of defendants with courtappointed defense counsel, and the number calculated by dividing the number of defendants with courtappointed defense counsel by the number of Contracted attorneys.
Figure 2-1-8

Number of Defendants per Attorney Contracted as Court-Appointed Defense Counsel

Number of Contracted Attorneys (2019.12.1）*1
Number ofPercentage ofContracted Attorneys Contracted
Attorneys(persons)
29,460Total Number ofAttorneys (persons)(2019.12.31)*2

70.0%

Number of Defendants
with Court-Appointed Number of Defendants
per
Defense Counsels
Contracted Attorney(persons)(persons)(2019)*3

42,05845,5581.5[Note]
1. The number of Contracted Attorneys is as of December 1, 2019 from the statistics taken by the Japan Legal Support
Center.
2. The total number of attorneys as of December 31, 2019 is used in line with the number of defendants with courtappointed defense counsels taken as of December 2019.
3. The number of defendants with court-appointed defense counsels is obtained by adding the numbers at all the district
and summary courts based on the “2019 Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal Part)”.

1.2.2 Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Institutionof Prosecution) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at District Courts
The total number of criminal cases (the total number of persons whose cases have been finalized) handled at
district courts peaked in 2003 and 2004 at approximately 80,000, and since then has been gradually
decreasing. In these cases, almost 100% of defendants had defense counsel. When observing the percentage
of defendants with privately retained counsel and those with court-appointed counsel, the number of courtappointed counsel cases has been increasing year after year, reaching 85.0% in 2019. On the other hand,private counsel cases have decreased to approximately 17%.
Figure 2-1-9

Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel(after Institution of Prosecution) at District Courts(Persons)
97.3
90,00096.9

80,00070,00060,00050,00040,00030,00066.1
49,85670.8
61,64097.9

99.0

81,25180.1

75.0

65,875

99.5

99.6

(%)
100.0

84.4

85.0

90.0
80.0

52,50270.0
48,751

50.0
32.5

27.0

40.0

24.4

22.8

20,00019.5

17.0

10,000
0

60.0

30.0
20.0
10.0

1994

1999

2004

2009

Total (Finalized) Cases (persons)Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel (%)

2014

2019
(Year)

Defendants with Defense Counsel (%)
Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel (%)

54

0.0

Chapter 1. Criminal Advocacy Activities

1.2.3 Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Institutionof Prosecution) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at Summary Courts
The total number of criminal cases (the total number of persons whose cases have been finalized) at summary
courts has been decreasing in recent times. Defense counsel is retained in almost 100% of the cases, most ofwhich are appointed by courts.
Figure 2-1-10

Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel(after Institution of Prosecution) at Summary Courts(Persons) 97.0
16,00014,00012,00010,00083.6
10,430

96.8

97.7

87.5

89.7

11,762

14,448

98.7

98.9

93.5

93.5

50.0
4,511

2,000
1994

10.0

1999

80.0
60.0

7,165

14.1

90.0
70.0

6,000

0

90.9

10,715

8,000

4,000

98.4 (%)
100.0

8.7

7.9

7.6

8.4

2004

2009

2014

2019
(Year)

Total (Finalized) Cases (persons)Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel (%)

40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

Defendants with Defense Counsel (%)
Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel (%)[Note]
1. The data is based on the “Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal Part)”.
2. “Total Number of Cases” indicates the actual number of persons whose cases have been finalized, namely, by either
the rendering of a judgment of conviction, the making of a decision to close a trial, or the withdrawal of a claim for a
formal trial, in the applicable period (year).
3. In the case that both a privately retained counsel and a court-appointed counsel being appointed to the same defendant,
both appointments are counted.
4. The percentage of “Defendants with Defense Counsel” is relative to “Total Number of Cases” (the total number of
persons whose cases have been finalized).

55

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

1.2.4 Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Institutionof Prosecution) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at High Courts
In regard to criminal defense counsel in cases heard by high courts, the percentage of defendants who retained
a court-appointed defense attorney is approximately 70%, which is relatively low compared to those in
district courts or summary courts.
Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel(after Institution of Prosecution) at High Courts

Figure 2-1-11

(%)
100

(Persons)
10,000
9,000

94.6

93.1

8,000
65.7

7,000
6,000

55.7

5,000

4,808

4,000
3,000

6,049

92.6

92.1

70.1

72.2

96.7
74.9

96.7 90
70.7

7,258

9,170

5,890

5,828

50
40

28.8

24.5

23.9

23.9

29.6

30
20
10

1,000
0

70
60

40.3

2,000

80

1994

1999

2004

2009

Total (Finalized) Cases (persons)Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel (%)

2014

2019
(Year)

0

Defendants with Defense Counsel (%)
Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel (%)[Note]
1. The data is based on the “Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal Part)”.
2. “Total Number of Cases” indicates the actual number of persons whose trials have been finalized, namely, by either
the rendering of a judgment of conviction, the making of a decision to close a trial, or the withdrawal of a claim for a
formal trial, in the applicable period (year).
3. In the case that both a privately retained counsel and a court-appointed counsel being appointed to the same defendant,
both appointments are counted.
4. The percentage of “Defendants with Defense Counsel” is relative to the “Total number of Cases” (the total number of
persons whose trials have been finalized).

56

Chapter 1. Criminal Advocacy Activities

1.3 Defense Activities in Juvenile Cases
Juveniles who are accused of having committed crimes are referred to the family court to attend juvenile
proceedings. This can be contrasted to the situation for adults who are accused of having committed acrime, as they are both required to attend criminal trials. However, unlike in criminal trials, at juvenile
proceedings, there is no system for appointing attorneys as defense counsel for juveniles. Having said
that, for juvenile cases, a juvenile may, at any time, appoint an attendant acting in the role of providing
protection for the juvenile’s rights. In the Juvenile Act, attendants are not limited to attorneys; however,in practice, most attendants are attorneys.
In order to have facts properly verified, attorney attendants conduct activities such as listening to thejuvenile, examining evidence and making various assertions to the family court, etc. Since juveniles
have not yet reached full maturity, there is greater risk of juveniles, as opposed to adults, being
influenced to making false confessions even though they did not commit a crime. Thus, attorneyattendants are duty-bound to protect juveniles from being subjected to miscarriages of justice.
Furthermore, attorney attendants support the rehabilitation of juveniles who have engaged indelinquency and criminal acts. In terms of the background of juveniles committing such acts, in mostcases, the juveniles in question have relationship problems with their family, such as having been
subjected to physical abuse from their parents or guardians. The activities of attorney attendants havebeen leading to the achievement of the rehabilitation of juveniles; namely, working on helping juveniles
to achieve improvements in their family relationships or improving their environment by finding anappropriate school or workplace for them. In addition, attorney attendants conduct activities such as
meeting with the victim to convey an apology from the juvenile, and performing necessary activities
concerning the provision of compensation for the damage suffered by the victim.
Even though attorney attendants have been playing an important role for juveniles, among the juveniles
who have attended juvenile proceedings, the rate of cases with appointed attorney attendants has been
extremely and disappointingly low for a long time. The main reason for this is that the system forproviding court-appointed attorney attendants for juveniles through public funds for juveniles withlimited financial sources did not exist until 2000 when the Juvenile Act was revised. In addition, evenafter the introduction of this system, the juvenile cases for which court-appointed attorney attendants
are able to attend are limited to certain serious types of cases.
Faced with this situation, the JFBA has established the Duty Attorney Attendant System and the legal
aid system for attorney attendants in juvenile protection cases in order to help as many juveniles as
possible receive legal aid by attorney attendants. Moreover, the JFBA has sought a substantial expansion
in the scope of the court-appointed attorney attendant system. As a result, the number and the rate of
appointed attorney attendants has risen dramatically in the 2000s (see Figure 2-1-12), and the activities
the JFBA has been addressing have achieved a significant expansion in the scope of cases to which
court-appointed attorney attendants are to be appointed from June 2014 (see Figure 2-1-13).

57

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

Figure 2-1-12

Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the
Proportion of Cases in which Attendants are Present（％）(Persons)

300,000

100.0

98.9

95.6

250,000
200,000

90.0

94.3

80.0

88.3

203,217

79.3

74.0

150,000

0

60.0
50.0

100,000
50,000

70.0

1.1
1994

78,18678,969

4.4

5.7

1999

2004

20.7

54,253

19,589

11.7

Total Number of (Finalized) Cases (persons)

10.0

2019

2014

With Attendant (%)

30.0
20.0

37,713

2009

40.0

26.0

Without Attendant (%)

0.0(Year)[Note]
1. The statistics are based on the “Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Juvenile cases)” and the materials given by theSupreme Court.
2. The total number of cases from 1999 excludes those cases referred to summary courts, those involving death or injury
through negligence in the pursuit of social activities when driving vehicles, those transferred to other courts, or those
jointly tried that were not counted as completed cases (subordinate cases). From 2002, the number also excludes cases
involving death or bodily injury through dangerous driving.
3. A person other than an attorney may be an attendant. The statistics of “with attendant” and “without attendant” above
include attendants other than attorneys.
Figure 2-1-13

Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the
Proportion of Cases in which Attendants are Present
Cases with Attendants (persons)Total Number ofJuvenile Probation
Cases
Year
(persons)

Number of Cases forwhich Measures for
Detention and Shelter
Care have been
Others
Decided (persons)

2004

78,969

4,468

4,135

Attorneys
Privately Retained
Court-appointed
NumberNumberRate
Rate
of Casesof Cases
4,134
100.0%
1
0.0%

62

271

16,736

2005

70,088

4,623

4,358

4,353

99.9%

5

0.1%

56

209

15,476

2006

63,630

4,489

4,233

4,230

99.9%

3

0.1%

60

196

14,124

2007

59,697

4,423

4,149

4,102

98.9%

47

1.1%

67

207

12,391

2008

54,054

4,876

4,651

4,200

90.3%

451

9.7%

43

182

11,527

2009

54,253

6,344

6,137

5,625

91.7%

512

8.3%

45

162

11,241

2010

53,632

7,474

7,248

6,906

95.3%

342

4.7%

61

165

10,6392011

48,886

8,217

8,033

7,655

95.3%

378

4.7%

35

149

10,186

2012

46,583

8,745

8,612

8,291

96.3%

321

3.7%

31

102

10,0472013

40,987

8,477

8,366

8,046

96.2%

320

3.8%

31

80

9,196

2014

37,713

7,790

7,701

6,009

78.0%

1,692

22.0%

24

65

8,160

2015

32,740

7,114

7,026

3,837

54.6%

3,324

45.5%

29

59

7,258

2016

27,708

6,526

6,449

3,201

49.6%

3,255

50.4%

17

60

6,313

2017

24,603

5,942

5,869

2,747

46.8%

3,124

53.2%

11

62

5,570

2018

21,625

5,753

5,694

2,304

40.5%

3,390

59.5%

9

50

5,345

2019

19,589

5,098

5,044

1,973

39.1%

3,071

60.9%

9

45

4,626

Guardian[Note]
1. The statistics are based on the “Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Juvenile cases)” and the materials given by theSupreme Court.
2. In cases where both a privately retained attendant and a court-appointed attendant are appointed to the same juvenile
probation case, such as the case where a court-appointed attendant is dismissed because of the appointment of a
privately retained attendant, the appointment of the court-appointed attendant is counted.

58

Chapter 1. Criminal Advocacy Activities

1.4 The Lay Judge System
1.4.1 Cases Determined by Lay Judges
On May 21, 2009, the Act on Criminal Trials Examined under the Saiban-in (lay judges) system was enacted
and the Saiban-in system was implemented. After approximately 65 years since the expiration of the JuryAct in 1943, a system allowing citizens to participate in the criminal trial was once again implemented.
The Saiban-in system aims to achieve “better criminal trials,” where citizens having a wide range ofexperiences and coming from many different backgrounds participate in trials directly, and where penal trial
principles, such as the presumption of innocence, are honored. Moreover, it is a further aim of the system toassist in bringing about common sense being more heavily reflected in the judicial process as well as torevitalize the democracy of the country and to strengthen the national foundations in relation to its judicial
system.

Under the Saiban-in system, lay judges (numbering six, in principle) selected from the general public,
serve alongside professional judges (numbering three, in principle) in examining cases involving certain
serious crimes, namely, (1) crimes punishable under statute by the death penalty or indefinite imprisonment
with or without work, and (2) crimes punishable under statute by short-term imprisonment of one year or
more, and which are legally prohibited to be tried by a single judge (i.e., the cases stipulated in Article 26,
Paragraph (2), item (ii) of the Court Act), in addition to cases in which victims have died through intentional
criminal acts. Lay judges, heavily involved in all steps of the criminal proceedings, help to determine thefacts and decide on sentences with an authority that is basically equivalent to that of the professional judges
involved. The lay judges make a strong contribution to criminal trial procedures in that they assist with thedetermining of facts and the assessing of cases. Saiban-in trials are conducted at District Courts (50 locations)in addition to certain branches thereof (10 locations).
The table below shows the number of prosecuted cases before Saiban-in in 2019 based on the charges broughtin the case.
Figure 2-1-14

The Number of Prosecuted Cases per Charges Subject to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials(January 2019 - December 2019)
ChargeRobbery Causing Injury
Homicide
Arson of Inhabited Buildings
Rape Causing Death or Injury
Injury Causing Death
Indecent Assault Causing Death or Injury
Rape and Armed Robbery etc.
Robbery Causing Death or Injury
Dispersion of Counterfeit Currency
Counterfeiting Currency
Gang Rape Causing Death or Injury
Dangerous Driving Causing Death
Abandonment Causing Death by a Person Responsible for Protection
Other Crimes under the Penal CodeViolations of the Stimulants Control Act
Violations of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Control Act
Violations of the Criminal Regulations to Control Explosives
Violations of the Act for Controlling the Possession of Firearms or Swords and Other Such Weapons
Crimes Other than those stimulated in the Penal Code
Total

Number of
Cases
223
256
100
57
75
78
16
18
18
5
0
16
6
1
258
33
0
8
1
1,169

[Note]
1. The above data was collected and prepared by the JFBA based on materials provided by the Supreme Public
Prosecutors' Office.
2. The numbers shown above were calculated on the basis of one prosecution case per accused.
3. In the above data, in cases of the prosecution of crimes to be subjected to Saiban-in (lay judges) trials featuring morethan one crime contained in a written prosecution, the most severe crime in terms of the severity of statutory penalties

59

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

available has been chosen to be counted as one crime. If the severity of the applicable statutory penalty is the same, a)in the case of crimes stipulated in the Penal Code and crimes other than those stipulated in the Penal Code, crimes
stipulated in the Penal Code were chosen to be counted as the one crime, and b) in the case of more than one crime
being stipulated in the Penal Code, the crime first set forth therein, i.e. in an earlier Article, was chosen.
4. In terms of crimes committed and attempts thereof, not only the crimes themselves but also the attempts have been
included.
5. Regarding the number of crimes other than those stipulated in the Penal Code, only cases processed by Saiban-in (layjudges) trials are counted.

1.4.2 Actual Practice of Lay Judge Trials
1.4.2.1 The Number of Persons Who Have Been Subjected to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials that Have
Been Disposed of
The following table shows the number of persons who have been subjected to trials which have been tried
before judges that include lay judges (hereafter referred to as “Saiban-in trials”) over which the final
judgments thereof have been rendered between the period of January and December 31, 2019. Based on thenumber of attorneys, the number of persons whose trials have been disposed of per attorney was calculated.
Figure 2-1-15

Number of Persons Who Have Been Subjected to Saiban-in Trials and Whose Trials Have
Been Disposed of and the Number of Such Persons per Attorney

Number ofJanuary 2019 to December 31, 2019
persons whose
trials have been
disposed of*2
Convicted,
Transferred
Convicted but partly Acquitted to the family(Persons)
acquitted
court
1,021

976

11

13

1

Others*3

Number of
attorneys*4(2018.12.1)(persons

Number of
persons
whose trials
have been
disposed of
per attorney(persons)

20

37,3300.03[Note]
1. The data is based on the “Materials relating to the actual practice status of lay judge trials in 2019,” created by theSupreme Court of Japan, i.e., the actual number of persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courtsof first instance over ordinary criminal cases.
2. “Number of persons whose trials have been disposed of” indicates the actual number of defendants disposed of,namely, either the rendering of a judgment of conviction, the making of a decision to close a trial, or the withdrawal ofa claim for a formal trial, in the applicable period (year).
3. “Others” indicates dismissing the prosecution, transferring the case to other courts, and so on.
4. The “number of attorneys” is as of December 1, 2019.

1.4.2.2 Comparison of the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations and the Average Period of
the Pretrial Conference Procedure (by confession and denial), etc.
The amount of time taken for court deliberation at Saiban-in trials varies greatly between “denial” cases inwhich the issue of whether or not the crime has been committed is in dispute, and “confession” cases in which
the issue of whether or not the crime has been committed is no longer in dispute. The tables below show theaverage period taken for court deliberations for confession and denial cases, the average periods of the pretrial
conference procedure (compared to those in the past) (see Figure 2-1-16) and the periods taken for court
deliberations (see Figure 2-1-17), as well as the actual period taken for court deliberations (see Figure 2-118) for Saiban-in trials and that have been finalized during the year 2019 (from January 2019 to December2019).

60

Chapter 1. Criminal Advocacy Activities

Figure 2-1-16

Comparison of the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations and the Average Periodof the Pretrial Conference Procedure (by confession and denial) (by before/after the
introduction of the Saiban-in system)

Trials by professional judges
only*6 (2006-2008)

Saiban-in Trials

DenialConfession

Total

Total

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of persons whose
3,080 11,541 142
cases have been disposed of*1,4

1,506 1,525 1,500 1,387 1,202 1,182 1,104

966

1,027 1,001

Average period (months) taken
for court deliberations*2,3

6.6

9.1

5.0

8.3

8.9

9.3

8.9

8.7

9.2

10.0

10.1

10.1

10.3

Pretrial conference
procedure

2.9

7.0

2.8

5.4

6.4

7.0

6.9

6.8

7.4

8.2

8.2

8.2

8.5

Other trial procedures

3.7

2.1

2.2

2.9

2.5

2.3

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.9

1.8

Number of persons whose
1,783 6,280
cases have been disposed of*1,4

114

970

885

806

725

644

623

568

449

496

491

Average period (months) taken
for court deliberations*2,3

5.3

7.4

4.8

7.4

7.3

7.2

7.1

7.0

7.4

8.0

7.9

7.7

7.9

Pretrial conference
procedure

2.4

5.4

2.8

4.6

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.4

5.8

6.5

6.1

6.1

6.4

Other trial procedures

2.9

2.0

2.0

2.8

2.3

2.0

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.5

Number of persons whose
1,297 5,261
cases have been disposed of*1,4

28

536

640

694

662

558

559

536

517

531

510

Average period (months) taken
for court deliberations*2,3

8.3

11.3

5.6

9.8

10.9

11.7

10.9

10.6

11.2

12.1

12.1

12.3

12.5

Pretrial conference
procedure

3.7

8.9

3.1

6.8

8.3

9.1

8.5

8.5

9.1

10.1

10.0

10.0

10.5

Other trial procedures

4.6

2.4

2.5

3.0

2.6

2.6

2.4

2.1

2.1

2.0

2.3

2.3

2.0

[Note]
1. The number of persons whose cases have been disposed of indicates the actual number of persons.
2. The period taken for court deliberation indicates the period from institution of prosecution to finalization of the trial,
including the preparation period for the trial.
3. The average period (months) taken for pretrial conference procedure was calculated excluding the cases which had
opened without involvement of lay judges, but due to subsequent changes in the applicable penal code, were tried as
Saiban-in trials, and thus had their conference procedures after the opening of the case.
4. The number of persons whose cases have been disposed of includes cases which were eventually transferred to a
family court, as stipulated in Article 55 of the Juvenile Act. However, the above figures exclude cases in which theappeal has been dismissed without deliberations, even if having been conducted by a collegiate panel that includes lay
judges.
5. The above figures do not include cases which have been determined as exceptional cases and were tried byprofessional judges only, as stipulated in Article 3-1 of the Act on Criminal Trials Examined under Lay Judge System.
6. Trials which have been tried by professional judges only are calculated by adding up the number of cases that arefound guilty and not guilty among the cases that were included in the scope of Saiban-in trials and held pretrial
conference procedures.

61

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

Figure 2-1-17

Total
Confession
DenialNumber of Persons whose Cases Have Been Disposed of (by period taken for court
deliberations) and the Average Period of Court Deliberations in 2019 (by Confession and
Denial)Number of
persons
whose cases
have been
disposed of(person)
1,001
491
510

Period taken for court deliberations
3monthsor less

Between3-4
months

Between
4-5
months

Between
5-6months

6
6
-

35
31
4

83
67
16

132
95
37

Between Between
6-9
9 months months
1 year
295
165
130

219
84
135

Over
1 yearAverageduration(months)

231
43
188

10.3
7.9
12.5

[Note]
1. This data is based on the actual number of persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courts of first
instance over ordinary criminal cases.
2. This data includes the number of cases whose trials opened without being subject to Saiban-in trials, but during theprocess were added other cases subject to Saiban-in trials.
Figure 2-1-18

Total
Confession
DenialNumber of Persons whose Trials Have Been Disposed of Compared to the Actual Period
Taken for Court Deliberations (from the first trial until the trial has been disposed of)(by Confession and Denial) and the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations in 2019

Number of
persons
whose cases
have been
disposed of(person)
1,001

2 days3 days4 days

-

96

491
510

-

91
5

Period taken for court deliberations
Averageduration(days)

5 days

Less
than
10
days

Less
than
20
days

Less
than
30
days

Less
than
40
days

40
days
or
more

104

76

370

281

50

12

9

10.5

86
18

59
20

188
182

59
222

8
42

12

9

6.8
14.1

[Note]
1. This data is based on the actual number of persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courts of first
instance over ordinary criminal cases as well as the results of the individual research conducted by the Criminal
Affairs Bureau of the Supreme Court of Japan.
2. As for the cases in which sectional deliberations were conducted, the total of all periods taken for deliberations as
Saiban-in trials was counted as the actual period taken for deliberation.
Sectional deliberation: In the event of a defendant being indicted for more than one (criminal) case in a Saiban-in trial,
the trial may be divided into multiple sections/parts (each trial in charge of one or more of the cases involved), andlay-judges are assigned for each section to conduct deliberations. After a ruling has been rendered for each section, acollegiate panel, to which newly appointed lay judges are added, conducts a deliberation on all the cases for which thedefendant is indicted, in order to decide on the final sentencing.
3. As for the cases in which trials were first conducted only by professional judges, and which, at a later date, were
subjected to Saiban-in trials due to the prosecution of another case and then a collegiate panel that includes lay judges
conducted deliberations, the period for deliberations during which lay judges participated is counted as the actual
period taken for deliberations.
4. As for the cases in which initially assigned lay judges were dismissed due to the delay of trial date, only the actual
deliberation period during which re-assigned lay judges participated in is counted.
5. Regarding those other than the periods described in Notes 2, 3, and 4, the actual deliberation periods are calculated asfrom the time of the first trial until the closing of the trial.
6. The figures presented on this page are drawn from Materials on the Saiban-in System Implementation Status, etc. 2019
created by the Supreme Court of Japan, as well as the materials provided by the Supreme Court of Japan.

62Chapter 2. Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits

Chapter 2. Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits
Activities in relation to civil cases are one of the important practices for attorneys. Such activities range
widely to include civil, family affairs and administrative proceedings at courts, Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), administrative tribunals, various hearing procedures, negotiations, legal counseling, andso on. The role attorneys play in the lives of civilians and in corporate activities is clearly quite significant.
This chapter contains matters related to civil affairs at courts and attorneys' activities concerning civil cases,
which have been compiled based on statistical data.

2.1 Civil Lawsuits
2.1.1 Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before District Courts
The total number of lawsuits tried in district courts has been decreasing since 2011. Despite an increase in2016, it dropped again from 2017 through 2019. Overall, the involvement of attorneys stood at approximately
91.5% in 2019. Observing the data categorized by the purpose of the lawsuit, the percentage of appointments
in lawsuits concerning labor and intellectual property matters is high.
Figure 2-2-1

Changes in the Rate of Appointed Attorneys' Involvement in the First Instance ofOrdinary Civil Lawsuit before District Courts
(%)
100.0

(Cases)250,000

200,000

80

79.2
156,683

150,000

83.1

77.9

159,032

86.8

90.0

74.9

80.0

192,24670.0
149,930

138,040

138,68260.0
50.0

100,000

40.0
30.0

50,000

20.0
10.0

0

1993

1998

2003

2008

Total Number of Cases

63

2013
With Attorneys (%)

0.0
2018
(Year)

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

Figure 2-2-2

Attorneys' Involvement in Lawsuits at District Courts (by Purpose) (2019)

Total
NumberPurpose of Lawsuit
Personnel Affairs
Money
Payment for Contracted
Construction
Damages throughConstruction Defects
Damages through Medical
Treatment
Damages through Pollution
Labor
Intellectual Property

Total
NumberCases with Attorneys
Percentage
One PartyofBoth Parties
Plaintiff
Defendant
Involvement
－
－
－
－

－

－

89,89883,393

92.8%

50,03430,1953,164(1416)(1,362)

96.2%

(935)

(390)

(37)

(448)

(446)

99.6%

(389)

(34)

(23)

(821)

(795)

96.8%

(659)

(76)

(60)

(64)

(59)

92.2%

(37)

(19)

(3)

(2,571)(2,530)98.4%(2,212)

(211)

(107)

(288)

(258)

89.6%

(184)

(31)

(43)

Other

(84,290)(77,943)

92.5%(45,618)(29,434)(2,891)

Buildings

25,10921,706

86.4%

2,909

18,664

133

Land
Labor (Except for Lawsuits
Concerning Money)
Intellectual Property (Except for
Lawsuits Concerning Money)
For Injunction against Pollution

6,948

6,428

92.5%

2,731

3,556

141

866

856

98.8%

772

38

46

258

246

95.3%

207

25

14

5

3

60.6%

3

－

－

Other

8,476

7,735

91.3%

5,097

2,2408398

131,560

120,367

91.5%

61,75354,718

3,896

Total

[Note]
1. The statistics of Figure 2-2-1 and Figure 2-2-2 are drawn from Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Civil and
Administrative Affairs Part). “With Attorneys” on Figure 2-2-1 means cases in which attorneys were appointed by one
party or both parties.
2. The jurisdiction over lawsuits related to personal status such as divorce was transferred to family courts on April 1, 2004.

2.1.2 Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before Summary Courts
The number of lawsuits had been increasing since 2000; however, it dropped in 2011. The increase in thenumber of lawsuits before 2011 is said to have been influenced by lawsuits relating to excessive payments
of interest (lawsuits related to requests for the return of excessive or usurious interest filed against money
lenders). Regarding attorneys and other representatives’ involvement (in ordinary civil lawsuits before
summary courts), the percentage of parties involved without legal representation (denoted by “Without
Representatives” in the graph below) is quite high.

64Chapter 2. Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits

Figure 2-2-3(Cases)700,000

Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits(Summary Courts)
(%)

89.2

89.6

600,000

100.0
622,492

87.4

70.6

500,000

307,8500

70.0

320,607339,903

18.1
10.4

9.7

1999

20.1

18.4
9.8

3.1

1994

50.0
40.0

245,674

10.8

80.0
60.0

347,843

200,000
100,000

75.1

63.8

400,000
300,000

90.0

2004

2009

Total Number of Cases
With Judicial Scriveners' Participation (%)

2014

With Attorneys (%)
Without Representatives (%)

20.0
5.3

2019
(Year)

30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

[Note]
1. The statistics are based on the materials provided by the Supreme Court.
2. It includes ordinary lawsuits which were transferred from actions on small claims.
3. Statistics of lawsuits with judicial scriveners’ participation are taken from 2003.
4. Summary courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits claiming an amount of up to 1,400,000 yen raised from 900,000 yen
since April 2004.
5. “With Attorneys” and “With Judicial Scriveners' Participation” means lawsuits in which attorneys or judicial
scriveners were appointed by one or both parties.

2.1.3 Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instance Trials(before High Courts)
The total number of cases has been showing a downward trend in recent years. The percentage of appointed
attorneys has remained stable at approximately 95%.
Figure 2-2-4 Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instances (High Courts)(Cases)
25,00020,00015,000

(%)
100.0
94.4
14,60994.5

92.8

16,435

16,336

93.8

94.7

95.5

80.0
70.0

15,308

15,10290.0

12,22810,000

60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0

5,000

20.0
10.0

0

1994

1999

2004

2009

Total Number of Cases

2014

With Attorneys (%)

2019(Year)[Note]
1. The statistics are based on Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Civil and Administrative Affairs Part).
2. “With Attorneys” means cases in which attorneys were appointed by one or both parties.
3. The total number of cases in 2004 and 2005 include one case received as an appeal of a civil case but had a final
judgment as an appeal of an administrative case.

65

0.0

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

2.1.4 Labor Tribunal Cases(1) Number of Labor Tribunal Cases Newly Accepted by and Concluded at District Courts
The labor tribunal system came into force in April 2006. This system aims to achieve prompt and intensive
proceedings and resolution of civil disputes arising from individual labor matters. The system hasestablished proceedings which are conducted by a labor tribunal composed of one judge and two specialists
with expertise in labor relations (one specialist on the employee side, and the other on the employer side),and each matter is to be concluded by the third date for proceedings, by way of methods such as mediation.
The number of newly accepted labor tribunal cases had been gradually increasing from the coming into forceof the system until 2009, and has remained almost unchanged since 2010.
Figure 2-2-5 Number of Newly Accepted Labor Tribunal
Cases by Case Type (at District Courts)

Figure 2-2-6 Number of Concluded Labor Tribunal Cases
by Reason (at District Courts)

Unit: Cases
Type of Case

Unit: Cases
Reason forConclusion
Labor Tribunal
Decision
Filing of
Challenges
No Filing of
Challenges
Conciliation
Settled
Article 24
Applied

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

1,634

1,564

1,557

1,563

1,632

1,567

1,516

1,511

1,504

1,601

67

48

46

59

31

2,045

1,850

1,812

2,067

2,033

Wages,
Allowances, etc.*

1,559

1,393

1,353

1,592

1,534

Retirement Money

105

96

84

86

94

Withdrawn

Others

381

361

375

389

405

Dismissal,
Transfer, etc.

3,679

3,414

3,369

3,630

3,665

Total

Non-Monetary
PurposeConfirmation of
StatusOthersMonetary Purpose

Total

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

613
503
487
504
579
(16.7%) (14.3%) (14.4%) (14.7%) (15.8%)
372
317
284
343
307
(60.7%) (63.0%) (58.3%) (68.1%) (53.0%)
241
186
203
161
272
(39.3%) (37.0%) (41.7%) (31.9%) (47.0%)
2,497
2,551
2,421
2,491
2,614
(68.0%) (72.4%) (71.8%) (72.6%) (71.2%)
193
128
159
148
167
(5.3%) (3.6%)(4.7%)(4.3%)(4.6%)
340
305
264
245
281
(9.3%) (8.7%)(7.8%)(7.1%)(7.7%)
31
37
41
41
29
(0.8%) (1.0%)(1.2%)(1.2%)(0.8%)
3,674
3,524
3,372
3,429
3,670
(100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%)*: including dismissal notice payment[Note]
1. The above tables were produced by the JFBA based on materials provided by the Supreme Court.
2. “No Filing of Challenges” includes cases for which there was no confirmation at the time the data was compiled as towhether or not a filing of challenge had been made.
3. The rates of “Filing of Challenges” and “No Filing of Challenges” are calculated by dividing the total number of cases
where labor tribunal decisions were made by the number of cases with and without a filing of challenge, respectively.
4. For “Article 24 Applied,” see Note 4 for Figure 2-2-8 on the next page.
5. The total percentage of all data types may not add up to exactly 100 as the individual numbers are rounded off to one
decimal place.
Figure 2-2-7

Changes in the Number of Newly-Accepted Labor-Related Civil Cases (at District Courts)(Cases)
4,000

3,468

3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000

2,035

2,246

2,441

1,494

2,052

2007

2008

3,218

3,375

3,586

3,127

3,170

2010

2011

3,719

3,678

3,358

3,341

3,254

2012

2013

2014

3,416

3,679

3,414

3,526

3,630

3,389

3,392

3,369

3,496

2015

2016

2017

2018

3,665
3,615

877

500
0

2006

2009

Ordinary Civil Cases Related to Labor

Labor Tribunal Cases[Note] The above tables were produced by the JFBA based on materials provided by the Supreme Court.

66

2019
(Year)

Chapter 2. Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits(2) Status of Appointing Agents in Labor Tribunal Proceedings at District Courts
The data shows that the percentage of matters settled through mediation (conciliation) is higher when agentsare appointed by both parties, which suggests that attorneys acting as agents contribute to achieving early
resolution through negotiations to a certain extent, which is one of the main characteristics of the labor
tribunal system.
In proportion to the total number of concluded labor tribunal proceedings (17,669 cases), the total percentage
of concluded labor tribunal cases for which a filing of challenge was made (1,624 cases) was 9.2%, and thetotal percentage of cases concluded without a filing of challenge (1,062 cases) was 6.0%.
Figure 2-2-8

Number of Concluded Labor Tribunal Cases by Reason and Status of Appointing Agents(at District Courts, from 2015 through 2019)(Unit: Cases)
Appointment
by BothParties

Appointment
Only byPetitioner

Appointment
Only by
Opposing
Party

No
Appointment
by Either
Party

1,958
14.1%
1,307
66.8%
651
33.2%
10,657
77.0%
606
4.4%
591
4.3%
30
0.2%
13,842100.0%

321
18.7%
99
30.8%
222
69.2%
646
37.7%
82
4.8%
594
34.7%
71
4.1%
1,714
100.0%

318
21.0%
190
59.7%
128
40.3%
1,010
66.8%
71
4.7%
110
7.3%
3
0.2%
1,512
100.0%

89
14.8%
28
31.5%
61
68.5%
261
43.4%
36
6.0%
140
23.3%
75
12.5%
601
100.0%

Labor Tribunal
Decision
Filing of
Challenges
No Filing of
Challenges
Conciliation Settled
Article 24 Applied
Withdrawn
Dismissal, Transfer,
etc.
Total

Total
2,686
15.2%
1,624
60.5%
1,062
39.5%
12,574
71.2%
795
4.5%
1,435
8.1%
179
1.0%
17,669100.0%[Note]
1. The above table was produced by the JFBA based on materials provided by the Supreme Court. Data used for 2019
cover the period until December of the same year and are based on preliminary figures.
2. “No Filing of Challenges” includes cases for which there was no confirmation at the time the data was compiled as towhether or not a filing of challenge had been made.
3. The rates of “Filing of Challenges” and “No Filing of Challenges” are calculated by dividing the total number of cases
where labor tribunal decisions were made by the number of cases with and without a motion of objection, respectively.
4. “Article 24 Applied”: When a labor tribunal finds that conducting labor tribunal proceedings is unsuitable for the
prompt and proper resolution of the dispute due to the nature of the case, it may close the labor tribunal case. (Article
24 of the Labor Tribunal Act)
5. The total percentage of all data types may not add up to exactly 100 as the individual numbers are rounded off to one
decimal place.
<Reference Data> Status of Appointing Agents
Appointment by
Both Parties

Appointment Only
by Petitioner

Appointment Only
by Opposing PartyNo Appointment byEither Party

Total

Number of Cases

13,842

1,714

1,512

601

17,669Percentage

78.3%

9.7%

8.6%

3.4%

100.0%[Note]
The above table was produced by the JFBA based on materials provided by the Supreme Court. Data used for 2019 cover theperiod until December of the same year and are based on preliminary figures.

67

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

2.2 Supporting Activities for Criminal Victims
Supporting activities for criminal victims is also an important duty for attorneys.
In accordance with the Basic Act on Crime Victims established in 2004, which provides that all crime victims’
individual dignity will be respected and that appropriate measures of treatment will be taken accordingly,
various rights and interests of crime victims are recognized by law, including the right to claim for damages
and the right to participate and state opinions in the criminal procedures for the accused.
Further, the systems to provide support for victims were established in December 2008: the Victim
Participation System*1 and the Court-appointed Attorney System for Victims*2.
The activities that attorneys perform to support victims consist mainly of the following: i) explaining relevant
procedures; ii) drafting letters of complaint; iii) accompanying the victim during questioning, etc.;iv) negotiating with the accused for settlement as a representative; v) dealing with the press; vi) claiming fordamages, vii) acting as a Court-appointed Attorney for Victims (when criminal victims participate in thecriminal trials of the alleged perpetrator).
Attorneys’ fees for these supporting activities may be subsidized or paid by installment under a financial
assistance system established for criminal victims.
: The Victim Participation System is a system under which the victims of certain serious crimes, as well as
relatives and attorneys who are entrusted by such persons, can attend criminal trials. This system has been
applied to cases in which prosecution was instituted on or after December 1, 2008.
*2: The Court-appointed Defense Counsel System for Victims is a system under which remuneration and
expenses for attorneys who are engaged in activities to support victims' participation may be paid by thenational government under certain conditions.
*1

Figure 2-2-9

Implementation Status of the Victim Participation System(Cumulative Numbers)

Year Participating

Examination Questions to
Testimonyto CourtClosing Statement on
Victims (subject to Entrustment
of
the
with
Appointed
toArguments*5 Sentiments*6*2
3
4
lay judge trial)
Attendants
Attorneys Attorneys Witnesses* Accused*

Putting
Shield at
Trail

2009
560
(22)
367
131
130
344
288
359
24
50
2010
839
(262)
557
272
217
484
428
522
40
115
2011
902
(320)
632
275
176
459
454
591
30
104
2012
1,002
(327)
677
324
193
475
479
639
38
95
2013
1,297
(366)
873
410
257
596
605
833
47
147
2014
1,227
(366)
951
462
261
587
596
804
93
195
2015
1,377
(417)
1,081
533
269
604
686
938
87
249
2016
1,396
(400)
1,100
578
228
629
707
1,008
106
256
2017
1,380
(333)
1,060
552
196
558
665
1,020
115
276
2018
1,485
(363)
1,184
649
221
605
698
1,074
149
362
2019
1,466
(320)
1,157
602
204
623
723
1,059
106
318
[Note]
1. This data is based on Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal part).
2. “Participating Victims” refers to the number of victims or others (in total) who have been approved as participants incourt at the ordinary first instance. The figures within the brackets indicate the number of victims who haveparticipated in the cases examined under the Saiban-in (lay judge) system. The figures for 2009 are ones reported fromMay 21 to December 31.
3. “Examination of Witnesses” is based on Article 316-36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in examining witnesses,
the participating victim or the entrusted attorney can examine the witness on matters necessary to challenge the probativevalue of the statements of the witness with regard to the matters relating to the circumstances affecting the sentence(except for matters relating to fact-finding).
4. “Questions to the Accused” is based on Article 316-37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. “Closing Arguments” is based on Article 316-38 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The participating victim or theentrusted attorney can state an opinion on the finding of facts or the application of law (including an opinion regarding
the sentencing) within the scope of the facts specified as counts.
6. “Statement on the Sentiments” is based on Article 292-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The participating victim, etc.,
or the legal representative of such victim can state an opinion on the sentiments or other opinions relating to the case.

68

Chapter 2. Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits

2.3 JFBA Support Activities for Affected People in Relation to the Great East Japan Earthquake
The JFBA set up an Emergency Headquarters shortly after the Great East Japan Earthquake and the
Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant Accident. In cooperation with other bar associations, federations ofbar associations and the Japan Legal Support Center (Ho-terasu), the JFBA has conducted consultations over
the telephone and/or visiting shelters, local governments and/or temporary housing to conduct free legal aid
consultations. In order to resolve various kinds of issues that have surfaced from those consultations, the
JFBA has been engaged in various activities to support the affected people by way of releasing a wide varietyof legislative and policy recommendations, etc.
2.3.1 Recommendations, etc. the JFBA has Issued and Legislation and Systems Realized
The following list outlines the legislation and systems realized from the time of the Great East Japan
Earthquake in March 2011 up until the end of April 2014.
Legislation and systems significantly related to recovery from damage and reconstruction of the lives of theaffected and the victims of the nuclear power plant accident have been realized as shown in the table below,
such as the realization of the Act on Special Measures regarding Extinctive Prescription of Rights to Claim
Damages Caused by the Nuclear Accident, the Special Act Concerning the Extension of the Period for Due
Consideration of Acceptance or Renunciation of Inheritance, and the revision of the Act on Provision ofDisaster Condolence Grants, as well as the establishment of two ADR institutions.
Figure 2-2-10

Legislation and Systems Realized in response to the Great East Japan Earthquake

Opinions and Recommendations
Issued by the JFBA
2011.4.22

Legislation and Systems Realized

Issued the “Recommendations on
Relief from Unreasonable Debt
including Double Loan Payments
as a Result of the Great East Japan
Earthquake.”2011.8.22

Operations of the Guidelines for
Individual Debtor Out-of-Court
Workouts were launched.

2011.11.14“The Act on Corporation for
Revitalizing Earthquake affected
Business” was enacted.

2011.5.19

Issued a “Draft Outline (the firstdraft) for Emergency Measures
Act on Support for Recovery fromthe Great East Japan Earthquake.”2011.5.26

Issued an “Opinion Paper on the
Extension of the Period for Due
Consideration of Acceptance or
Renunciation of Inheritance.”

2011.6.21“The Special Act Concerning the
Extension of the Period for Due
Consideration of Acceptance or
Renunciation of Inheritance” wasenacted.

2011.5.26

Issued an “Opinion Paper Calling
for Early Revision of the Special
Act on (Temporary Treatment of)Land and Building Leases ofStricken Cities.”

2011.9.30

Non-application of “the Special
Act on (Temporary Treatment of)Land and Building Leases ofStricken Cities” was decided.

2011.5.27

Issued the “62nd JFBA General
Meeting Resolution on Relief forVictims of the Great East Japan
Earthquake, the Nuclear Plant
Accident and the Restoration andRecovery of Affected Areas.”2012.3.23“The Act on Special Measures on
Operations of the Japan Legal
Support Center to Support
Victims of the Great East Japan
Earthquake (the Act on Special
Measures for Disaster)” wasenacted.

69

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

Opinions and Recommendations
Issued by the JFBA
2011.6.23

Issued an Opinion Paper Calling
for the Revision of laws including
the “Act on Provision of Disaster
Condolence Grants.”

2011.7.29

Issued an “Opinion Paper
Concerning Revision of and
Improvement of the Operations of
the Act on Support for
Reconstructing the Livelihoods ofDisaster Victims.”

Legislation and Systems Realized
2011.7.25“The Act on Provision of Disaster
Condolence Grant” was revised.
(The scope of the subjects who
were able to receive such grants
was extended to siblings who live
together.)

2011.8.23“The Act on Provision of Disaster
Condolence Grant and the Act on
Support for Reconstructing
Livelihoods of Disaster Victims”
were revised. (Prohibition of
seizure of disaster condolence
grants, etc.)

2011.6

Made recommendations to thegovernment regarding
improvements on the readiness ofand preparations for Nuclear
Damage Compensation Dispute
Resolution (ADR).

2011.9.1

The Dispute Settlement Center for
Nuclear Disaster Compensation
started to receive applications formediated settlements.

2012.2.16

Issued an “Opinion Paper
Concerning the Enactment ofSpecial Legislation to Support theRebirth of Fukushima, and theVictims of the Fukushima Nuclear
Power Plant Accident.”

2012.6.21“Act on Promotion of Support
Measures for the Lives ofDisaster Victims to Protect andSupport Children and Other
Residents Suffering Damage dueto Tokyo Electric Power
Company's Nuclear Accident”
was enacted.

2013.7.18

Issued an “Opinion Paper Calling
for the Legislation of the Act on
Special Measures to Extend the
Period during Which Victims canClaim Compensation with
Reference to the Statute ofLimitations for Victims of the
Nuclear Accident to Seek
Compensatory Damages causedby Tokyo Electronics Power
Company (TEPCO)’s Fukushima
No.1 Nuclear Power Plant
Accident.”

2013.12.4“The Act on Special Measures
regarding Extinctive Prescriptionof Rights to Claim (Compensatory)
Damages Caused by the Nuclear
Accident” was enacted.

2014.3.19

Issued an “Opinion Paper Callingfor Special Measures to Secure
Land for Reconstruction Work”

2014.4.23“The Act on Special Zones for
Reconstruction in Response to theGreat East Japan Earthquake” wasrevised.

70

Chapter 3. Expansion of Attorneys' Activities

Chapter 3. Expansion of Attorneys' Activities
The traditional image of attorneys was that they established their offices near courts and mainly acted as
representatives or defense counsel in trials and subordinately engaged in negotiations and review of contracts
for individual cases other than trials. Many attorneys still mainly engage in trials but their fields of activity
have been broadening in order to meet the diverse range of legal needs which have emerged from theincreasingly complex social and economic situations of recent times. The JFBA is providing various kindsof support for the activities of individual attorneys but unfortunately is unable to grasp every attorney's
individual situation. The following information is based on the limited data which the JFBA currently
possesses.

3.1 Current Situation of In-house Attorneys
3.1.1 Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys
As attorneys are gaining work in a more diverse range of fields, the number of attorneys working incompanies, ministries, local governments, and other bodies while utilizing their specialist knowledge andexperience as attorneys is increasing. An in-house attorney refers to an attorney who is a staff member or
employee or is engaged as a director, board member or other officer of a government office or public or
private organization except for legal professional corporations (Art. 50, Basic Rules on the Duties ofPracticing Attorneys).
Forms of In-house Attorneys• Corporate In-house Attorney:
An attorney who is working as an employee, worker, or officer of a corporation• Public Officer with a Fixed Term:
An attorney who is employed by a central or local governmental organization for a fixed termin accordance with the related laws.
The number of in-house attorneys in Japan was 2,629 as of the end of June 2020, while the number of public
officers with fixed terms was 241 as of June 1, 2020. Only the number of public officers registered with the
JFBA as of June 1, 2020 is counted.
Figure 2-3-1(Persons)
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0

Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys

Corporate In-House Attorneys

2,418

Public Officers with Fixed Terms
2,161

2,629

1,931
1,707
1,442
1,179

428

587

771

953

86

106

120

151

187

200

198

207

238

241

89
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020
(Year)[Note]
1. The number of corporate in-house attorneys was researched by the Japan In-House Lawyers Association (JILA) on thebasis of a survey conducted by the JFBA.
2. The number of public officers with fixed terms was researched by the JFBA. Data collection dates were as of June ofeach year.

71Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

3.1.2 Situation of Public Officers with Fixed Terms
The “Act on Special Measures of Employment and Remuneration of Officials with Fixed Term of Office in
the Regular Service”, which came into force in November 2000, introduced a system enabling central
government ministries and agencies to employ persons with expert knowledge and experience or advanced
insights from outside sources for fixed terms by offering them appropriate salary levels.
In addition, through the implementation of the Act on Employment of Fixed-Term Local Public Officers
Engaged in Regular Services, since July 2002, local governments have also been able to employ persons
from outside sources in accordance with the ordinances of each local government.
Previously, attorneys were, in principle, unable to take up paid public positions (Old Art. 30, Para. 1, Attorney
Act). When attorneys wished to work for government ministries or agencies, they were required to work as
part-time staff members while retaining their registration as attorneys or rescind their registration before
taking such public positions. Under such a situation, a system which enabled central and local governmentalorganizations to employ persons from outside sources for fixed terms was introduced and Article 30 of the
Attorney Act was revised, more particularly, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Old Article 30 which restricted theassumption of public positions by attorneys were deleted (enforced on April 1, 2004).
The table below shows the ministries, agencies and local governments which employ attorneys as of June 1,
2020, as confirmed by the JFBA (only the number of attorneys registered with the JFBA as of June 1, 2020is counted.) Other than public officers with fixed terms, there are also attorneys who work for government
ministries, agencies or local governments as full-time employees.
Figure 2-3-2

Public Officers with Fixed Terms as of June 1, 2020
Total Number ofAttorneys(Female)Ministries
Cabinet Office

5 (3)Financial Services Agency

10 (1)

Consumer Affairs Agency

5 (1)Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

3 (0)Ministry of Justice

7 (2)Ministry of Foreign Affairs

6 (1)Ministry of Finance

9 (3)National Tax Agency

30 (11)

Agency for Cultural Affairs

1 (0)Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

6 (3)Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

13 (3)

Japan Patent Office

8 (1)The Small and Medium Enterprise Agency

2 (1)Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

8 (1)Ministry of the Environment

6 (2)House of Representatives

1 (1)Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

2 (1)Personal Information Protection Commission

1 (0)Subtotal

123 (35)72

Chapter 3. Expansion of Attorneys' Activities

Local Government

Total Numberof Attorneys(Female)Local Government

Total Numberof Attorneys(Female)Kitami City, Hokkaido

2 (1)Kaga City, Ishikawa Pref.

1 (1)Yamada Town, Iwate Pref.*1 (0)Gifu City, Gifu Pref.

1 (1)Ishinomaki City, Miyagi Pref.

1 (0)Nagoya City, Aichi Pref.

3 (2)Kesennuma City, Miyagi Pref.

1 (0)Toyohashi City, Aichi Pref.

1 (0)Higashi Matsushima City, Miyagi Pref.

1 (0)Okazaki City, Aichi Pref.

2 (1)Soma City, Fukushima Pref.

1 (0)Ichinomiya City, Aichi Pref.

1 (1)Minamisoma City, Fukushima Pref.

1 (0)Kasugai City, Aichi Pref.

2 (0)Ohkuma Town, Fukuchima Pref.

1 (0)Toyota City, Aichi Pref.

2 (0)Namie Town, Fukushima Pref.

1 (0)Komaki City, Aichi Pref.

1 (1)Ibaraki Pref.

1 (0)Nagakute City, Aichi Pref.

1 (1)Tsukuba City, Ibaraki Pref.

1 (0)Yokkaichi City, Mie Pref.

1 (0)Tochigi City, Tochigi Pref.

1 (1)Matsusaka City, Mie Pref.

1 (0)Oyama City, Tochigi Pref.

1 (0)Kuwana City, Mie Pref.

1 (0)Kawagoe City, Saitama Pref.

2 (0)Nabari City, Mie Pref.

2 (1)Tokorozawa City, Saitama Pref.

1 (1)Shima City, Mie Pref.

1 (0)Ageo City, Saitama Pref.

1 (1)Iga City, Mie Pref.

1 (1)Sohka City, Saitama Pref.

1 (1)Minamiise-Cho, Mie Pref.

1 (0)Chiba Pref.

1 (1)Fukuchiyama City, Kyoto

1 (0)Nagareyama City, Chiba Pref.

2 (1)Osaka City, Osaka

3 (0)Katori City, Chiba Pref.
Administration Association of Public
Welfare and Personnel Affairs for the Tokyo
Special Wards

1 (0)Sakai City, Osaka

1 (1)Ibaraki City, Osaka

2 (0)Izumisano City, Osaka

1 (0)Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo

1 (0)Kawachinagano City, Osaka

1 (0)Ota-ku, Tokyo

2 (2)Matsubara City, Osaka

1 (1)Setagaya-ku, Tokyo

1 (1)Kashiwara City, Osaka

1 (1)Nakano-ku, Tokyo1 (0)Shijonawate City, Osaka

1 (0)Nerima-ku, Tokyo

1 (1)Katano City, Osaka

1 (1)Mitaka City, Tokyo

1 (0)Osakasayama City, Osaka

1 (1)Ome City, Tokyo

1 (0)Kobe City, Hyogo Pref.

1 (1)Kokubunji City, Tokyo

1 (1)Akashi City, Hyogo Pref.

6 (2)Kunitachi City, Tokyo

1 (1)Itami City, Hyogo Pref.

1 (0)Nishitokyo City, Tokyo1 (0)Tambasasayama City, Hyogo Pref.

1 (0)Kanagawa Pref.

1 (1)Asago City, Hyogo Pref.

1 (0)Yokohama City, Kanagawa Pref.

1 (1)Nara City, Nara Pref.

2 (1)Kawasaki City, Kanagawa Pref.

1 (1)Wakayama City, Wakayama Pref.

1 (0)Odawara City, Kanagawa Pref.

1 (0)Matsue City, Shimane Pref.

2 (1)Chigasaki City, Kanagawa Pref.

1 (1)Bizen City, Okayama Pref.

1 (0)Atsugi City, Kanagawa Pref.

1 (1)Akaiwa City, Okayama Pref.

1 (0)Ayase City, Kanagawa Pref.

1 (0)Hayashima-cho, Okayama Pref.

1 (0)Niigata Pref.

1 (0)Higashihiroshima City, Hiroshima Pref.

1 (0)Niigata City, Niigata Pref.

1 (0)Hatsukaichi City, Hiroshima Pref.

1 (0)Toyama City, Toyama Pref.

1 (0)Yamaguchi Pref.

1 (0)

2 (2)

73

Part 2. Activities of Attorneys

Local Government

Total Numberof Attorneys(Female)Total Numberof Attorneys(Female)Local Government

Fukuoka Pref.

1 (1)Kagoshima City, Kagoshima Pref.

1 (1)Kitakyushu City, Fukuoka Pref.

1 (0)Kanoya City, Kagoshima Pref.

1 (0)Nogata City, Fukuoka Pref.

2 (1)Kirishima City, Kagoshima Pref.

1 (0)Koga City, Fukuoka Pref.

2 (1)Minamisatsuma City, Kagoshima Pref.

1 (0)Itoshima City, Fukuoka Pref.

1 (0)Subtotal

118 (45)

Nagasaki City, Nagasaki Pref.

1 (0)Kumamoto City, Kumamoto Pref.

2 (0)

Total

241 (80)(Ministries and Local Governments)*: Prefecture[Note] Only the number of attorneys registered with the JFBA as of June 1, 2020 is counted.

3.2 Diet Members and Head of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys
The table below shows the number of diet members and heads of local governments registered as attorneys
as of October 1, 2020.
Figure 2-3-3

Diet Members and Heads of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys
Organization

Number of Attorneys

House of Representatives

23

House of Councilors

12

Heads of Local Governments*1

6[Note]

1. The number of the Heads of Local Governments is based on the JFBA's knowledge of such as of October 2020.
2. Only the members registered to the JFBA as of October 1, 2020 are counted.

74

Part

P043_CW6_A7196CD001.indd

43

3

Activities of the JFBA and
Local Bar Associations

2021/02/17

18:47:08

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations
Chapter 1. Autonomy of Attorneys
1.1 Complaints and Dispute Conciliations
1.1.1 Complaints against Attorneys
In the event that opposing parties or clients have complaints about attorneys or legal professional corporations,they may file their complaints to bar associations. Each bar association has established a “Public Complaint
Desk” as a reception to receive and deal with complaints from citizens.
The graphs below show the number of complaints filed at public complaint desks of bar associations fromJanuary to December of 2019 classified by applicants and contents. They also show the changes in the numberof cases received at public complaint desks from 2010 to 2019.
Figure 3-1-1

Details of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks (by Applicant) (2019)(Cases)
3,000

2,829

2,713

2,500

From Clients

Others

2,050

2,000

1,850

1,500

1,239

1,000
500

369

270

Figure 3-1-2

Way ofHandling

391

264
118

74 50

Dissatisfaction
withFinal Result

726

741

651

641

0

From Opposing Parties

Delay ofHandling

0

Inappropriate
Manner or
Attitude

80

Fees

0

22

Handling of
Entrusted
Money

Others

Details of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks (by Contents) (2019)

Total number of complaints received at Public Complaint Desks: 15,653 cases (2019)
Handling of
Entrusted Money,
286 Cases (1.8%)

Others,1,692 Cases(10.8%)

Fees, 1,319 Cases(8.4%)

Dissatisfaction with Final
Result, 765 Cases (4.9%)

Way of Handling,
3,849 Cases (24.6%)

Inappropriate Manneror Attitude,
5,504 Cases (35.2%)

Delay of Handling,
2,238 Cases (14.3%)[Note] Percentage of each data may not add up to exactly 100 because they are rounded off to one decimal place.

76

575

Chapter 1. Autonomy of Attorneys

Figure 3-1-3

Changes in the Number of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks(Cases)
50,000(Persons)
50,00040,00030,00030,42931,90933,31734,74337,44536,16010,000011,12911,02011,986

2010

2011

2012

2013

40,93442,05840,00030,00020,00010,807

38,73939,865

14,822

13,89315,064

14,82914,59915,65320,00010,0002014

2015

Total Number of Complaints Received at
Public Complaint Desks (cases)

2016

2018

Total Number of Attorneys (persons)[Note]
1. The data is collected by calendar years (from January 1 to December 31).
2. The number of attorneys is as of December 31 of each year.

77

2017

2019
(Year)

0Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

1.1.2 Dispute Conciliation(1) Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received
The Dispute Conciliation System was created for resolving disputes with clients with regard to the duties ofattorneys and the practices of legal professional corporations. Under this system, bar associations
autonomously hear arguments from both parties and conciliate fairly and properly to settle amicably in thecontext of the actual situation (Article 41 of the Attorney Act).
The table below shows the total number of dispute conciliation cases newly received from 2010 to 2019.
Figure 3-1-4

Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received(Unit: Cases)
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

717

641

633

645

701

650

730

739

726

807

Total Number ofCases Received[Note]
1. Data is collected by calendar years (from January 1 to December 31).
2. The number of attorneys is as of December 31 each year.

(2) Handling of Dispute Conciliation Cases (All Bar Associations)
The graph below shows changes in the number of dispute conciliation cases handled by all bar associations
from 2010 to 2019 and also the details of the cases handled.
Figure 3-1-5

Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Handled(Unit: Cases)
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

693

676

644

607

661

696

692

798

685

806

Total Number ofCases Handled
Figure 3-1-6

Results of Dispute Conciliation Cases(Cases)
900
800
700
600

Others23
131

Withdrawals
14
133

12
115

500
400

Not settled

14
21

121

19

27

97

96

338

298

0

21

121

109

108
316
292

302

265

226

227

252

219

233

242

271

306

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

259

293

200
100

140

313

300

58

36

Settled

78

354

263

273

2018

2019
(Year)

Chapter 1. Autonomy of Attorneys

1.2 Disciplinary System for Attorneys and its Operation
1.2.1 Summary of the Disciplinary System for Attorneys
Before the current Attorney Act (Act No.205 of 1949) was entered into force, the government had beenauthorized to supervise attorneys. The current Attorney Act has realized the autonomy of attorneys, by which
the JFBA, the autonomous organization of attorneys, has been authorized to deal with the registration of
attorneys on the roster of attorneys and the JFBA and bar associations have been authorized to takedisciplinary action against attorneys and legal professional corporations (hereinafter referred to as “attorneys,etc.”). Attorneys, etc. are entrusted with the mission to protect fundamental human rights and realize social
justice (Article 1 of the Attorney Act, hereinafter referred to as “Act”). The self-disciplinary system has been
established because if the government has the disciplinary authority, it is difficult for attorneys, etc. tocomplete their mission in cases where citizens’ fundamental human rights conflict with the government’s
interests.
A disciplinary action is interpreted as an administrative action in the broad sense, which is taken under the
public authority given to the bar associations and the JFBA. This explains why an attorney etc. who has had
a disciplinary action imposed on them by a bar association may appeal under the Administrative Appeal Act(Act Art. 59) and may file a lawsuit for revocation of any such decision (Act Art. 61).
Below is the summary of the disciplinary system under the current Act.
(1) Request for Discipline
Any person who believes that there are grounds for disciplining an attorney, etc. may make a request fordisciplinary action to the bar association to which the said attorney, etc. belongs (Act Art. 58, para. 1).
(2) Investigation by Disciplinary Enforcement Committee
If there has been a request for discipline, the bar association shall initiate its Disciplinary Enforcement
Committee to conduct an investigation (Act Art. 58, para. 2). The same shall apply if a bar association itself
finds that there are grounds for disciplining an attorney, etc. (Act Art. 58, para. 2). The Disciplinary
Enforcement Committee then investigates the case and decides whether it would be appropriate to refer thecase to the Disciplinary Actions Committee for examination.
(3) Examination by Disciplinary Actions Committee
When the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee (including its subcommittee) makes a resolution that it isappropriate to refer a matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee to examine the case, the bar association
shall refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee for examination (Binding effect of resolutions,
Act Art. 58, para. 3). The same shall apply if the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee or the JFBA
Board of Discipline Review makes a resolution that it is appropriate to refer the case back to the Disciplinary
Actions Committee of the original bar association for investigation and the JFBA has referred the case backto the original bar association based on the resolution (Act Art. 64-2, para. 2 and 3, Art. 64-4, para. 1
through 3).
If the Disciplinary Actions Committee resolves that it is appropriate to discipline the accused attorney, etc.
and sets forth the details of the disciplinary action to be undertaken, the bar association (or JFBA) shalldiscipline the accused attorney, etc. (Act Art. 58, para. 5).
(4) Filing of an Objection, etc.
A Discipline-requesting party may file an objection thereto with the JFBA under the following circumstances(Act Art. 64, para. 1):(i)

The Disciplinary Enforcement Committee of a bar association adopts a resolution that it shall notrefer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee for examination and the bar association
issues a ruling not to discipline the accused attorney, etc.

(ii) The Disciplinary Actions Committee of a bar association adopts a resolution that it is appropriate
not to discipline the accused attorney, etc. and the bar association issues a ruling not to discipline
the accused attorney, etc.
79Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations(iii) A bar association has not concluded disciplinary procedures within a reasonable period(iv) The discipline-requesting party finds that disciplinary actions imposed by the bar association were
unjustly lenient.
An objection shall be filed within 3 months (Act Art. 64, para. 2). Also, in the case of (i), a disciplinerequesting party may apply to the JFBA for a discipline review by the JFBA Board of Discipline Review(composed of academic experts, excluding legal professionals) (Act Art. 64-3, para. 1) if the JFBA
Disciplinary Enforcement Committee dismissed or rejected the objection and if the JFBA adopted aresolution to that effect (Act Art. 64-2, para. 5). In that case, the application shall be made (Act Art. 64-3,
para. 1) within 30 days (Act Art. 64-3, para. 2).
Please note that the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee examines objections under the circumstances
set forth above in (i) (Act Art. 64-2, para. 1), and the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee examines
objections in cases (ii) and (iv). (Act Art. 64-5, para. 1. For (iii), these routes are also separated.
(5) Public Notice by the Official Gazette, etc.
If disciplinary actions are imposed by the bar association or the JFBA, the facts are made public by the
JFBA’s journal “Jiyu-to-Seigi (Liberty and Justice)” and the Official Gazette (Act Art. 64-6, para. 3, Art. 68of the Articles of Associations of JFBA).
The chart on the next page shows the present disciplinary system (effective from April 1, 2004).

80

Chapter 1. Autonomy of Attorneys

Figure 3-1-7

The Flow of Disciplinary Procedure for Attorneys
shows the procedural flow of objection
filings against the disciplinary procedures whichhave not been concluded within a reasonable periodof time.

Request for Disciplinary Action
Anyone may request

Bar Association
Order
Disciplinary Enforcement Committee of Bar

RequestExamination

No
Examination

Failed to Proceed within
Reasonable Period

Disciplinary Actions Committeeof Bar Association

Disciplinary
ActionFailed to
No Disciplinary
Proceed within
ActionReasonable Period

Unjustly LenientAppeal for
Examination

Order
Filing of Objection

Filing of Objection
JFBA

JFBA Disciplinary
Enforcement Committee

JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee

Examination
Appropriate

No
Disciplinary
ActionChangeDismissal
Rejection

ChangeDisciplinary
ActionDismissal
Rejection

Grounds founded
for Objection
against Prolonged
Proceedings
beyondReasonable Period

Dismissal
Rejection

Dismissal
Rejection

Grounds
founded for
Objection
againstProlonged
Proceedings
beyondReasonable
PeriodApplication for
Discipline Review

JFBA Board of Discipline Review
Lawsuit for Rescission
Examination
AppropriateTokyo High Court

81

Dismissal

Rejection

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

1.2.2 Statistics Regarding Disciplinary Action(1) Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Action (All Bar Associations)
The graph below shows the number of newly accepted requests for disciplinary action by all bar associations
from 2003 to 2019. In 2019, 4,299 requests were newly accepted.
Figure 3-1-8

Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Action(Cases)13,00012,68412,00011,000
9,585

10,000
9,000
8,000

3,898

4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0

1,127 1,268 1,192 1,367

1,596

1,849 1,885

4,299

3,480

3,347
2,348

2,681

2,864

1,402

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019(Year)[Note]
1. Data is displayed in calendar years (from the beginning of January to the end of December).
2. The number of newly accepted requests in 2007 was approximately seven times the number of the previous year. Thiswas because 8,095 requests were made against the defense counsel of the Hikari City Mother-Child Murder Case.
3. The number of newly accepted requests in 2012 was approximately twice the number of the previous year, mainly
because there were five cases in which more than 100 requests were made by one person (coming to a total of 1,899
requests for these five cases).
4. The number of newly accepted requests in 2013 exceeded 3,000 cases, mainly because there were five cases in whichmore than 100 requests were made by one person (a total of 1,701 requests for these five cases).
5. The number of newly accepted requests in 2016 exceeded 3,000 cases, partly due to the fact that there were five cases
in which more than 100 requests were made by one person (a total of 1,501 requests for these five cases).
6. The number of newly accepted requests in 2018 was four times the number of the previous year, mainly because there
were four cases in which more than 100 requests were made by one person (a total of 1,777 requests for these five cases)
and also there was an incident where 8,640 identical disciplinary requests were made against certain JFBA members.
7. In excess of 3,000 newly accepted requests for disciplinary action were reported in 2019, which is attributable in part tothe fact that a total of 1,900 similar requests for disciplinary action were filed against multiple JFBA members in relation
to related cases.

82

Chapter 1. Autonomy of Attorneys(2) Details of Handling of the Requests for Disciplinary Action (All Bar Associations)This table shows the number of requests for disciplinary action and details of handling the requests by all bar
associations from 2003 to 2019. In 2019, the number of disciplinary action taken was 95 cases. The
percentage of the total number of attorneys and legal professional corporations involved was 0.22%, as shownin the next item, and this has remained at a similar level for the past ten years.
Figure 3-1-9

Details of Handling the Requests for Disciplinary Action (All Bar Associations)(Unit: Cases)
Closed Cases

Year

Disciplinary Actions
Newly
SuspensionofAccepted
Order toPractice
Requests
Withdraw
Less 1 to 2 from Bar Disbarment
Admonition than
(*4)
Yrs.
Assoc.
1 Yr.

Total

ExpiredNo
Dismissals / Start of
Statute ofDisciplinary
Termination Disciplinary
Limitations
Action (*5)(*5, 9)
Exam
(*7)

2003

1,127

27

23

2

3

4

59

822

69 / 23

71

2004

1,268

23

19

2

3

2

49

1,023

1/ 19

94

2005

1,192

35

18

4

3

2

62

893

18

110

2006

1,367

31

29

4

2

3

69

1,232

24

115

2007

9,585

40

23

5

1

1

70

1,929

30

138

2008

1,596

42

13

2

2

1

60

8,928

37

112

2009

1,402

40

27

3

5

1

76

1,140

20

132

2010

1,849

43

24

5

7

1

80

1,164

31

132

2011

1,885

38

26

9

2

5

80

1,535

21

137

2012

3,898

54

17

6

2

0

79

2,189

25

134

2013

3,347

61

26

3

6

2

98

4,432

33

177

2014

2,348

55

31

6

3

6

101

2,060

37

182

2015

2,681

59

27

3

5

3

97

2,191

54

186

2016

3,480

60

43

4

3

4

114

2,872

49

191

2017

2,864

68

22

9

4

3

106

2,347

42

211

2018

12,684

45

35

4

1

3

88

3,633

21

172

2019

4,299

62

25

0

7

1

95

11,00938

208[Note]
1. Data is displayed in calendar years (from January 1 to December 31).
2. If a request consolidates two or more cases regarding one attorney, it is counted as one case.
3. Rescissions and/or modifications of disciplinary actions and/or decisions by the JFBA are not counted.
4. “Newly Accepted Requests” means the sum of the number of requests for disciplinary action and the number of cases
in which bar associations made attorneys subject to disciplinary procedures through their own motions.
When one person simultaneously requests disciplinary actions against two or more attorneys, it is counted as one case
per attorney.
5. The numbers of “No Disciplinary Actions” and “Terminations” reflect the total numbers at both the Disciplinary
Enforcement Committee and Disciplinary Actions Committee levels.
6. In the event that two or more resolutions and/or rulings are made in one case (e.g. Partially discipline appropriate andpartially inappropriate), they are all counted in the corresponding actions.
7. The category of “Expired Statute of Limitations” was included in “Dismissals / Terminations” in 2003, and thereafter it
has been included in “No Disciplinary Actions” since 2004.

83

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Changes in Numbers of Disciplinary Action and Their Details

Figure 3-1-10(Cases)
120

100

76

80
69

60

40

114

Disbarments
Order to withdraw from bar associations
Suspension of practice 1 to 2 years
Suspension of practice less than 1 year
Admonitions

62

59
4
3
2

23

49

2
3
4

2

18

2
3

3
2
4

70

1

5

1

60
2

23
29

1
2

13

1
5
3

80
1
7

5

98

80
5
2

27

0

35
23

31

40

42

6
3
6

97

6

4
3
4

3
5
3

26

31

106
3
4
9

43

2

9

27

24

40

43

95
88
3
1

22

1
7
0

4

25

27

17

35

26

19

20

79

2
6
3

101

54
38

61

55

59

60

68

62
45

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019(Year)(3) Ratio of Disciplinary Action (All Bar Associations)
The following graphs show changes in the ratio of disciplinary action brought wherein discipline was
imposed to the total number of such requests in all bar associations from 2002 to 2019, and the same withthe total number of members (attorneys and legal professional corporations).
(i) Ratio of Disciplinary Action wherein discipline was imposed to the Total Disciplinary Action Requests
In 2019, the ratio of disciplinary action wherein discipline was imposed to the total number of such requests
was 2.2%. The reason for the drastic change in the ratios is because of the increase and decrease in the numberof requests for disciplinary actions. (See the preceding section, “(2) Details of Handling of the Requests for
Disciplinary Action (All Bar Associations)”, for the number of requests for disciplinary action).
Figure 3-1-11
(%)
9.0
8.0

Changes in Ratio of Disciplinary Action wherein Discipline was Imposed to Total
Requests

7.9

7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0

2.2

2.0
1.0
0.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019(Year)[Note]
Percentages are calculated based on the number of disciplinary action taken and the number of requests for disciplinary
action received by each bar association in each year. This is not a study of whether there were any disciplinary action taken
in each discipline request.

84

Chapter 1. Autonomy of Attorneys(ii) Ratio of Disciplinary Action wherein Discipline is Imposed to Total Members
The ratio of disciplinary action wherein discipline was imposed to the total number of members remains
between approximately 0.2% and 0.3% in the last ten years.
Figure 3-1-12

Changes in Ratio of Disciplinary Action wherein Discipline was Imposed to Total
Members

(%)
0.40
0.35

0.34

0.30
0.25

0.22

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019(Year)[Note]The basic number of attorneys and legal professional corporations used to calculate was as of December 31 of each year.

1.2.3 Operation of the Disciplinary System(1) Cases Handled by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA(i) Bar Associations
In 2019, bar associations accepted 4,299 filings of complaints for discipline.
Observing the resolved cases in 2019, the periods from filing of complaints for discipline to resolution by
Disciplinary Enforcement Committees were within six months in 49.2% of the cases. Approximately 70% of
the cases were within one year.
Among the cases on which Disciplinary Enforcement Committees commenced investigations, 208 cases werereferred to Disciplinary Actions Committees for examination in 2019.
(ii) JFBA
In 2019, a total of 1,271 of the objections filed with the JFBA were with regard to investigations conductedby bar associations, and these objections were then referred to the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement
Committee for examination.
In 2019, the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee resolved 1,733 cases. In sixteen of the cases, thecommittee resolved that disciplinary examinations were appropriate and referred the case to a bar association.
Forty-four percent of the cases reached resolutions within six months.
The following tables show details of accepted filings of objections and resolutions (2017-2019).
Figure 3-1-13

Details of Accepted Filings of Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee)(Unit: Cases)

Year

Objections against
No Disciplinary Action

2017

718

Objections against Prolonged
Disciplinary Proceedings beyond a
Reasonable Period
186

2018

782

1,254

2,036

2019

886

385

1,271

Total
904

[Note]
Among the newly accepted filings of objections in 2018 and 2019, there was one case each year in which a large
number of objections were made by one person (1,200 and 502 respectively).

85Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee)

Figure 3-1-14(Unit: Cases)
Closed Cases
Year

Examination Inappropriate

Examination
Appropriate*1

2017
2018
2019

Rejections

1
5
16

Dismissals Terminations*2

824
1,179
1,041

20
41
13

8
2
8

Order toPromptly
Proceed with
Disciplinary
Procedures*3
39
102
655

Unclosed
Cases*5

Total
892
1,329
1,733

174
918
456

[Note]
1. Examination Appropriate: The JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee found it appropriate to refer the case back to
the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the original bar association for investigation.
2. Terminations: Withdrawal, disqualification, or death.
3. Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures: The JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee found theobjection claiming prolonged proceedings was reasonable and resolved to order the bar association to promptly proceedwith disciplinary procedures.
4. Data was collected by calendar years (from January 1 to December 31).
5. The “Unclosed Cases” section includes cases which were investigated continuously from the previous year.

(2) Cases Handled by Disciplinary Actions Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA(i) Bar Associations
The number of cases referred to Disciplinary Actions Committees of bar associations nationwide for
examinations has been around 180 to 200 per year in recent times. The number of disciplinary action cases
was 95 in 2019 (see p. 83).
Observing the resolved cases in 2019, 42.0% of the cases reached resolution within six months after having
been referred to Disciplinary Actions Committees. Approximately 89.7% of the cases were resolved within
one year. The number of cases taking over two years to resolve was approximately 0.5% in 2018 and 0.6%
in 2019.
(ii) JFBA
I. Objections
Among the objections filed with the JFBA in 2019, 48 of them concern the cases referred to Disciplinary
Actions Committees of bar associations for examinations (18 objections against “no disciplinary action,” 23against “unjustly lenient disciplinary action” and 7 against “prolonged disciplinary proceedings beyond areasonable period”). These cases were referred to the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee for examination.
In 2019, the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee resolved 44 cases.
Figure 3-1-15

Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee)(Unit: Cases)
Closed Cases

Year

2017
2018
2019

Rejections Rescissions*2
41
42
36

0
1
0

Modifications*3 Dismissals Terminations
2
1
0

1
4
2

2
1
0

Order toPromptly
Proceed with
Disciplinary
Procedures*1
0
0
6

Total
46
49
44

Unclosed
Cases*445
23
27[Note]
1. Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures: The JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee found the objection
claiming prolonged proceedings was reasonable and resolved to order the bar association to promptly proceed withdisciplinary procedures.
2. Details of “Rescissions" (rescind the resolutions of bar associations)
2018: From “no disciplinary action” to “admonition” in one case86Chapter 1. Autonomy of Attorneys

3. Details of “Modifications”
2017: From “suspension of practice for three months” to “suspension of practice for six months” in one case; andFrom “suspension of practice for six months” to “suspension of practice for one year” in another case2018: From “admonition” to “suspension of practice for one month” in one case
4. The “Unclosed Cases” of this table and the table below include cases which were investigated continuously from theprevious year.
5. Data of this table and the table below are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to December 31).

II. Appeals
In 2019, 30 appeals were filed with the JFBA. In this year, the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee resolved
30 cases.
Figure 3-1-16

Details of Resolutions on Appeals (JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee)(Unit: Cases)

Year

Rejections

Rescissions of Primary
Disciplinary Actions*2

Closed Cases
Modifications ofPrimary Disciplinary
Actions*32
41

Dismissals,
Terminations, etc.*1

Total

Unclosed
Cases*4

2017
22
3
2
29
37
2018
24
6
3
37
27
2019
23
3
3
30
27
[Note]
1. “Dismissals”: The valid period for filing an appeal has passed, etc.
“Terminations, etc.”: Withdrawal, disqualification, or death.
2. Details of “Rescissions of Primary Disciplinary Actions (rescind the disciplinary actions of bar associations)”:
2017: From “admonition” to “no disciplinary action” in three cases
2018: From “admonition” to “no disciplinary action” in six cases
2019: From “admonition” to “no disciplinary action” in two cases
From “suspension of practice for one month” to “no disciplinary action” in one case
3. Details of “Modifications of Primary Disciplinary Actions (modify to lighter disciplinary actions)”:
2017: From “suspension of practice for three months” to “suspension of practice for two months” in two cases
2018: From “suspension of practice for one year and six months” to “suspension of practice for nine months” in one case
From “suspension of practice for one year” to “suspension of practice for nine months” in one case
From “suspension of practice for six months” to “suspension of practice for four months” in one case
From “suspension of practice for three years” to “suspension of practice for two months” in one case2019: From “suspension of practice for one month to “admonition” in one case(3) Cases Handled by the JFBA Board of Discipline Review
In 2019, 479 cases with applications for discipline review were referred to the JFBA Board of Discipline
Review for examination. In this year, 486 cases reached resolutions, among which, 2 cases were resolved to
be transferred to bar associations for their disciplinary examinations.
The following chart shows details of accepting cases with applications for discipline review and resolutions
from 2017 to 2019.
Figure 3-1-17

Details of Resolutions on Cases with Applications for Discipline Review(JFBA Board of Discipline Review)(Unit: Cases)
Closed Cases

Year
2017
2018
2019

Examination Examination
Inappropriate
Appropriate*1 (Rejections)
35
3
2

246
325
475

Dismissals
6
6
7

Withdrawals
0
0
2

Total
287
334
486

Unclosed Cases*2
161
225
218

[Note]
1. “Examinations Appropriate”: The board found that it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions
Committee of the original bar association to examine the case.
2. The “Withdrawals” section includes cases of “Termination for Withdrawal” and “Termination for Death”.
3. The "Unclosed Cases" section includes cases which were investigated continuously from the previous year.
4. Among the 35 cases of “Examination Appropriate” in 2017, 32 were resolutions for cases of a similar kind.

87

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

1.2.4 The Flow and Current Situation of Disciplinary Procedure
Upon receipt of a request for disciplinary action against an attorney or a legal professional corporation, theDisciplinary Enforcement Committee of the bar association examines and decides whether or not the request
should be referred to its Disciplinary Actions Committee. The Disciplinary Actions Committee then decides
whether to impose disciplinary action and the contents of this action. The attorney or the legal professional
corporation who had the disciplinary action imposed upon them may appeal to the JFBA for examination. If
the discipline-requesting party is not satisfied with the decision of the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee
and/or the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the bar association, it may file an objection with the JFBA. If
an objection is filed, the JFBA refers the matter to the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee or the
JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee. If the discipline-requesting party is not satisfied with the decision of
the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee, it may request the JFBA Board of Discipline Review
consisting of only citizens to conduct a disciplinary review. If the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement
Committee or the JFBA Board of Discipline Review concludes that it is appropriate to refer the case to theDisciplinary Actions Committee of the bar association for examination, the case is then referred to the bar
association.

88

Chapter 2. The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Redress

Chapter 2. The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Redress
Based on Article 1 of the Attorney Act, “an attorney is entrusted with a mission to protect fundamental humanrights and to realize social justice,” the JFBA has been engaged in activities to support human rights redressfor human rights violations for more than 60 years since its establishment in 1949, mainly through the JFBA
Human Rights Protection Committee cooperating with local bar associations. Such activities to redresshuman rights abuses, for which the JFBA follows a strict inner procedure before taking redress measures,
have garnered praise from Japanese society for past achievements and have gained the people’s trust. Ourhuman rights redress does not have binding power but practically exerts a strong influence on various sectorsof society. This chapter explains the current status of the JFBA’s activities for human rights redress.

2.1 The Operation of the Human Rights Redress System
2.1.1 Procedures for Human Rights Redress System
The JFBA investigates and researches various issues on human rights. Especially, the JFBA Human Rights
Protection Committee investigates facts of human rights infringements in response to requests for humanrights redress. Based on the results of the committee's investigation, the committee takes redress measures
including warnings, recommendations, and requests against the individual(s) who was identified as having
violated human rights or their supervising bodies, etc.
Article 36, Paragraph (5) of the Regulations of the JFBA Human Rights Protection Committee requires thatin the event of taking any measures, the committee and the chairperson shall provide the subject of suchmeasures or opinions with an explanation of the relevant case and an opportunity to submit related materials
in advance. Furthermore, in order to take proper and prompt actions for human rights protection, the JFBA
follows strict procedures under the regulations established to this end. The chart on the next page shows theprinciple procedural flow of the JFBA’s human rights redress system.

89

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Figure 3-2-1

Flow Chart of the JFBA's Human Rights Redress System
Appeal(1)

Summary Investigation(Prior Notice)

No Preliminary
Investigation

Start
Preliminary Investigation

Transfer(2)
Preliminary Investigation

No Examination

Start Examination(3)

Transfer

Discontinue

Main Examination(Reconciliation Recommended)

Take No Action

Take Action

Discontinue[Procedures](1) Summary Investigation: Determines the necessity of Preliminary Investigation in cases where
redresses of human rights abuses are appealed.
(Prior notice may be sent to the concerned party if any immediate action is required.) No Preliminary Investigation: Cases where no action will likely be taken based on the results ofsummary investigations or the nature of the case.
 Start Preliminary Investigation: (1) cases which supposedly have important influence on society,(2) cases involving details or interested parties that are nationwide or widespread and (3) cases
which require investigations into or requests to government organs.
 Transfer: Cases which are considered appropriate to be referred to bar associations or otherinstitutions for investigation and research.
(2) Preliminary Investigation: Investigation to be conducted before the main examination.
 No Examination: Cases in which, based on the Preliminary Investigation, there likely will not be
any recognition of infringement of human rights or risk of infringement through further
examination.
 Start Examination: Cases in which, based on the Preliminary Investigation, there is a possibilityof recognition of infringement of human rights or risk of infringement through further
examination.
 Discontinue: Cases in which appeals are withdrawn, or the appellants were found to be dead or
missing.
(3) Main Examination: Examination of infringement of human rights or the risk of infringement as cases
for human rights redress.
(Reconciliation Recommended: Cases in which infringement of human rights or the risk of such isrecognized and reconciliation is considered appropriate.) Take No Action: Cases in which examinations determine that taking action is unnecessary.
 Take Action: Cases in which examinations determine that actions should be taken. Actions
taken by the JFBA include judicial measures (accusations/requests for trial), warnings (whichnotice JFBA opinions and firmly demand an appropriate response), recommendations (which callfor an appropriate response), requests (which requests an appropriate response),
advice/cooperation, and expression of opinions.

90

Chapter 2. The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Redress

2.1.2 The Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category)
The graph and table below are the number of requests of human rights redress to the JFBA from 2003 to
2019, categorized by the nature of these requests.
Figure 3-2-2

Changes in the Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category)(Cases)
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
(Fiscal Year)
Infringements by police
Infringements at prisons or detention centers
Retrial cases
Administrative organs or legal system
OthersFigure 3-2-3

Details of the Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category)(Unit: Cases)

CategoryYear

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Infringement by Police

19

8

17

16

21

22

32

34

30

28

38

32

15

21

34

31

28

Infringement at Prisonsor Detention Centers89

143 267 197 237 269 249 233 220 163 152 127 136 119 139 169 169

Retrial Cases

26

27

26

24

24

22

39

34

48

52

37

63

58

41

44

48

68

Administrative Organs orLegal System

17

20

11

32

6

8

15

19

11

26

28

44

33

21

11

23

36

Others*

84

108

86

76

106

85

85

90

82

70

96

101

75

104 119

92

109

Total

235 306 407 345 394 406 420 410 391 339 351 367 317 306 347 363 410[Note]“Others” includes infringement committed by “Medical Facilities”, “the Press”, “Educational Institutions”, “Companies”,“Courts”, and “Other Civil Servants”.

91Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

2.2 Current Situation Regarding Retrial Cases Supported by the JFBA
2.2.1 Retrial Cases Supported by the JFBA
"Miscarriages of justice" are the worst cases of human rights violation. The JFBA Human Rights Protection
Committee makes judgments on whether or not it will treat a case as a violation of human rights, taking thefollowing three points into consideration:(1) Whether there is a possibility that the verdict of guilty or the dismissal of a final appeal made as the
final and binding judgment was wrong.
(2) Whether there is a possibility that any new and clear evidence required for a retrial request has beenfound.
(3) The degree of necessity and appropriateness for the JFBA to support the retrial of a relevant criminalcase in light of the details, nature, and social impact, etc. of the case.
If support for a retrial is determined based on the above three points, a committee on this retrial case is set
up in the JFBA Human Rights Protection Committee. The committee for this case will support defense
activities for the retrial by dispatching defense counsel and providing financial support for the necessary
expenses, etc.
2.2.2 Achievement by the JFBA for its Support on Retrial Request Cases
The following table shows a list of the cases which the JFBA has supported and in which judgments ofacquittal have been finalized.
Figure 3-2-4

Cases Supported by the JFBA Where a Judgment of Acquittal Has Been Finalized(In the order of the date on which the acquittal was rendered. As of Sep. 30, 2020)

Name ofthe Case

YoshidaDate of theDate when the
Occurrence of the
Judgment was
Incident
Finalized
Date when Support was
Date when the
Decided or theCommittee for the Case Appeal was
Dismissed
was Set up

Court atwhich theFinal andBinding
Judgment
wasRendered1913(T2). 8.13

NagoyaCourt of
Appeals

1949(S24). 8. 6
Hirosaki

Kato

1915(T4). 7.11

1916(T5). 8.4

1969(S44).6.17
1916(T5). 11.7
Committee was set up.
1952(S27).
12.5

1967(S42).3.18
1953(S28).
Committee was set up. 8.22
*1950(S25). 5.20

Taki*11952(S27).
5.31

1971(S46).9.17
1953(S28).
Committee was set up. 2.19

1952(S27).2.25
Yoneya1914(T3). 7.31

1961(S36).6.17
1914(T3). 11.4
Committee was set up.

1953(S28).
6.13

1964(S39).1.31
1953(S28).
Committee was set up. 9.10
Withdrawal of
the appeal

Sendai High
Court
Hiroshima
Court of
Appeals
Aomori
District
Court

Tokyo
District
Court

92

Date when theOpening of theRetrial was
DecidedName of the
Court

Date when the
Acquittal was
RenderedName of the
Court

1961(S36). 4.11
Life
Nagoya Highimprisonment
Court

1963(S38). 2.28
Nagoya High
Court

Final andBinding
Judgment

15-yearsentence

1976(S51). 7.13
Proceedings for a
1977(S52). 2.15
retrial request at
Sendai High Court
the Sendai High
Court

1976(S51). 9.18
Life
Hiroshima Highimprisonment
Court
10-yearsentence

1977(S52). 7. 7
Hiroshima High
Court

1976(S51).10.30
1978(S53). 7.31
Kokoku appeal
Aomori District
proceedings at the
Court
Sendai High Court

Life
1980(S55).10.16
1981(S56). 3.27
imprisonment, Kokoku appeal
Tokyo District
5-year sentence, proceedings at theCourt
5-year sentence Tokyo High CourtChapter 2. The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Redress

Name ofthe Case

Date of the
Occurrence of the
Incident
Date when Support
was Decided or theCommittee for theCase was Set up
1948(S23).12.29

Menda

1950(S25).
3.23

1952(S27).
2.20

1976(S51).9.17
1957(S32).
Committee was set up. 1.22
1955(S30).10.18

Matsuyama

Date when the
Appeal was
Dismissed

1961(S36).9.23
1951(S26).
Committee was set up. 12.25
1950(S25). 2.28

Saitagawa

Date when the
Judgment was
Finalized

1957(S32).
10.29

1962(S37).11.20
1960(S35).
Committee was set up. 11.1
1953(S28).11. 5

Umeda

ShimadaEnai-mura*2 1990(H2).3.16
Support for the casewas decided.

Fukawa*3

1958(S33).
5.23

1977(S52).3.18
1960(S35).
Committee was set up. 12.15*1946(S21). 8.21

Ashikaga1954(S29).7 7

1964(S39).1.31
1957(S32).
Committee was set up. 11.14
1954(S29). 3.10

1948(S23).
11.9
1949(S24).
4.28

1990(H2). 5.12

1993(H5).7.7

2002(H14).12.20
Support for the casewas decided.

2000(H12).
7.17*1967(S42).8.28

1970(S45).
10.6

1978(S53).9.13
1978(S53).7.3
Committee was set up.

Tokyo
1997(H9). 3. 8
Murder Caseof a Female 2006(H18).10.17
TEPCO Support for the case
Employee was decided.

Final andBinding
Judgment

Date when theOpening of theRetrial was
DecidedName of the
Court

Date when the
Acquittal was
RenderedName of the
Court

Kumamoto
District
Court,
YashiroBranch1979(S54). 9.27
1983(S58). 7.15
Kokoku appeal
Kumamoto
Death penalty proceedings at theDistrict Court,
Fukuoka High
Yashiro Branch
Court

Takamatsu
District
Court,
Marukame
Branch1979(S54). 6. 7
Proceedings of the1984(S59). 3.12
case were referred
Death penalty
Takamatsu
back to theDistrict Court
Takamatsu
District Court

Sendai
District
Court,
Furukawa
Branch1979(S54).12. 6
Proceedings of the 1984(S59). 7.11
Death penalty case were referred Sendai Districtback to the Sendai Court
District Court

1956(S31).
4.18

1958(S33).
5.12
Tokushima
Appeal to the
1959(S34）
Committee was set up. Supreme Court
waswithdrawn.
1950(S25).10.10

Court atwhich theFinal andBinding
Judgment
wasRendered2000(H12).
12.22
2003(H15).
10.20

Tokushima
DistrictCourt

1980(S55).12.13
Tokushima
District Court

1985(S60). 7. 9
Tokushima
District Court

KushiroDistrict
Court,
Abashiri
Branch1982(S57).12.20
LifeKushiro District
imprisonment Court, Abashiri
Branch1986(S61). 8.27
Kushiro District
Court

ShizuokaDistrictCourt

1986(S61). 5.29
Proceedings of the
1989(H1). 1.31
case were referred
Death penalty
Shizuoka Districtback to the
Court
Shizuoka District
Court

Takamatsu
High Court

Utsunomiya
DistrictCourt

13-yearsentence*15-yearsentence

1993(H5).11. 1
Takamatsu High
Court

2009(H21). 6.23
2010(H22). 3.26
Life
Kokoku appeal
Utsunomiya
imprisonment proceedings at theDistrict Court
Tokyo High Court

Mito District
2005(H17). 9.21
Court,*Life
Mito District
Tsuchiura
imprisonment Court, Tsuchiura
BranchBranchTokyo High
Court

93

1994(H6). 3.22
Takamatsu High
Court

2011(H23). 5.24
Mito District
Court, Tsuchiura
BranchLife
2012(H24). 6. 7
2012(H24). 11. 7
imprisonment Tokyo High Court Tokyo High Court

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Name ofthe Case

Date of the
Occurrence of the
Incident
Date when Support
was Decided or theCommittee for theCase was Set up

1995(H7).7.22

Date when the
Appeal was
Dismissed
Mr. Tatsuhiro
Boku
1999(H11).
3.30
20016(H11).
5.18

HigashiSumiyoshi*4
2012(H24).7.12
Support for the casewas decided.
*1985(S60).1.6
Matsubase*5 2011(H23).8.18
Support for the casewas decided.

Koto

Date when the
Judgment was
Finalized

Ms. Keiko
Aoki
1999(H11).
5.18
2006(H18).
12.11
1986(S61).
12.22
1990(H2).1.26

2003(H15).5.22

2005(H17).11.29

2018(H30).3.15
Support for the casewas decided.

2007(H19).5.21

Court atwhich theFinal andBinding
Judgment
wasRendered

Final andBinding
Judgment

Osaka
District
Court

Life
imprisonment

Date when theOpening of theRetrial was
DecidedName of the
Court

Date when the
Acquittal was
RenderedName of theCourt

2016(H28).8. 10
Osaka District
Court
2015(H27).10.23
Osaka District
Court

Osaka
District
Court

Life
imprisonment

2016(H28).8. 10
Osaka District
Court

Kumamoto
DistrictCourt

13-yearsentence

2016(H28).6.30
Kumamoto
District Court

Otsu District
Court

12-yearsentence

2020(R2).3.31
2017(H29).12.20
Otsu District
Osaka High Court
Court

2019(H31).3.28
Kumamoto
District Court[Note]
1. With regard to the Taki Case, the date; "May 20th, 1950 (*1950(S25).5.20)" indicates the date of the incident on which
a judgment of not guilty was rendered at the retrial. As regards the finalized sentence of "*life imprisonment" of such
Case, part of the finalized sentence (life imprisonment) was acquitted at the retrial. (Subsequently, the sentence of life
imprisonment was handed down.)
2. In reference to the Enai-mura Case, the date; "August 21st, 1946 (*1946(S21).8.21)" indicates the date on which theincident, i.e. breaking and entering and murder, occurred, for which a judgment of not guilty was rendered at the retrial.
The finalized sentence was handed down having taken further crimes into account. As for the breaking and enteringand the murder, a not-guilty judgment was rendered at the retrial. (As regards the further crimes, a judgment of guilty
with a two-year sentence suspended for three years was handed down.)
3. With reference to the Fukawa Case, the date; "August 28th, 1967 (*1967 (S42).8.28)" indicates the date on which theincident, i.e., burglary and murder, occurred, for which a judgment of not guilty was rendered at the retrial. The
finalized sentence was handed down having taken further crimes into account. As for the burglary and murder, a notguilty judgment was rendered at the retrial. (As regards the further crimes, a judgment of guilty with a two-year sentencesuspended for three years was handed down.)
4. With reference to the Higashi Sumiyoshi Case, since the review and final binding judgment were made individually for
two of the defendants, the request for retrial was made for each. The retrial requests were bound during the retrial
deliberations, however, the retrial was conducted separately after the determination to commence a retrial.
5. With reference to the Matsubase Case, the date; "January 6th, 1985 (*1985(S60).1.6)" indicates the date on which theincident, i.e., murder, occurred, for which a judgment of not guilty was rendered at the retrial. The finalized sentence
was handed down having taken further crimes into account. As for the murder, a not-guilty judgment was rendered at
the retrial. (As regards the further crimes, a judgment of guilty with a one-year sentence was handed down.)

94

Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBA

Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBAInternational Activities of the JFBA
(As of October 31, 2020)・・・Organizations entered into MOUs

United Nations (UN)(Broad UN System: including Funds, Programmes, and UN Agencies)
Human Rights Council (Geneva)
Economic and Social Council (New York)
Commission on the Status of Women (New York)
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Vienna)
Secretariat:
Office of the HighCommissioner for
Human Rights (Geneva)

United Nations Officeon Drugs and Crime(Vienna)

・・・International Bar Organizations
・・・Governmental Bodies, etc.
The dates shown below are signaturedates.

Law Council of Australia
1999/9/2, 2009/7/28 (re-signed)

Division for the
Advancement of
Women (New York)Bar Association of the Kingdom of
Cambodia (BAKC)
2000/4/20[Treaty Bodies]
Human Rights Committee
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Committee against TortureCommittee on the Rights of the Child
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Committee on Enforced Disappearances
Committee on Migrant Workers
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Korean Bar Association (KBA)
2004/12/4
American Bar Association (ABA)
2006/10/24
German Federal Bar (BRAK)
2008/6/24
Paris Bar 2010/6/24<Accession>

Vietnam Bar Federation (VBF)
2013/11/25

Japan Federation of
Bar Associations

Japanese Government

Officers<MOUs etc.>

Japan International
Cooperation Agency(JICA)<Agreement of Collaboration >Office of International
Affairs/International
Affairs Division

Mongolian Bar Association and
Association of Mongolian
Advocates (tripartite agreement)
2017/11/23<Member / Council>

International Bar Organizations

Three-Bar
Meeting

International Bar Association (IBA)International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC)
Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA)
International Criminal Bar (ICB)
International Association of Young Lawyers (AIJA)The Law Society of Singapore
2015/6/22
Le Conseil National des Barreaux(CNB)
2017/10/19

Various Committees

Foreign Embassies
in Japan

Federal Chamber of Lawyers of theRussian Federation (FCLRF)
2014/10/23

Malaysian Bar
2019/2/19
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
2020/2/14
All China Lawyers Association(ACLA) 2006/11/30

Council of Bars and Law
Societies of Europe (CCBE)<Overseas Visiting Scholar Program>Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA)
Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA)The Conference of the Presidents of Law Associations in Asia (POLA)International Institute of Law Association Chief Executives (IILACE)International Criminal Court (ICC)95- New York University- University of California, Berkeley- University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign- University of Essex / Human Right Centre
at the University of Essex- National University of Singapore

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

3.1. International Human Rights Activities
3.1.1 Activities at the United Nations (UN) and International Conferences
The JFBA has been accredited with consultative status by the Economic and Social Council, and sendsdelegations to various UN meetings, such as the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Congress on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice, the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, and the UN
Commission on the Status of Women, at which the JFBA collects information on international movements,and makes speeches to express its opinions. In addition, the JFBA organizes side events at conference sites
introducing its activities, through which the JFBA provides information on the human rights situation in
Japan, and exchanges information with relevant authorities in other countries.
The following table lists the major meetings to which the JFBA sent delegations in the last three years.
Figure 3-3-1Month/Year
March 2017
March / 2017
May 2017
October 2017
November 2017
February 2018
March 2018
May 2018
August 2018
November 2018
January 2019
January 2019
March 2019
May 2019
September 2020

Major Meetings the JFBA Sent Delegations to in the Last Three Years (2018 to 2020)(As of September 30, 2020)
Name of Meeting (Venue)
The 61st Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (NY, USA)
United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear
Weapons (NY, USA)The 26th Session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Vienna,
Austria)
The 121st Session of the UN Human Rights Committee (Geneva, Switzerland)
The 28th Session of the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
Working Group (Geneva, Switzerland)
The 79th Session of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Pre-Sessional Working Group(Geneva, Switzerland)
The 62nd Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (NY, USA)The 27th Session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Vienna,
Austria)
The 96th Session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Geneva,
Switzerland)
The 15th Session of the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances
The 80th Session of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (Geneva, Switzerland)
The 14th UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Asia-Pacific Regional
Preparatory Meeting (Bangkok, Thailand)
The 63rd Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (NY, USA)The 28th Session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Vienna,
Austria)
The intersessional meeting of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations
Convention against Corruption on the preparations for the Special Session of the General
Assembly against Corruption (Virtual)

UN Human Rights Council (the “UNHRC”)
The UNHRC is one of the major UN bodies, which is responsible for promoting and protecting human rights andfundamental freedoms, and performs Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR) to examine the human rights records of all
UN Member States once every four years. The UPR Third Cycle for Japan was conducted in November 2017.
UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the “Congress”)
The Congress is one of the biggest international conferences in the fields of crime prevention and criminal justice, andhas been held every five years since 1955. At the invitation of the Japanese government, the 14th Congress was heldfrom March 7 to 12, 2021 in Kyoto, rescheduled from April 20-27, 2020 due to the surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.
UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the “CCPCJ”)
The CCPCJ is a functional commission of the ECOSOC, which has the task of formulating and reviewing the UN crime
prevention programs in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. The CCPCJ is convened every year in Vienna
to discuss more practical efforts than the Congress which compiles the outline of the programs.
UN Commission on the Status of Women (the “CSW”)
The CSW is a functional commission of the ECOSOC, which has the task of making recommendations, reports, andsuggestions to the ECOSOC in regard to the empowerment of women in the fields of politics, public, society, education,etc. The CSW is convened in February or March every year for approximately two weeks at the UN Headquarters in
New York.

96

Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBA

3.1.2 Activities Related to the UN Human Rights Bodies and the UPRJapan has ratified various international human rights treaties. Under these treaties, Japan periodically reports
on its human rights situation to respective UN human rights bodies, who review the Japanese situation basedon the reports. The JFBA makes counter reports to governmental reports (the “JFBA reports”) to submit toUN human rights bodies. Further, the JFBA provides information in writing to the Human Rights Council
through the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in relation to Universal Periodic
Reviews (the “UPR”), a system conducted by the Human Rights Council which was established under thereforms made to the UN human rights mechanism in 2006, and under which the human rights situation in all
UN member states is reviewed once every four years by the Human Rights Council.
Figure 3-3-2

JFBA Reports Concerning International Human Rights Documents(Conventions and Covenants)(As of Sep. 30, 2020)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1979)
April 1993 (3rd Periodic Report) / September 1998 (4th Periodic Report) / December 2007 (5th Periodic Report ) / August
2008 (Updated Report on 5th Periodic Report) / January 2010 (Opinion Paper regarding the Japanese Government’s
Comments on the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on its 5th Periodic Report) / May 2013 (Reportto the Pre-Sessional Working Group of the Committee on Civil and Political Rights for the 6th Periodic Report) / March2014 (6th Periodic Report) / July 2017 (Report for the Preparation of the List of Issues on the 7th Periodic Report (LOIPR))/ July 2020 (7th Periodic Report) / September 2020 (Special Report on Important Matters after the Release of the List ofIssues (CCPR/C/JPN/QPR/7) by the Human Rights Committee - Adoption of Appropriate Measures in Response to Novel
Coronavirus Infections (COVID-19))
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified in 1979)
March 2001 (2nd Periodic Report) / February 2012 (Report to the Pre-Sessional Working Group of the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for the 3rd Periodic Report) / January 2013 (3rd Periodic Report)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (ratified in 1985)
December 1993 (3rd Periodic Report) / November 2001 (4th Periodic Report) / May 2003 (5th Periodic Report) / September
2008 (6fh Periodic Report) / May 2009 (Updated Report on 6th Periodic Report) / July 2011 (Report on the Japanese
Government’s Follow-up to the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against
Women for the 6th Periodic Report) / November 2012 (Report on the Japanese Government’s Additional Report to theConcluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for the 6th Periodic
Report) / March 2015 (Report to the Pre-Sessional Working Group of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women for the 7th and 8th Periodic Reports) / December 2015 (Updated Report on the 7th and 8th Periodic Reports)/ November 2017 (Report on the Japanese Government’s Follow-up to the Concluding Observations of the Committee on
the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for the Combined 7th and 8th Periodic Reports) / January 2020 (Reportto the Pre-Sessional Working Group of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for the 9th
Periodic Report)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1994)
June 1997 (1st Periodic Report) / May 2003 (2nd Periodic Report) / July 2009 (3rd Periodic Report) / January 2010
(Additional Information to the 3rd Periodic Report) / September 2017 (4th and 5th Periodic Report) / September 2018
(Additional Information to the 4th and 5th Periodic Report)
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (acceded to in 1995)
January 2001 (1st and 2nd Periodic Reports) / June 2009 (3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Periodic Reports) / February 2010
(Additional Information to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Periodic Reports) / Mar 2014 (7th, 8th, 9th Periodic Reports) / March2018 (10th and 11th Periodic Report) / March 2020 (Report on the Japanese Government’s Follow-up to the Concluding
Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination for the Combined 10th and 11th
Periodic Reports)
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (acceded to in 1999)
January 2007 (1st Periodic Report) / September 2008 (The JFBA Report on Comments by the Japanese Government on theConclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture) / February 2013 (2nd Periodic Report) / July 2015
(The JFBA Report on Comments by Japanese Government concerning the Second Conclusions and Recommendations of
the Committee Against Torture)97

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ratified in 2009)
July 2018 (1st Periodic Report) / October 2019 (Opinions on Recommendations for which Japan should Provide
Information within One Year under the Concluding Observations on the First Report Submitted by Japan under Article
29(1) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED/C/JPN/CO/1),
Focusing on Fundamental Legal Safeguards)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ratified in 2014)
January 2019 (Report to the Pre-Sessional Working Group of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities forthe 1st Periodic Report) / July 2020 (Report under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2) Recommendations to be included in the Concluding Observations and Background Information)

Figure 3-3-3

Activities Related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)(As of Sep. 30, 2020)

March 2007

Prepared a JFBA written statement on the UPR (submitted to the 4th session of the Human Rights
Council).

February 2008

Prepared a JFBA report for the Summary of the Human Rights Situation in Japan to be prepared by the
UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights.

May 2008

Prepared a JFBA written statement “Universal Periodic Review: Review of Japan and Modalities of
the Universal Periodic Review” (submitted to the 8th session of the Human Rights Council).

January 2011

Prepared a JFBA written statement on the UPR for review by the UN Human Rights Council (submitted
to the 16th session of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR))

April 2012

Prepared a JFBA report for the “Summary of the Human Rights Situation in Japan” to be prepared by
the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

March 2017

Prepared a JFBA report for the “Summary of the Human Rights Situation in Japan” to be prepared by
the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

September 2017

Held a briefing for foreign embassies in Japan about the JFBA’s opinion regarding the UPR

November 2017

Released the Statement regarding the 3rd UPR of Japan by the United Nations Human Rights Council

February 2018

Held the 3rd learning session on the UPR at the Diet Members’ Office Building

February 2018

Expressed opinion on the adoption of the outcome of the 3rd UPR of Japan by the 37th session of the
Human Rights Council (sent the JFBA’s video message to the Council)

98

Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBA

3.2 International Cooperation
3.2.1 Past and Current JFBA Assistance Projects for Bar Associations in Developing Countries(by Country)
Figure 3-3-4

Past and Current JFBA Assistance Projects for Bar Associations in Developing Countries(As of July 1, 2020)

Cambodia
The JFBA’s legal technical assistance in Cambodia has the longest history in its assistance activities. Specific activities
conducted are as follows:
1996-2000

The JFBA cooperated in the 1st through 5th Cambodia Justice Training Sessions organized by the JICA.

1999 to date

The JFBA has dispatched its members to the Ministry of Justice of Cambodia (10 in total, including 9
nominated by the JFBA) on a continuous basis to provide support in drafting the Civil Code and the Code ofCivil Procedure of Cambodia. Some JFBA members have been participating in the JICA’s support
committees in Japan, such as the committee for drafting the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure of
Cambodia, and the committee for the civil education improvement project on the training of judges andprosecutors in Cambodia. The JFBA also dispatches instructors when training programs for Cambodian
attorneys are held in Japan by the JICA or the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice.

Oct. 2000

The JFBA conducted a seminar for Cambodian attorneys.

2001-2002

The JFBA applied to the JICA small-scale partner program to conduct a project of legal and judicial
cooperation for the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (BAKC) (such as training seminars for
attorneys and proposals for a legal aid system)

2002-2005

The JFBA was entrusted with and conducted a JICA partner program to provide assistance for the BAKC
(such as assistance for the Lawyers’ Training Center and provision of continuous legal education and gender
training programs for attorneys).

2007-2015

The JFBA was entrusted with and conducted a JICA project to provide legal technical assistance to the BAKC
(such as assistance for the Lawyer’s Training Center, provision of continuous legal education programs for
attorneys, and gender training). From 2008-2010, the JFBA sent a member to Cambodia as a JICA long-term
expert.

2012 to date

The JFBA has been holding a special lecture on an annual basis at the Cambodian Lawyers’ Training Centerand other locations, sending its members to the site. Additionally, from 2019 onward, the JFBA has been
engaged in various activities to promote access to justice in partnership with the Bar Association of theKingdom of Cambodia, with grants provided by the Toyota Foundation (a “Public Interest Incorporated
Foundation”).

VietnamSince 1995, the JFBA has been involved in JICA projects for supporting improvement of the legal system, including
amendment of the Civil Code and other legislation, conducting training for legal education, and providing support to the bar
association. Specifically, the JFBA members have been participating in a JICA support group in Japan and a total of nine
JFBA members have been sent to Vietnam as JICA long-term experts. In addition, many JFBA members participated in JICA
seminars in Vietnam and training programs in Japan as instructors.
In May 2009, with the help of the JFBA, the first integrated national bar association in Vietnam was established. Since 2009,
entrusted by the JICA, the JFBA has been inviting members, etc. of the Vietnam Bar Federation and conducting training
programs regarding the organizational operations of the bar association and the enhancement of the capacity of attorneys.
Furthermore, from 2019 onward, the JFBA has been engaged in various activities to promote access to justice in partnershipwith the Vietnam Bar Federation, with grants provided by the Toyota Foundation.

Laos
The JFBA conducted research on judicial issues in Laos in May 2000. Based on the results, the JFBA is providing assistanceas follows:
The JFBA cooperated in a JICA legal technical assistance project and enhancement of fostering legal professional projectfor Laos, and eight JFBA members, four as short-term experts and five as long-term experts, were sent to Laos. Another
JFBA member has also been working in Laos since July 2010 as a long-term expert. In addition, the JFBA sent its members
as instructors in response to a request from the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice for its seminars in
Laos. However, the number of attorneys in Laos is still around 200. Since 2012, with a grant from the Toshiba International
Foundation, a public interest incorporated foundation, the JFBA has been conducting support activities, such as holding
conferences on the enhancement of access to justice and fostering legal professionals, conducting training programs in Laos,as well as in Japan, by inviting members of the Laos Bar Association to Japan. In 2018, the first Laotian Civil Code was99Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

established and at the ceremony celebrating the legislation, a JFBA Vice President attended. Additionally, from 2019 onward,
the JFBA has been engaged in various activities to promote access to justice in partnership with the Lao Bar Association,with grants provided by the Toyota Foundation.

Mongolia
The JFBA sent a total of two members to Mongolia as JICA long-term experts; one as a JICA advisor to Mongolia from2004 to 2006 and the other for a project to strengthen the functions of the Association of Mongolian Advocates (AMA) from2006 to 2008. Specifically, they assisted in enhancing the Conciliation Center of the AMA including training programs inJapan. In addition, a number of members have been sent as short-term experts to seminars conducted in Mongolia. A JFBA
member had been sent to Mongolia as a JICA long-term expert from 2010 to 2015 under the mediation system enhancement
project (Phases 1 & 2) for supporting the establishment of a mediation system in the courts of first instance in Mongolia. In
the meantime, entrusted by the JICA, the JFBA invites judicial officials to participate in training programs regarding themediation system. Since 2013, a group of a dozen Mongolian attorneys who are members of the AMA have come to Japan
at their own expense to participate in lectures, site tours, and social programs prepared mainly by the JFBA Committee on
International Relations. The training initiative has been implemented flexibly, adapted to meet the needs, and the training
seminars in 2018 and 2019 were joined by some members of the Mongolian Bar Association.

Indonesia
A JFBA member has been working in Indonesia since 2007 for a JICA project to assist in enhancing settlement and mediation
systems in Indonesia. He is drafting rules concerning settlement and mediation while collaborating with local counterparts
including the Supreme Court as well as providing training for mediators. A JFBA member was sent to the JICA Indonesia
Office as a planning designer from 2003 to 2004. Further, some JFBA members have participated in the support committee
in Japan for the JICA project, which commenced in 2015, regarding intellectual property protection and increasing legal
consistency in order to improve the business environment.

China
The JFBA has sent a total of two members to China as JICA long-term experts. The JFBA also sent commissioners in a
project aimed at cooperating to bring about improvements to China’s Code of Civil Procedure and arbitration system,
which was conducted from 2007 to 2010. Further, a number of JFBA members have worked as JICA short-term experts inthe project for formulating business and corporate laws, which was conducted from 2004 to 2009. In addition, a JFBA
member has become a member of the study group on the Civil Procedure Law of China in relation to the JICA's Improvementof Civil Procedure Law and Arbitration Law Project. Currently, the JFBA is sending one of its members as a commissioner
to a study group reviewing China’s Code of Civil Procedure and laws related to the civil law.

Nepal
The JFBA has been cooperating in JICA’s seminars on the Civil Code and other relevant laws in Nepal, under which six
members have been sent to Nepal as advisors on legal technical assistance since July 2010. A JFBA member has also beenworking in Nepal since September 2013 as a JICA long-term expert for JICA’s Project for Strengthening the Capacity of the
Court in Nepal.

Uzbekistan
A JFBA member was sent to Uzbekistan as a JICA long-term expert to help draft the commentary on the insolvency law sothat judges dealing with bankruptcy cases can interpret and apply insolvency law in an integrated and consistent manner.

Myanmar
The JFBA members have been sent to Myanmar as JICA long-term experts since 2014, and these members have been
engaged in providing support for improving the capacity for drafting and reviewing legislation, and for developing humanresources.

Cote d'Ivoire
A JFBA member was sent to Cote d'Ivoire as a JICA long-term expert from 2014 to 2017 (they were not nominated by theJFBA), and such member worked on developing human resources in the field of criminal justice, as well as on improving
access to justice for citizens in eight French-speaking African countries.

100Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBA

3.2.2 JICA Long-Term Experts Achievement
The JFBA has been engaging in international cooperation since 1994 and sending instructors to seminars
organized by various domestic organizations that invite overseas trainees and also dispatching attorneys tocountries such as Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Mongolia, China, and Nepal as JICA (Japan
International Cooperation Agency) long-term experts. Figures 3-3-5 and 3-3-6 show the detailed
achievements in the JFBA's dispatching of JICA long-term experts.
Figure 3-3-5

JICA Long-Term Experts (Fiscal 2007- 2020.7.1)

Term

Country

Activity

Apr. 2006 – Oct. 2007

Uzbekistan

Assisted in drafting the commentary on the insolvency law

Mar. 2007 – Mar. 2009

Indonesia

Enhanced the settlement and mediation system (amendments to the rules of
the Supreme Court on its mediation system, provided advice to improvetraining curricula for mediators)

Apr. 2007 – Mar. 2009

VietnamAssisted in reforming the legal system (mainly laws on civil execution, real
property registration, and security transaction registration), and advise on
judicial reforms (establishment of a national federation of bar associations)Sep. 2007 – Sep. 2008

Cambodia

Provided legal technical assistance (with a focus on improving laws andregulations related to the Civil Code and coordination of donors engaging indrafting other related laws)

Apr. 2008 – Oct. 2010

China

Assisted with improving the Civil Procedure Law, the Arbitration Law, andother laws related to civil affairs (meetings with the National People's
Congress and advice upon request)

May 2008 – Jun. 2010

Cambodia

Assisted the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (to improve theoperation of the Lawyers’ Training Center and its training materials)

Mar. 2009 – Mar. 2011

Cambodia

Assisted in drafting laws and regulations (mainly drafting laws andregulations related to the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code andcoordination of other donors)

May 2009 – Mar. 2011

VietnamAssisted with judicial reforms related to the interests of attorneys (advice on
how to work with counter partners, workshops, etc.)

Mar. 2010 – Mar. 2012

Cambodia

Assisted in drafting laws associated with the Civil Code and the Code of Civil
ProcedureMay 2010 – Dec. 2015

Mongolia

Mediation System

Jul. 2010 – Jul. 2016

Laos

Civil law /Judicial reform

Jul. 2010 – Sep. 2013

Nepal

Advised on legal technical assistanceJan. 2011 – Oct. 2013

China

The Civil Procedure Law and laws related to Chinese civil affairs

Mar. 2011 – Mar. 2012

VietnamEnhanced the capacity of attorneys / Assisting in drafting lawsMar. 2011 – Mar. 2013

Cambodia

Developed human resources /Assisted in drafting laws and regulations /Conducted practical operations of civil law

Nov. 2012 – Mar. 2014

VietnamEnhanced the capacity of attorneys / Assisted in drafting lawsMar. 2013 – Mar. 2016

Cambodia

Developed human resources (Conducted practical operations of civil law)

Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014

Cambodia*

Developed human resources (Conducted practical operations of civil law)

Sep. 2013 – Sep. 2015

Nepal

Enhanced court capacity (Management of cases / Mediation)

Sep. 2013 – Sep. 2015

Nepal

Advised on legal technical assistanceJan. 2014 – Nov. 2016

Myanmar*Drafted and reviewed legislation, provided legal advice, supported withhuman resource development

Mar. 2014 – Mar. 2018

VietnamAssisted in drafting laws / Enhanced the capacity of attorneys

Jun. 2014 – Mar. 2018

China

Advised on legal technical assistanceOct. 2014 – Jun. 2017

Laos

Civil and economic-related laws / Judicial reform

101

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Term

Country

Activity

Dec. 2014 – Dec. 2016

Cote d'Ivoire*

Legal advisor

Sep. 2015 – Mar. 2017

Nepal

Strengthened the capacity of the courts (Chief Advisor)

Sep. 2015 – Aug. 2017

Nepal

Advised on legal technical assistanceMar. 2016 – Mar. 2017

Cambodia

Developed human resources (Conducted practical operations of civil law)*Oct. 2016 – Jul. 2018

Laos

Civil and economic-related laws / Judicial reformMay 2017– May 2018

MyanmarLong-term expert for legal technical support projectAug. 2017 – Aug. 2019

Nepal

Advising on legal technical assistance

Apr. 2018 – Mar. 2020

Cambodia

Improved the operation of the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Law

Apr. 2018 – Mar. 2020

Vietnam*Assisted in drafting laws / Enhanced the capacity of attorneys

Apr. 2018 – Mar. 2021

China

Advised on legal technical assistance*: Not nominated by the JFBA
Figure 3-3-6

JICA Long-Term Experts (Total by Country)(As of July 1, 2020)

Uzbekistan: 1

Mongolia: 3

China: 2

Nepal: 6

Cote d'Ivoire: 1

Vietnam: 9(not nominated by
the JFBA)(including one person notnominated by the JFBA)

Cambodia: 10

Myanmar: 2(including one person notnominated by the JFBA)

Laos: 5Indonesia: 2102(including one person notnominated by the JFBA)

Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBA

3.3 International Exchange Activities
3.3.1 Membership of International Organization
The JFBA is a member of seven international organizations: the IBA (International Bar Association),
LAWASIA (The Law Association for Asia and the Pacific), the ICB (International Criminal Bar), the ILAC
(International Legal Assistance Consortium), the AIJA (International Association of Young Lawyers), theIPBA (Inter-Pacific Bar Association), and the UIA (Union Internationale des Avocats). The JFBA also
operates the information center that provides information for POLA (The Conference of the Presidents of
Law Associations in Asia) member organizations. Further, the JFBA Secretary General is individually amember of the IILACE (International Institute of Law Association Chief Executives) although not as arepresentative of an organization (i.e. the JFBA).
3.3.2 Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) Signed between the JFBA and Overseas Bar
Organizations
Figure 3-3-7

MOUs Signed between the JFBA and Overseas Bar Organizations(As of October 31, 2020)

Bar Organizations
The Law Council of Australia
The Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia
Korean Bar Association
The American Bar Association
All China Lawyers Association
The German Federal Bar
Paris Bar
Vietnam Bar Federation
Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation
The Law Society of Singapore
Le Conseil National des BarreauxMongolian Bar Association
Association of Mongolian Advocates
Malaysian Bar
Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Date of Signature
1999/09/02, 2009/07/28 (Re-signed)
2000/04/20
2004/12/04
2006/10/24
2006/11/30
2008/06/24
2010/06/24
2013/11/25
2014/10/23
2015/06/22
2017/10/19
2017/11/23
2019/02/19
2020/02/14

3.3.3 MOUs Signed between Local Bar Associations and Overseas Bar Organizations
Figure 3-3-8

MOUs Signed between Local Bar Associations and Overseas Bar Organizations(As of October 31, 2020)

Bar Associations andOverseas Bar Associations with Which the MOUs Were Signed
Federation of Bar Associations

Date of Signature

Hokkaido Federation of Bar
Associations

Bar Chamber of Sakhalin Region (Russia)

2008/11/07

Sapporo Bar Association

Uijeongbu Bar Association (Korea)

2008/12/08

Sendai Bar Association

Tao-Yuan Bar Association (Taiwan)

2016/11/18

Tokyo Bar Association

Chicago Bar Associations (US)2007/03/26

Paris Bar (France)

2010/06/24

Hong Kong Bar Association (China)

2012/02/20

Law Society of Hong Kong (China)

2012/02/20

Consiglio Nazionale Forense (Italy)

2017/09/27

103

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Bar Associations andOverseas Bar Associations with Which the MOUs Were Signed
Federation of Bar Associations

Date of Signature

Barcelona Bar Association (Spain)

2017/09/28

Vietnam Bar Federation (Vietnam)

2018/01/24

Law Society of England and Wales (UK)

2003/10/03

Hawaii State Bar Association (US)2005/10/20

Shanghai Bar Association (China)

2006/01/23

Section of International Law, American Bar Association (US)2008/07/09

Chamber of Lawyers Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

2009/07/10

Lawyers Council of Thailand (Thailand)

2015/06/16

Dalian Lawyers Association (China)

2017/10/13

The State Bar of California (US)2019/05/13

The New York City Bar Association (US)2020/01/30

Kaohsiung Bar Association (Taiwan)

2020/09/04

Seoul Bar Association (Korea)

1989/08/11

Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan)

2010/03/31

Toulouse Bar Association (France)

2012/06/5

Law Society of Singapore (Singapore)

2015/03/25

Paris Bar (France)

2015/12/10

Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association (Vietnam)

2015/12/15

Association of Mongolian Advocates (Mongolia)

2016/01/25

Shenzhen Lawyers Association (China)

2016/02/29

Suwon Bar Association (Korea)

2003/12/26

Shanghai Bar Association (China)

2009/04/28

Saitama Bar Association

Incheon Bar Association (Korea)

2005/05/21

Shizuoka Bar Association

Zhejiang Provincial Lawyers Association (China)

2012/04/01

Hue Bar Association (Vietnam)

2014/11/22

Ha Noi Bar Association (Vietnam)

2014/11/24

Association of Mongolian Advocates (Mongolia)

2008/09/19

Gwangju Bar Association (Korea)

2017/11/4

Seoul Bar Association (Korea)

1993/10/04

The State Bar of California (US) (US)2018/9/14

Barcelona Bar Association (Spain)

2014/02/08

Law Society of Hong Kong (China)

2014/10/22

Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan)

2016/01/09

Shenzhen Lawyers Association (China)

2016/01/10

Law Society of Singapore (Singapore)

2016/10/18

Hyogo-Ken Bar Association

Law Society of Hong Kong (China)

2019/11/07

Nara Bar Association

Australian Capital Territory Law Society (Australia)

1995/06/29

Hiroshima Bar Association

Deagu Bar Association (Korea)

1998/05/08

Okayama Bar Association

Hsin Chu Bar Association (Taiwan)

2014/09/04

Fukuoka Bar Association

Busan Bar Association (Korea)

1990/03/03

Dai-ichi Tokyo Bar
Association

Daini Tokyo Bar Association

Kanagawa Bar Association

Aichi Bar Association
Osaka Bar Association

Dalian Lawyers Association (China)

2010/02/27

Saga Bar Association

Ulsan Bar Association (Korea)

2006/04/21

Nagasaki Bar Association

Tainan Bar Association (Taiwan)

2003/03/25

104

Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBABar Associations andOverseas Bar Associations with Which the MOUs Were Signed
Federation of Bar Associations

Date of Signature

Daejeon District Bar Association (Korea)

2012/11/24

Oita Bar Association

Jeju Bar Association (Korea)

2010/02/27

Kumamoto Bar Association

Gyeongnam Bar Association (Korea)

2004/03/26

Kagoshima Bar Association

Taichung Bar Association (Taiwan)

2006/03/11

Jeollabukdo District Bar Association (Korea)

2012/02/22

Miyazaki Bar Association

Chungbuk Bar Association (Korea)

2009/06/12

Okinawa Bar Association

Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan)

1994/02/25

Law Society of Hong Kong (China)

2015/05/06

3.4. Overseas Visiting Scholar Program
3.4.1 JFBA Visiting Scholar Program
The JFBA entered into an agreement with the New York University School of Law (NYU) in 1997, theUniversity of California, Berkeley (UCB) in 1999, the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign
College of Law (UIUC) in 2007, the School of Law at the University of Essex in 2011, and the National
University of Singapore (NUS) in 2014, under which attorneys who are engaging in public-interest
activities, such as those related to the rule of law, access to justice, human-rights protection, international
cooperation and contribution, and nominated by the JFBA, can be accepted as visiting fellows (allinstitutions mentioned above except the NUS) or as students in the LL.M. course (at the UIUC, theUniversity of Essex, and the NUS).
3.4.2 Past Visiting Scholars
A total of 70 JFBA members have studied abroad through this program up to fiscal year 2019. In fiscal year
2020, as of July 2020, the deployment of JFBA members has been postponed due to the surge of the COVID19 pandemic. In their period of studying as visiting fellows or students in the LL.M. course, they interactedwith professors and students of the law schools they attended, introduced legal issues and the roles ofattorneys in Japan, and also gave presentations on their own study themes. After they returned to Japan, theirexperiences and knowledge have been contributing to the JFBA through their activities in JFBA committees.
The table below provides information about the JFBA members who participated in the program in fiscal
years 2018 and 2019, as well as those who are due in fiscal year 2020 and beyond.
Figure 3-3-9

Year

Past Visiting Scholars through the Visiting Scholar Program

University

NYU

2018

Year ofBar
Admission
Association
to BarSaitama

Study Theme

2009

Concept of the “best interests of the child” under the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, and how alternative care systems are
optimized for children

UCB

Tokyo

2013

How the idea of “reasonable accommodation” under theAmericans with Disability Act (“ADA”) is interpreted andimproved in America, especially with regard to the treatment of
disabled suspects and defendants in criminal cases

UCB

Daiichi
Tokyo

2011

Issues relating to the increase in independent contractors that hasarisen from the recent development of the “sharing economy”(e.g. Uber and Airbnb), and protection of their rights

UIUC

Daiichi
Tokyo

2009

How to best protect privacy in the age of a data-driven society
where big-data, the technology of the Internet of Things (“IoT”)
and artificial intelligence (“AI”) are becoming widespread

Sapporo2013

Problems arising from the law criminalizing conspiracy in Japan
from the perspective of comparative studies between the laws inEssex (LL.M.)

105

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Japan and those in England and Wales, as well as from theperspective of international human rights law

2019

NUS

Aichi

2007

1. International arbitration, especially practical procedure in the
Singapore International Arbitration Center2. Comparative laws in Vietnam and other South East Asian
countries

NYU

Daini Tokyo

2011

Relation between regulation of freedom of expression and crime orcriminals

UCB

Daiichi
Tokyo

2010

Method for taking legal measures against right infringement on theinternet in the U.S.

UCB

Daini Tokyo

2010

Case study of effective and efficient collaboration between
attorneys and social workers: Centering on the practice in publicguardian offices specialized in criminal justice and theelderly/persons with disabilities

UIUC(Visiting fellow)

Shizuoka

2003

Comparative study of Japan and the U.S. systems of compensation
for loss or damage arising from large-scale torts

UIUC (LL.M.)

Aichi

2012

Judicial system related to intellectual property right in common
law countries

2014

1. Understanding laws of the Southeast Asian countries, especially
the Law of Singapore, which is referred to frequently as thegoverning law
2. Understanding of dispute resolution systems
3. Understanding of the customs/cultures of the Southeast Asian
countries to establish compliance systems

NUS

2020

Daini Tokyo

NYU

Sendai2013

1. Modalities of interpretation focusing primarily on legal
interpreting
2. Criminal defense advocacy skills in courtroom and how they canbe developed

UCB

Tokyo

2014

Use of the international mediation in cross-border commercial
disputes and its challenges

Tokyo

2006

1. Trend and development of the reform in guardianshiplegislation in the United States: Enactment of the “Uniform
Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective
Arrangements Act” and the resultant influence in the context ofpractice
2. The current state of the utilization of trusts (Special Needs
Trusts) in the United States

Essex(Visiting fellow)

Daiichi
Tokyo

2000

Sports Law

Essex (LL.M.)

Aichi

2007

Media disclosure of names of crime victims and the right to beforgotten

UIUC (LL.M.)

Note: The above information is current as of July 2020.

3.5 Support for Career Development in International Public Service
In recent years, more members, mainly younger members, have been expressing interest in working in theinternational public service field (including not only work at international organizations but also at public
offices and NGOs as a staff member or expert) to further develop their careers. At the JFBA, the role ofproviding such career development support is held by the Working Group on Career Support for International
Public Service under the Center for Promotion of International Legal Services in the Expansion of Legal Services
Division, and by the Office of International Affairs.

106Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBA

3.5.1 Implementation of Various Seminars and Events
Figure 3-3-10
Year

Seminars and Events to Support Career Development in International Public Service

Seminar/Event Name

Target Group

Supporting
Organization

Descriptions

Information Seminaron Careers in2004 − International
Organizations

Attorneys,
law school
students, etc.

Center forInternational
Organizations of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan

Information is provided on the expected
qualities for the staff of internationalorganizations, job descriptions, and practicalways to get hired, such as the Junior
Professional Officer (JPO) program by the
MOFA.

International Career2010 − Seminar for Legal
Professions

Ministry of Foreign
Attorneys, legal Affairs, Ministry ofapprentices, law Justice, Japanese
school graduates, Society oflaw school
International Law,
students, etc.
Japan Association of
Law Schools

In International Organization session as partof this seminar, attorneys who are or used tobestaff
members
atinternationalorganizations give presentations, as lecturers,on their experiences and information
including their respective motivations forworking in international organizations, theduties and challenges they have faced.

Lecture Series for
Practical Training on
2016 − International Public
Law

Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, JapaneseSociety ofInternational Law

In a course consisting of ten seminars focusedon international public law, legal theories andpractical practice on international trials, etc.
are presented from the perspectives of bothpractitioners and academics.

2018

Lecture to Support
Career Development
in International
Service

Attorneys

These lectures are aimed at fostering attorneys
to work in the field of international public
service and promoting such recruitment, andare given by staff members at internationalorganizations, etc. for those attorneys and law
school students who are interested in pursuingsuch a career.

Attorneys,
law school
students, etc.

3.5.2 Support System for Career Development in International Public Service
Figure 3-3-11

System to Support Career Development in International Public Service(As of September, 2020)

Support Method

Descriptions

Consultation desk on working in Provides career path support to attorneys who wish to pursue a career ininternational public service
international public service field by offering individual and practical counsel basedon the individual circumstances
Mailing list for those who want
to work in international public
service

Used in order to provide information from the JFBA and to promote interactive
information exchange and networking between those who want to work ininternational public service.

Attorney roster system forworking in internationalorganizations

Supports attorneys who wish to work in international organizations by allowing
them to register their career details, etc. in the Recruitment Center for International
Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA), which isoperated in collaboration with the MOFA

Database for those who areinterested in working ininternational organizations(Listserve)

Distributes the career seminar information, etc. that the JFBA obtains for those whohave been involved in previous JFBA support activities for working in internationalorganizations and who are registered in the database

E-mail newsletter providing
information relevant tointernational activities(JFBA Kokusai Melumaga)

Disseminates information about events in relation to international field and support
programs, as well as information related to employment/job offers to members whoare interested in international activities and area.

107

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

3.5.3 Implementation of Judicial Apprentice Training and Internships at the Offices of International
Organizations in Japan
In order to support legal professionals who wish to pursue a career in the public service field, the JFBA
requested four international organizations (the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Representation in Japan,
the International Organization for Migration Japan, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and theEconomic Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to accept judicial apprentices during theirpractical training programs at the Legal Training and Research Institute of the Supreme Court. In response
to our request, these organizations have started to accept judicial apprentices since 2009. Since 2010, theInternational Labour Organization (ILO) Office in Japan has also started to accept them. Further, internshipschemes at the ILO office, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) office, the Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Japan, and the International Organization for
Migration Japan were introduced in 2010, 2012, 2016, and 2019, respectively, targeting JFBA members.

3.6 Promotion of International Practice by Attorneys
3.6.1 JFBA’s Activities to Promote International Practice by Attorneys
Figure 3-3-12

Activities Conducted by the Center for Promotion of International Legal Services of the
JFBA

Date

Event Name

Feb. 27, 2016

“Symposium on International Practice by Attorneys - for the World Stage” (in Niigata)Mar. 25, 2016

International Arbitration Seminar “International Dispute Resolution, and Settlement by Arbitration- Achieving Easier Access to Arbitration” (in Sapporo)Aug. 29, 2016

“Basic Knowledge on Philippines Family Law” hosted by the LNF in coordination with the JFBA

Oct. 17, 2016

“Singapore Experience in International Mediation and Family Law” co-hosted with the Law Societyof Singapore

Nov. 2016－Mar. 2017

Lecture series for practical training on international public law (ten seminars in total)

Jan. 27, 2017

International arbitration seminar “International Dispute Resolution, and Settlement by Arbitration Achieving Easier Access to Arbitration” (in Aichi)

Mar. 18, 2017

Symposium on “International Practice by Attorneys - To the World from Kyushu/Fukuoka” (inFukuoka)Jul. 10, 2017

“Work on the Family and Residency Issues of Japanese and Filipinos” from the report by theJapanese-Filipino Legal Cases Support ProjectNov. 17, 2017

“Philippines-Japan Law Conference 2017: Family Law Issues in Filipino-Japanese Cases” (Manila,
Philippines)

Dec. 12, 2017

“International Arbitration Symposium - for Developing the Infrastructure to Facilitate the
Implementation of International Arbitration in Japan” co-hosted by the JAA, the JFBA, the Tokyo
Bar Association, the Daiichi Tokyo Bar Association, and the Daini Tokyo Bar Association (inOsaka)

Jan. 13, 2018

Seminar on assistance for overseas business development of small and medium sized enterprises(held concurrently with an international arbitration seminar) (in Fukuoka)

Feb. 6, 2018

Information seminar on careers in international organizations titled “Legal Careers at theInternational Criminal Court (ICC)”

Jul. 11, 2018

Lecture to support career development in international service titled “Rule of Law in theInternational Development Institutions in the Age of SDGs, and the Roles of Legal Professionals”

Jul. 24, 2018

“Work on the Family and Residency Issues of Japanese and Filipinos in Aichi” (in Aichi)

Nov. 2018－Mar. 2019

Lecture series for practical training on international public law (ten seminars in total)

Nov. 12, 2018

Seminar “Discuss the Latest Trend of Philippine Family Law” co-hosted with the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines

Dec. 14, 2018

Seminar “Strategic Utilization of the WTO toward Resolution of International Economic Disputes”

Feb. 23, 2019

“Symposium on International Practice by Attorneys: Find Your Own Strength” (in Kanagawa)108

Chapter 3. International Activities of the JFBA

Date

Event Name
The Philippines-Japan Law Conference 2019: Family law issues in Filipino-Japanese cases
including Japanese-Filipino children (JFC) and proceedings for acknowledgment of divorce (inDavao, the Philippines)

Apr. 8, 2019
Oct. 18, 2019

Seminar “Must-know Commercial Treaties for Lawyers: Knowledge Applicable to Practice andRulemaking in the International Commercial Sectors Pioneered by Japan”

Feb. 14, 2020

Seminar organized jointly with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines: “Seminar Celebrating theConclusion of the MOU: Investment Law in the Philippines”

3.6.2 Attorney Referral System for Japanese SMEs Going Overseas
This program is designed to refer small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) introduced by partnerorganizations to attorneys who have broad experience in international corporate legal affairs and practice inthe field of international transactions, under which the attorney's fees for the first 30 minutes in the firstsession are free of charge and become 10,000 yen per 30 minutes up to 10 hours (as of July 1, 2020, excluding
consumption tax). The total number of consultations provided as of July 1, 2020 was approximately 390 since
the launch of the program in May 2012. The details and contents of the consultations are shown in the figures
below.
Figure 3-3-13

Implementation Status of Attorney Referral System for Japanese SMEs Going Overseas(As of July 1, 2020)
Number of Consultations
by Location of Company (Prefecture)

Topic of the Consultation
Review of overseas
development plan, andother advice; 8%Others;8%
About problems
at site; 15%

About agreement; 69%

Status after the 1st Consultation
Unanswered;
Others(cancelled, etc.);
13%
6%

Case
undertaken;
33%

Closed;39%

On-going;
9%

Tokyo
Aichi
Osaka
Kanagawa
Hokkaido
Shizuoka
Gifu
Niigata
Hyogo
Chiba
Kochi
Kyoto
Miyagi
SaitamaMie
Nara
Yamaguchi
IbarakiOkayama
Iwate
Oita
Kagoshima
KagawaHiroshima
Aichi
ToyamaFukuoka
AomoriIshikawa
Saga
Tokushima
NaganoTochigi
Shiga
Nagasaki
Fukui
Tottori
Fukushima
Wakayama
Yamagata

25
24
20
16
14
11
9
9
8
7
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0

20

123

55

40

60

80

100

120

140

* Based on the results of a questionnaire administered to companies
that sought a consultation.

109

Part 3. Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations

Chapter 4. Other Activities
4.1 Legal Expenses Insurance (Right Protection Insurance) System
More often than not, citizens who get in trouble and need to consult with an attorney or to hire them fornegotiation or litigation, may hesitate to rely on them out of fear of the cost that such legal action may entail.
To address the situation, the JFBA initiated investigation and research in around 1980 to study the systems
in place in foreign countries, and launched a legal expenses insurance scheme in 2000 in partnership with a
few insurance companies to pay out insurance claims for legal consultation fees, lawyers’ fees, and othercosts. The JFBA Legal Access Center (LAC) was established at the same time.
Today, the legal expenses insurance is sold by insurance companies as an add-on to car insurance or otherinsurance policies (also occasionally available as stand-alone insurance) to cover lawyers’ fees incurred inclaiming compensation for loss or damage resulting from accidents the policyholder has encountered. From2014 onward, the legal expenses insurance offering extended coverage has also been sold to cover not only
no-fault car accidents but also general civil cases, incidents arising from business activities undertaken bysmall and medium sized enterprises and sole proprietors, cases related to obstruction of lawful businessinflicted on enterprises, and cases involving troubles in cyberspace. The policyholders of the added-on
policies or stand-alone insurance sold by the insurance companies that have signed a contract with the JFBA,
can be referred to an attorney through a local bar association contacted by the LAC.
As of October 2020, the JFBA has entered into such contracts with 20 insurance providers in total, including
a newly joined insurer in each of March and October 2020. The number of insurance claims handled by the
LAC is increasing each year, having reached over 40,000 cases in fiscal year 2019, reflecting its contribution
in removing obstacles, such as cost, that prevent citizens’ access to counsel.
Figure 3-4-1

Trend in the Number of Legal Expenses Insurance Policies Sold and the Number of Claims
Processed by the LAC(Cases)(Million Cases)

30

28,042,748 28,073,281
26,943,888
26,171,407

Number of LEI policies soldNumber of claims processed by LAC

25

24,342,554
21,853,930
20,917,031
19,780,575
18,798,688

20

37,03034,75431,362

15

10

5

0

23,1049,010,426

2,142

30,00020,00018,116

6,563,649
5,857,847
4,438,126
933,272
197
700

40,00027,58814,317,156<Fiscal Year 2001>
No. of LEI policies sold: 11,488
No. of claims processed by LAC: 3

39,08740,87950,00013,526

10,000

8,194

3,565
5,148

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
(Fiscal Year)[Note]
1. The legal expenses insurance policies sold are those that were sold exclusively by Contract Insurers (some of thenumbers are only rough estimates).
2. The number of claims processed by the LAC includes all cases where policyholders requested a referral to an attorneyof the Contract Insurers’ choice, as well as cases where policyholders appointed an attorney of their own choice*.
* Aiming to enhance the operation of the legal expenses insurance scheme, the JFBA LAC requests the Contract Insurers to report the cases
where clients appointed an attorney of their own choice. These cases are categorized as “Case of Client’s Own Choice of Attorney”, in order
to distinguish them from cases where attorneys of the Contract Insurers’ choice were used.

110

Part

P043_CW6_A7196CD001.indd

434Comprehensive Legal Support

2021/02/17

18:47:08

Part 4. Comprehensive Legal Support

Part 4. Comprehensive Legal Support
Chapter 1. Japan Legal Support Center (Ho-terasu)
The “Japan Legal Support Center” (known as “Ho-terasu” in Japanese), a corporate body, was establishedon April 10, 2006 as an incorporated administrative agency, in accordance with the Comprehensive Legal
Support Act, with the aim of expanding legal services for the public all over Japan; namely, improving theease of use of the system for resolving disputes at court and by other means, and having legal services
provided by attorneys, regardless of whether the cases are civil or criminal in nature.
Ho-terasu launched its services on October 2, 2006. Its headquarters is located in Tokyo, and local offices
are located in the capitals of each prefecture (in the case of Hokkaido, local offices are also located in
Hakodate, Kushiro and Asahikawa, in addition to Sapporo, the prefectural capital). Further, regional offices
have also been set up in districts where there are shortages of attorneys, in order to provide various services
to the public. In total, there were 108 Ho-terasu offices as of September 1, 2020.

1.1 Scope of Operations of Ho-terasu
The following operations are conducted at Ho-terasu:
Figure 4-1-1

Contents of Ho-terasu Operations[1] Providing
information

Introducing useful information regarding dispute resolution through the legal
system and providing information relating to organizations which provide legal
services.

[2] Civil legal aid

Offering support to citizens with limited financial resources by means of loans
for attorneys’ fees and judicial scriveners’ fees, and through the provision offree legal counseling.

[3] Operations
associated with the
public criminal
defense system(a) In the case of criminal trials (the accused, and suspects for a certain scopeof criminal cases), informing the name of an attorney who is qualified to be acourt-appointed defense attorney, and ensuring the provision of such courtappointed defense attorney upon request by the courts in each area, for citizens
who are unable to hire a defense counsel due to their limited financial resources.
(b) Informing the name of an attorney who is qualified to be a publicly-funded
attorney attendant, and ensuring the provision of such publicly-funded attorneyattendant upon request by the family courts in each area for juveniles who arein custody and who have been accused of committing certain serious cases, aswell as when the court finds it appropriate.
(c) Upon request by victims of crime who are planning to participate in a court
trial, informing the victims of the name of an attorney who is qualified to be acourt-appointed attorney in such court and ensuring the provision of suchattorney.
(d) Dealing with matters such as calculating the transportation fees andconducting money transfers, etc. for the victims of crime who have participatedin criminal trials by using the system allowing the participation of victims.

[4] Operations toaddress shortage ofaccessibility tojustice in local
regions

Providing legal services (on a fee-basis) by staff attorneys who work at Hoterasu in areas where there are no attorneys, etc.

[5] Assistance tovictims of crime

Providing information in relation to the system for aiding in the recovery ofvictims of crime and reducing the damage and suffering thereof, as well as
introducing attorneys or support institutions familiar with providing support for
victims of crime to citizens who have become victims of crime, as well as theirfamily members.

112

Chapter 1. Japan Legal Support Center (Ho-terasu)[6] Conducting
operations
entrusted by otherorganizations

Currently conducting operations entrusted by two organizations: the JFBA andthe Support Foundation for Japanese Orphans in China (a public interest
incorporated foundation). The former includes providing assistance indefending criminal suspects whose crimes fall outside the scope of cases
covered by the court-appointed attorney system for suspects, consulting withattorney attendants for juvenile cases, and assisting with human-rights related
matters targeting people not covered by the civil legal aid system, among otheractivities (see 1.2 below).

[7] Providing
assistance inrelation to disasterrelated laws

In accordance with the Special Act on Earthquake-Disaster (Special Act on
Support to Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake), conducting free legal
counseling and offering support through loans for attorneys’ fees and judicial
scriveners’ fees for residents who, on March 11, 2011, lived in areas (except for
the Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture) where the Disaster Relief Act was appliedin response to the Great East Japan Earthquake.

1.2 Support Operations Entrusted by the JFBA
Ho-terasu may conduct operations entrusted by the national government, local governments and NPOs, etc.
within a scope which does not affect Ho-terasu’s original business operations (Article 30-2, Comprehensive
Legal Support Act).
Since October 1, 2007, Ho-terasu has been conducting operations entrusted by the JFBA. These operations
used to be conducted by the Japan Legal Aid Association, a judicial foundation, on a voluntary business (i.e.
a business operated without subsidies from the state), and they provide assistance for covering attorneys’
fees, etc. from the viewpoint of providing human rights redress targeting those not otherwise covered by thecivil legal aid system, Ho-terasu, or the court-appointed attorney system prescribed in the Comprehensive
Legal Support Act.
Among the support operations entrusted by the JFBA, other than the provision of aid for the defense of
criminal suspects and for attorney attendants in juvenile cases, the financial resources of the assistancebusiness mainly come from (i) donations from those involved in criminal proceedings in order to show theirsense of remorse, and (ii) membership dues from JFBA member attorneys.

113弁護士白書2020年版

日本弁護士連合会 編著〈特 集〉１

法律援助事業の成果と課題～弁護士・弁
護士会による人権救済活動～

２ 弁護士による中小企業支援の現状と課題～日弁連中小企業法律支援センター設立10年の歩みと将来展開～〈第１編〉弁護士等の実勢〈第２編〉弁護士の活動状況〈第３編〉日弁連・各弁護士会の活動状況

Japan Federation of Bar Associations

00_DW6_A7196A01.indd

すべてのページ

日本弁護士連合会 編著

Written and Compiled by〈第４編〉総合法律支援・司法関連予算

2021/02/17

15:10:09