REFORM OF THE LEGAL TRAINING SYSTEM IN JAPAN
By
Prof. Tomoko AKANE,
Deputy Director, UNAFEII.

INTRODUCTION“It is the people who operate a system. In realizing meaningful reforms of the justicesystem to respond to the new age in a fruitful way, as set forth in these Recommendations, if thehuman base that actually carries out the reforms is not well developed, the new system cannot be
expected to function fully,” the Justice System Reform Council 1 said at the beginning of Chapter
III entitled, “How the Legal Profession which Supports the Justice System Should be”. This
chapter is one of the three major chapters of the Recommendations made on 12 June 2001. The
words in this paragraph are symbolic but may include profound wisdom and a lot of implications
for not only the Japanese justice system but also for other systems existing in society.
After the dawn of modern society with the end of 260 years of Tokugawas rule in 1868
(the first year of the Meiji period. In Japan, the beginning of Meiji is also called the “Meiji
Restoration”), the concept of a legal profession was introduced into Japan, together with awestern type of legal framework. The Japanese government established a legal training system aswell as an examination system to select qualified individuals, and reformed such systems fromtime to time to meet the needs of the new era. After World War II, however, the National Bar
Examination, which is the usual and almost the only entry into the legal profession,(for thosewishing to be judges, public prosecutors, and practicing lawyers) was put in place. The Legal
Training and Research Institute (of the Supreme Court) has been the only institute for training
legal trainees who have passed the National Bar Examination. The framework of this system has
been unchanged for more than 50 years, but is now facing a drastic change by the reform project,mainly because an increase in the number of legal professionals is a pressing need for current
Japanese society. During the reform project, new issues as well as long term problems wererevealed.
This paper will firstly give an overview of the Japanese legal training system including its
history and characteristics, as well as a comparative study with some other countries. Then, it
will focus on the current system looking at its specific features and problems, and will touchupon the reform which is now being undertaken, including the direction to go and issues to besolved in the future. Finally, I will try to give some recommendations for our Indonesiancolleagues on more effective reform of the legal training system.
II.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL TRAINING SYSTEM IN JAPAN 2

A.

History of the Examination for Legal Professionals and the Legal Training System
Regarding practicing lawyers, the Meiji government recognized Daigen-nin by an

1 See Section IV in this paper.
2 This section is mainly based on the following materials: Jurist Special Edition, “In View of the Reform of the National Bar Examination” (5 August 1982, Yuhikaku
Publication), Jurist No. 1170, “The Future of the Reform of the Legal System” (January 1st and 15th edition, 2000), 100 Year History of the Legal Profession (June,
1969, Hoso-Koron-Sha Publication)−91−

ordinance to represent clients during court procedures in 1872, when the court system3 started inJapan. Daigen-nin literally means “a speaker on behalf of another person” and is a classicalexpression of someone who is practicing law. The first public examination, called the Daigen-nin
Examination started in 1876. Local authorities were in charge of holding the examination,
however, the candidates who successfully passed the examination received a Daigen-nin licensefrom the Lord Justice (Central Government Official, someone like the Minister of Justice). The
graduates from the Faculty of Law of Tokyo University (established in 1877), and Doctors ofLaws could receive a special privilege to become Daigen-nin without taking this examination.
This Daigen-nin Examination System was maintained until 1892. The Digen-nin Examination
was replaced by the Bengoshi Examination (Bengoshi is the current name for a practicing lawyer
in Japanese) in 1893. Graduates from the Faculty of Law of the Tokyo University, Doctors ofLaws, and a few other exceptional people were still given the above mentioned privileges. The
Bengoshi Examination was maintained until 1922.
In regard to judges, the first national examination was held in 1884. It was called theJudge Recruitment Examination, which tested the applicants’ legal knowledge in criminal andcivil laws. Only persons who served as assistant officers for the court of the first instance for notless than one year could apply to take this examination. Daigen-nin, or those with Bachelors ofLaws could become assistant officers without taking this test. Moreover, Daigen-nin who had atleast two years experience with a bachelor’s degree of laws could be appointed as judges without
this examination. Other Daigen-nin having at least five years experience also enjoyed suchprivileges. Persons who served as assistant officers for the court of first instance for not less than
one year could be appointed as public prosecutors. The Judge Recruitment Examination wasmaintained until 1887.
The examination was replaced by the Bunkan-Exam-Koto-Examination (Bunkan was theword which meant judge and public prosecutor at that time) in 1888. But the Bunkan-ExamKoto-Examination was subsequently replaced by the Judge-Prosecutor Recruitment Examinationin 1891. This Examination System was maintained until 1922.
Since the Bunkan-Exam-Koto-Examination had begun in 1888, judges and publicprosecutors in Japan have been selected from those who successfully passed the common
examination. The legal training system for future judges and public prosecutors began in 1888
and they were given practical training in the two types of courts for a year and a half each.
Since 1991, the examination has been divided into two categories, the First Examinationand the Second Examination. Applicants who passed the First Examination were trained as legal
trainees. At the same time, the public prosecution bureau was added to provide practical legal
training, and the period of training was shortened to a total of one and a half years. But thecandidates were required to pass the Second Examination before they attained the status ofjudges or public prosecutors. Law professors of the national universities or practicing lawyers
who had experience of not less than three years were given privileges to be appointed as judges
or public prosecutors without any tests. Graduates from the law faculties of the national
universities could be legal trainees without passing the First Examination.
In 1923, a new examination and training system, called the Advanced Legal Course
Examination began (the privileges for graduates of the law faculties of the national universities
were abolished). The system consisted of a combination of the Preliminary Examination (essays
3 Subsequently, the Supreme Court (called Taishinin) was established in 1875.

−92−

and language writing tests such as English, French and German) and the Main Examination(essays and oral examinations on main laws). The candidates for legal professions (judges, publicprosecutors, and practicing lawyers) had to pass both of the examinations to acquire the licenseof practicing lawyer. But those who completed high school (high school at the time was almost
equivalent to a college level education in the current system in Japan) or who had equivalentacademic knowledge were exempted from taking the Preliminary Examination. It was necessary
for those who wanted to be judges or public prosecutors, to go through the practical legal training
as legal trainees for one and a half years and to pass the final examination. In 1933, the system
was reformed for practicing lawyers. They were also required to go through the practical training
for one and a half years and to pass the final examination in addition to passing the Preliminary
and Main Examination, but they were trained separately from those wishing to be judges andpublic prosecutors.
In 1939, the Government of Japan established the Legal Research Institute where thetrainees for judges and public prosecutors were expected to spend their last three months. Thissystem was maintained until 1948.
For your reference, women were not allowed to be legal professionals for a long time.
Finally in 1933, female lawyers were admitted when the Lawyers Law was amended (The law
went into effect in 1936.), and the first female practicing lawyers were admitted in 1940. It wasan unwritten rule that the government refused to have females as judges and public prosecutors
before the end of World War II (1945). The first female judges and female public prosecutor wereappointed in 1949.
After World War II, Japan had to restructure the legal system under the New Constitution
enacted in 1946, and the legal training system was no exception. The National Bar Examination
Law was enacted in 1948, and was immediately put in force. The first National Bar Examination
was held in 1949.
Since 1949 to the present time, the National Bar Examination has been maintained as the
only examination to select future legal professionals (judges, public prosecutors, and practicing
lawyers). The examination consists of two parts, the Preliminary Examination and the Secondary
Examination. The Preliminary Examination is to test the applicants on their general knowledge,
and applicants who complete the first two years in college are exempted from this examination.
The Secondary Examination consists of three kinds of tests. Firstly, the applicants have to passmultiple choice tests on major laws, such as Constitutional Law, Civil Law, and Penal Law. Only
applicants who successfully pass the multiple choices tests are allowed to proceed to the next
step. Next are the essay tests. The number of subjects (mainly from the law) has been changed
several times. At present, the applicants have to take six subjects (Constitutional Law, Civil Law,
Penal Law, Commercial Law, Civil Procedure Law, and Criminal Procedure Law). These essay
tests are the most important and difficult parts of the National Bar Examination. Applicants who
pass the Essay Tests, can go forward to the final step. The final tests are the oral tests on the same
subjects as in the essay tests except there is no oral test on Commercial Law at present.
After passing the National Bar Examination, the candidates to be legal professionals haveto be legal trainees in the Legal Training and Research Institute (of the Supreme Court). The termof the training had been two years, but in 1999, the term was shortened to one and a half years.
Each legal trainee who enrolls at the Institute is sent to a certain prefecture to be trained in a
district court, district prosecutors office, and at a practicing lawyer’s office, three months each,except for the first three months and the last three months when he/she gets lecture type−93−

education in the Institute. Legal trainees have final examinations at the end of the training term.
When they pass the final examinations, they are given an attorney’s license to be practicing
lawyers and are qualified to apply to be judges (assistant judges, whose judicial authority is
restricted for the first five years), and public prosecutors. Since 1949, therefore, the examinations
and training for all the future legal professionals have been conducted in an integrated andunified manner. Consequently, in Japan, all the attorneys have the same educational and training
background and qualifications.
In short, the legal training system in Japan has evolved sometimes gradually, butsometimes very drastically in accordance with the changes in society and the legal system, andbased on the needs of time for more than 130 years.
B.

Characteristics
There are several characteristics of the current Japanese legal training system.

1. There is only one National Bar Examination in Japan. It is held once a year. It is almost the
only way to acquire legal professional status (attorney). Thus, a certain level of quality among
the legal professionals can be maintained throughout Japan.
2. Application for the Examination is open to anyone. No qualification is necessary. Any person
without any age limitations, with all kinds of educational backgrounds, can apply. However, as
shown before, the examination requires a certain level of knowledge of the law. So almost all
the successful applicants are either graduates from law faculties of universities, or persons
given equivalent legal education in the preparatory schools or institutions.
3. There is only one Legal Training and Research Institute in Japan. All the legal trainees inJapan attend the Institute, and receive a common educational background at least while theyenroll at the institute. It gives them the opportunity to have certain common understandings
regarding the role of the legal professions and their missions in society. The institute is under
the Supreme Court and legal trainees are regarded as public officers and paid certain salaries.
The salary for them is enough to support them during the training period 4 .
4. At present Japan does not have law schools like the United States, and some other countries.
So there are a lot of universities which have law faculties at the undergraduate level.
5. The number of successful applicants is very limited. Although the number has been increasing
year by year, in 2002 for example, only 1,183 passed the National Bar Examination from morethan 41,000 applicants. The success rate is only 2.85 per cent. Consequently, the number oflegal professionals is very small. The total number of legal professionals was around 20,700 in1999 (among them judges number around 2,100, public prosecutors, around 1,300, andpracticing lawyers 17,300. In Japan, there are approximately 6,300 people per legal
professional, whereas there are 290, 710, 740, and 1,640 in the U.S., U.K. (Britain), Germany,and France, respectively. 5

4 The salary of legal trainees is 208,300 yen per month as of in 2002. Beside that they are provided with some monetary benefit such as family support allowance (theRule of the Supreme Court concerning the Salary of Legal Trainees). For your reference newly recruited judges (assistant judges) and public prosecutors are paid
234,600 yen per month. (The Law concerning the Salary of Judges, The Law concerning the Salary of Prosecutors)
5 According to the "Recommendations of Justice System Reform Council", 12 June 2001

−94−

C.

Legal Training Systems in Other Countries

1.

U.K. (England and Wales)

There are two types of law professionals, barristers and solicitors. Accordingly, there are
two types of legal training systems. Barristers tend to appear in the upper courts (Crown Court,High Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords) and have a right of audience there.
Barristers cannot receive cases directly from clients, as a rule, so receive cases from solicitors
who receive cases directly from clients. Solicitors, on the other hand, do not have automatic
rights of audience in the higher courts. Solicitors do attend the lower courts such as the county
courts and magistrates’ courts and in certain circumstances can attend the Crown Court. So whensolicitors receive a request from a client to represent them in the upper courts, they employ
barristers for the advocacy. Barristers and solicitors are regarded as being equally qualified andindependent legal professionals.
To become a barrister, firstly, it is necessary to get a bachelor's degree in law from a
university or to pass a postgraduate diploma in laws (Common Professional Examination) aftergetting a bachelor’s degree in another subject. Then, students have to take a professional
vocational course (BVC) in one of the eight institutes designated by the General Council of the
Bar (one of the organs of the United Bar Association of Barristers) for a year. Before taking theBVC, they are also required to take qualifying sessions held by one of the four Councils of theInns of Court (Organs of United Bar Association of Barristers). After that, they have to go
through practical training for a year under the supervision of a barrister who has at least six years
experience. After the BVC, they are qualified as barristers. To become a solicitor, firstly, it isnecessary to obtain the same academic qualification as barristers. Then they have to take a legal
practice course (LPC) for a year in one of the advanced legal colleges or institutes. After that,they work as trainee solicitors for a two year period under the supervision of a qualified solicitor.
After the two year period the trainee solicitor can be admitted as a fully qualified solicitor. A
solicitor must have at least three years experience before he/she can open his/her own practice. In
total, around 5,000 new legal professionals are admitted every year.
Judges are appointed from the more experienced barristers and solicitors, and they cannot
be younger than 40 years old. England and Wales has a long history of a private prosecution
system. However, in 1985 the Crown Prosecution Service was established and since then crownprosecutors have been appointed from qualified barristers and solicitors.
2.

U.S.A.

Unlike the U. K., there is only one type of law professionals (attorney), but the bar
examinations are carried out at the state level. To become an attorney, it is necessary to enter thelaw schools, which are regarded as graduate level, and students must study for three years. 6 In
1998, there were 181 law schools, certified by the American Bar Association, across the U.S.,
and more than 42,000 students entered the law schools in that year, but certain students of the law
schools drop out because of poor academic performance. In the law schools, case methods, as
educational measures, are commonly used based on precedents in the courts, rather than giving
lectures based on the legal theories established by scholars. The law school students are required
to acquire advocacy skills, as well as developing their legal mind through the analysis and the
6 In the U. S., law faculty is not attached to the undergraduate level, but some universities have pre-law courses or similar faculties, such as political science to mypersonal knowledge.

−95−review of precedents. But as the main focus of the study is put on the analysis and review ofprecedents, it is said that law school students often fail to gain enough skills for court. Aftercompleting law school, it is necessary to pass the bar examination held in each state. The bar
examination consists of multiple choice tests which are common throughout the U.S., and essay
questions. The final responsibility of the bar examinations is vested in the Supreme Court of eachstate. The bar examinations are held twice to five times a year in each state, but the frequency ofthe examination differs from state to state.
Applicants who successfully pass the bar examination, are given a certificate to practice aslawyers from the Supreme Court of the state. The number of lawyers is increasing by around
30,000 across the United States every year (Around 57,000 new lawyers were admitted in the
U.S. between 1996 and 1997). Judges and public prosecutors are appointed or elected fromamong the attorneys at state level. At the Federal level, the President appoints the judges(including U. S. Supreme Court Justices) and the U. S. attorneys with the approval of the Senate.
3.

FranceIn France, candidates to be judges and public prosecutors are selected in the same national
examination and trained in the same institute, but candidates for practicing lawyers are selected
and trained separately. The system is somewhat similar to the Japanese one before WW II. To
become judges or public prosecutors, firstly, it is necessary to take a bachelor’s degree of laws orequivalent academic degree. Then, only the applicants who pass the competitive examination are
allowed into the National Judiciary School (L’Ecole Nacionale de la Magistrats). Each applicant
can apply for the entrance examination for the ENM only three times, and the age for admittanceis 27 years or younger. The number of applicants who are admitted to the ENM is around 200
each year, and the success rate is only about 10 per cent. If admitted, they are trained in theschool for two years and seven months and paid a salary by the government during the training
period. At the end of the training period, the ENM students have to pass the final examination,
but very few of them fail it. Judges and public prosecutors are basically appointed from among
the graduates of ENM, based on academic record. A career system is exercised, and there are a
lot of judges and public prosecutors who continue in their professions to the end of their career,
but frequent mutual exchanges of their posts between the judges and the public prosecutors are
not uncommon.
To become practicing lawyers, firstly, it is necessary to have a bachelor’s degree of laws
or equivalent academic degree. Then, they have/ to pass the entrance examination for theProvincial Lawyers Training Centers (CRFP). CRFP are 33 in total and one of them is located ineach province of the court of appeal. Each applicant has only three opportunities to apply for theentrance examination. The success rate is between 20 to 30 per cent. If admitted, they are trainedfor one year in the CRFP, but they are not paid a salary. At the end of the training period, they
have to pass the final examination, but very few of them fail it. In 1997, around 2,300 new legal
professionals in total were admitted.
4.

Germany

In Germany, there is only one category of legal profession, but the qualification is required
not only for judges, public prosecutors, and practicing lawyers, but also for notaries as well. To
acquire the qualification, firstly it is necessary to graduate from a four year law course in thestate universities, then to pass the Primary Examination, which is similar to the current Japanese
Bar Examination. After that, they have to be trained as legal trainees for two years. During this−96−

period, legal trainees are regarded as public officers and paid a salary. They are given practicaltraining mainly in the courts, prosecution offices, and the offices of practicing lawyers, butsometimes in other organizations such as legislative organizations, private companies, and so on.
In 1998, around 9,800 legal trainees acquired the qualification to become legal professionals.
5.

Korea7

In Korea, there is an almost identical legal training system to that of Japan. However, theproportion of judges (around 1,400) and public prosecutors (around 1,000) to practicing lawyers(around 3,700) is large compared to Japan (2,100, 1,300, 17,300 respectively). Recently, however,the number of practicing lawyers has been increasing much more than judges and publicprosecutors, because of the big differences in the respective incomes.
6.

China (People’s Republic of China) 8

In China, there was no unified legal training system. Courts and public prosecutor’s
offices, for a long time recruited their personnel according to their own regulations and methods.
The reform of the legal system had been promoted in many ways to modernize their legal
framework. The examination for practicing lawyers started earlier, and in 2001, a new law wasenacted for the Unified Bar Examination. In 2002, the first Bar Examination was held and theexamination for practicing lawyers was abolished. The Bar Examination consists of multiple
choice questions covering basic laws such as Constitutional Law, Civil and Commercial Law,
Criminal Law, Administration Law, and so on. Around 24,000 from 360,000 applicants passed
the examination and they were given the qualification of legal professional. The training system
for successfully passing the Bar Examination is still dependent on individual organizations, andis now being developed at a rapid speed.
III. CURRENT SITUATION AND PROBLEMS OF THE LEGAL TRAINING SYSTEMIN JAPAN 9
As shown in the previous section, after the legal training system was established, it wasreformed several times since the late nineteenth century. It seems that this unified and concerted
system worked well, however, now it doesn’t and it faces drastic changes due to some problems.
The fact that the number of legal professionals is extremely small compared to other countries
causes a lot of serious problems. The biggest issue is how to increase the number of legal
professionals without a deterioration in the quality of service. Thus, this paper will show what the
problems are and how they effect the enforcement of the administration of the Japanese legal
system.
A.

Academic Education in the Law Faculties of Universities

After the new Constitution was enacted in 1947, the Japanese fundamental structure aswell as the legal system was radically changed. The education system was also reconstructed

7 According to the articles in the Kensatsu Geppo, No. 484 and No. 524
8 According to the article in the Kensatsu Geppo , No.536 and lecture delivered at Ministry of Justice of Japan by Mr. Shao Shixing Assistant Professor of the National
Prosecutors College, at Ministry of Justice of Japan in June 2002
9 This section is mainly based on the following materials: Jurist No. 1170, "The Future of the Reform of the Legal System"(January 1st and 15th edition, 2000), Jurist
No.1208, "Comments and Opinions on the Recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council"(September 15th edition, 2001)−97−

based on the new laws and provisions, and the so-called 6-3-3-4 Education System10 started. In
accordance with economic growth, the importance of education had been emphasized more andmore, to produce qualified and skilled workers. The percentage of those receiving advanced
education has been continuously on the rise. According to the homepage of the Ministry of the
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology11 , 49.3 per cent of the total number of people
in the corresponding age group (18 to 19 year-olds in Japan) entered universities or colleges in2001.12 In 2001, the number of university/college students was around 2.5 million, and there arenearly 700 universities/colleges (including public and private) across Japan. Among them, there
are between 110 and 120 universities (of which only 25 or 26 universities are public ones and restof them are private) which have law faculties or equivalent faculties, and around 45,000 new
people entered into such faculties as undergraduate students in 2000.
Since the number of students is huge, most universities mainly provide them with lecturetype education in big classrooms. The Japanese legal system is based on the civil law system(European Continental Law) with some common law principles and concepts (especially, thoseof the United States). Thus, it is necessary for the students to learn the principles of the legal
framework based on existing codes of major laws, and precedents rendered by the courts(especially the precedents of the Supreme Court). Some small class discussions are usuallyavailable, but such methods of study are usually used as supplementary ones.
As shown earlier, a very limited number of people pass the National Bar Examination,consequently, the majority of law students have to give up the examination even if they wanted tobe legal professionals. The success rate for the National Bar Examination is less than three percent (in 2002), and it is called the most difficult national examination in Japan.
Consequently, the majority of universities with law faculties (especially, private
universities) cannot focus the students to be legal professionals, because the majority of students
will choose other professions. Thus, universities tend to provide them with various kinds ofclasses on various laws from the very basic ones to the very sophisticated and profoundtheoretical ones, and students have to study a broad range of legal areas with some optional
subjects. But for students who would like to be legal professionals, they must gain enoughknowledge for the National Bar Examination (which requires students to focus on the six legal
areas, such as Constitutional Law, Civil Law, Penal Law, Commercial Law, Civil Procedure Law,
and Criminal Procedure Law) and enough skills to write essays in accordance with therequirements to survive the Examination. Especially in the more prestigious universities, many
students try to pass the Examination, so they are not satisfied only with the lectures given by theprofessors at the universities. Such students tend to attend preparatory schools which provide
them with such knowledge and skills. Many students belonging to the universities attend
preparatory schools. It is called the “Double School” phenomenon. Moreover, many of the
double school students tend to attend only the preparatory schools, and finally, they just graduate
from the universities, but do not study all of the subjects provided by the universities. It may
have a bad impact on the students and the education of the universities, and vise versa.

10 It means that students study for 6 years in the elementary school, 3 years in the junior high school, 3 years in the high school, and 4 years in the college/university
with some exceptions. The education in the elementary school and the junior high school (9-years) was made as a mandatory education for everyone. (Before WWII,
the mandatory education was the first 8 years in elementary and post-elementary school.)
11 www.mext.go.jp/monkag2001
12 Only full time students are counted. The percentage in other countries is as follows: in the U.S. it was 45.9 per cent in 1998, in the U.K. it was 58.4 per cent in 1999,
in France it was 43.0 per cent in 1991, and in Germany it was 30.3 per cent in 1998.

−98−

B.

The National Bar Examination13

The current National Bar Examination System began in 1949, and for the first ten years or
so the number of applicants successfully passing the Examination was around 300 per year.
However, in accordance with the development of industry, the economy, and technology, society
and people gradually changed and became more diverse and complicated. Legal disputes havebeen increasing and legal professionals have become extremely occupied with litigation. People
involved in litigation have suffered from long procedures, and they cannot get adequate legal
assistance because of the shortage of legal professionals (especially judges). Thus, various
measures were planned and implemented to secure the number of legal professionals. The
number of applicants gradually increased and also the number of people who passed the
Examination increased. In 1964 14 , the number, for the first time, exceeded 500, but by 1990 thenumber remained at around 500 due to various reasons. Among them, of course, the maintenanceof high quality which was the one of the biggest issues, since it was thought that without having
qualified legal professionals the legal system may easily lose the trust of the general public and it
may ultimately collapse.
The Number of Applicants for the National Bar Examinations; Applicants who
successfully passed the Exam; , the success rate; and so on by years (A: Applications,
B: Actual Applicants, C: Applicants who successfully passed the Examination D:
Success rate, C/B x100 (%)
Year
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
Year

A
2,570
2,806
3,668
4,761
5,138
5,250
6,347
6,737
6,920
7,109
7,858
8,363
10,90910,762
11,686
12,69813,644
14,867
16,460A

B

10,052
9,761
10,441
11,393
12,25913,41914,799
B

C

D
265
269
272
253
224
250
264
297
286
346
319
345
380
459
496
508
526
554
537

C

3.78
4.70
4.75
4.45
4.29
4.12
3.62
D

13 See the National Bar Examination Law. The law established, under the Minister of Justice, the National Bar Examination Administration Committee, which isallowed to act independently. The Committee, consisting of the Administrative Deputy Minister of Justice, the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, and apracticing lawyer designated by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, works for fair and proper exercise of the examination. The Minister of Justice appoints
examiners for each examination, based on the recommendation by the Committee. The number of examiners varies time to time, in December 2002, 172 examiners
consisting of scholars and practitioners were appointed for the next year's Examination.
14 This year, the Special Judicial System Examination Committee demanded in its opinion that "the population of legal professionals be gradually increased, while
making sure not to cause a deterioration in quality, so as to reinforce and improve the proper and smooth operation of justice and the legal lives of the people, because
the number of legal professionals as a whole is deemed to be considerably insufficient."

−99−

1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002

17,72718,453
20,16022,33623,42525,33926,70827,191
29,08829,21429,39028,62228,656
27,81626,317
25,13823,95623,85523,904
24,69023,352
23,202
22,90022,59623,435
20,84822,55424,48825,454
27,11230,56833,98336,20338,93045,622

15,937
16,427
17,84720,042
21,082
22,532
23,826
24,62725,89025,85725,92025,56925,76825,063
23,773
22,84521,75921,812
21,86422,65621,42821,302
20,967
20,60021,423
17,707
19,396
21,26021,90923,586
26,75529,88731,72934,11741,459

−100−

525
501
507
533
537
537
491
472
465
465
485
503
486
446
457
448
453
486
486
489
512
506
499
605
630
712
740
738
734
746
812
1,000
994
990
1,183

3.29
3.04
2.84
2.65
2.54
2.38
2.06
1.91
1.79
1.79
1.87
1.96
1.88
1.77
1.92
1.96
2.08
2.22
2.22
2.15
2.38
2.37
2.37
2.93
2.94
4.02
3.81
3.47
3.35
3.16
3.03
3.34
3.13
2.90
2.85

The Number of Applications and the Number of Successful Applicants
50,00045,00040,000the number ofapplications

35,00030,000the number ofactual applicants

25,00020,000the number ofsuccessful
applicants

15,00010,000
5,000
2001

1993
1997

1989

1981
1985

1973
1977

1969

1961
1965

1953
1957

1949

0

As the data in 1985 below can show, serious concerns can be pointed out.
*Applicants for the Examination: around 25,000*The applicants who passed the Examination (finalists): around 500*Success rate: around 2 per cent*The average age of finalists: 28 years*The average times applying for the Examination: 6 times*The percentage of undergraduate students among the successful candidates: around
10 per cent*The percentage of postgraduate successful candidates who are not working: around
80 per cent*The percentage of females among the successful candidates: 10 per cent
In Japan the age of graduation from university is usually 22 years old, so on average
students applying for the Examination have to study 6 more years after graduation without jobs
in order to pass the Examination. Thus, unless the families of the students (or applicants) are richor someone can support them, they could not continue to study. Some intelligent students lose
interest in the Examination, and choose different fields. Some other people try to pass theexamination as soon as possible with the help of preparatory schools. So many preparatory
schools have emerged and have enjoyed prosperous and lucrative businesses. But this does not
improve the situation, but makes it worse, because students not only attend universities but also
they depend on the curriculum and study manuals made by preparatory schools. Some academics
and critics including government officials expressed concerns on the qualifications of the future
legal professionals who are required to have a broad range of academic knowledge, logical waysof thinking, and an ability to solve problems by themselves with deep insights and perspectives
in various matters they may face.
Moreover, the Japanese justice system has had to face very serious problems, because of
the severe shortage of legal professionals.
(i) The long court procedures were the major obstacles for citizens involved in disputes. If the−101−

public are not satisfied with the court procedures or the services provided by the legal
professionals, they may use other means which may not be legal.
(ii) It was difficult for legal professionals to establish and promote the specific fields where they
had expertise. Especially in view of the rapid development of scientific technology and thederegulations in commercial and international trade, some experts in specific fields werenecessary.
(iii) The local distribution of legal professionals generates an unequal situation in terms of accessto legal services. Since practicing lawyers offices are located mainly in large cities, it isinconvenient for people in rural areas to get good legal service.
Thus, some people in the justice system felt a pressing need to increase the number oflegal professionals, as well as to reform the legal training system including the National Bar
Examination. It was in 1987 that an ad-hoc committee was formed for deliberating fundamental
issues regarding legal professionals, consisting of scholars, legal professionals, and executives inbusiness and financial fields, based on the request by the then Minister of Justice. 15
Firstly, the reform of the National Bar Examination was undertaken. It was aimed atincreasing the number of applicants who pass the Examination, especially among young
applicants 16 . In 1993, the number of applicants who passed the Examination reached 700, and
1,000 in 1999. Ho wever, the changes have not been significant.
There are still a lot of students who go to the preparatory schools, and such preparatory
schools are earning a lot more than before. The success rate was up a little (3 to 4 per cent, an
improvement of 1 per cent up), and the average age of the finalists went down a little (around 27
years old, around 1 year less).
C.

Legal Training in the Legal Training and Research InstituteApplicants who pass the National Bar Examination have to be trained in the Legal
Training and Research Institute. As described before, the Institute is under the Supreme Court,
and the legal trainees are paid a salary17 during the training period. Since legal trainees are
assumed to have a basic knowledge of major laws and a legal mind, the education and training isfocused more on practical skills rather than theory. The training consists of classroom lecturesand practical on-site training.
Legal trainees are required to attend classes at the Institute for the first three months. They
are divided into more than 10 classrooms 18 . Each class has five teaching staff. The teaching staff
are seconded legal professionals, who are judges, public prosecutors, and practicing lawyers.
Each of them gives lectures to the legal trainees in the five fields, namely, civil court procedures,
criminal court procedures, prosecutors’ work, practicing lawyers work in civil cases andpracticing lawyers work in criminal cases. Sometimes they give some assignments based on pastreal case records. For example, the legal trainees are required to write sentences, judgments,
15 Based on the report of the committee, the National Bar Examination Law was partially amended in 1991.
16 In 1991, the National Bar Examination Law was amended, and as one of the measures, the priority system for determining successful candidates (called "Plan Hei")started from 1996. Plan Hei made it possible to secure a certain number of candidates who have taken the Examinations less than 3 times, due to a kind of privilege
given to them.
17 The salary of legal trainees is 208,300 yen per month as of 2002.(See footnote 4.)
18 Formerly, there were 10 classes, however, in accordance with the increase of the legal trainees, the number of classes also increased. In 2002, there are 14 classes,
and next year 2 classes will be added.

−102−

indictment sheets or final disposals, or other litigation documents based on the evidence and facts
shown by past real case records. And on some occasions, they are given a past case and required
to play some role (judge, public prosecutor, practicing lawyer, defendant, or witness) in mock
court proceedings. Through such practical training, they learn actual practices. Moreover, theysometimes have the opportunity to attend lectures on various matters by prominent speakers
invited from outside the Institute.
After three months, each legal trainee is sent to a certain prefecture. For example, if a legal
trainee is sent to Yokohama, he/she will attend the Yokohama District Court19 (civil and criminal
divisions), Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office 20 , and a local practicing lawyer’s office.
Three months each are allocated to learn in each division. They learn actual practices based on
actual cases from judges, public prosecutors, and practicing lawyers. They stay in the local
district for 12 months in all.
After finishing practical training on-site, the legal trainees return to the Institute to review
and finalize their practical training. Three more months are allocated for the purpose, then, they
have to pass the final examination to get the certificate.
Throughout the 18 months, the legal trainees have their performance knowledge, andcharacter graded by various methods. The legal trainees are appointed judges or publicprosecutors based on their preference and also taking into consideration their academic record in
the examinations, and their performance during their training.
Recently, around 100 legal trainees were appointed as judges, and around 70 legal trainees
were appointed as public prosecutors, the others went into private practice.
The problems are:(i) In proportion with the increase in legal trainees, the burdens on teaching staff and local legal
professionals in charge of training also increased. Since the number of legal professionals isvery limited especially in local cities, it is a big burden on them.
(ii) Recently, the period of the legal training has been shortened. So each division in the local
offices has only three months to teach them based on actual cases. It is becoming more andmore difficult to allocate appropriate cases to the legal trainees in such a short period, andtrain them effectively.
(iii) Most of the legal trainees have less experience in life, and it is not unusual that they lack
general academic knowledge as well as common sense, because their only study in life is withstudy manuals and instructions provided by the preparatory schools for surviving the National
Bar Examination. Thus, as supplements, the Institute and local offices sometimes organize
cultural or academic events, plan study tours in various fields and areas, and so on. In fact,some of them annually visit UNAFEI to observe our activities, such as the International
Training Courses, in relation to international cooperation.
D.

Continuing and the On-the-Job Training
Knowledge and skills as judges, public prosecutors, and practicing lawyers may be

19 District courts are ordinary courts which deal with civil matters and criminal matters as the first instance courts. There are 50 district courts across Japan.
20 District public prosecutors offices correspond to the district courts. There are 50 district public prosecutors offices across Japan. But public prosecutors there deal
with mainly criminal cases and juvenile cases, and not civil cases.

−103−

gradually gained through handling daily caseloads. In this sense, the training provided by theInstitute (of the Supreme Court) cannot do it all. However, once they are appointed as judges(assistant judges initially), public prosecutors, or those who enter private practice, the work doneby them is regarded as professional. So after acquiring legal professional status, eachorganization, namely the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice or prosecutors office 21 , or the Bar
Association provide training for new members or relatively young members. Moreover, in
accordance with the advancement in technology, globalization and evolution of society, eachorganization tries to provide its members with appropriate training programs.
For instance, for public prosecutors, there are various kinds of training programs. The
Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice is the organization that provides suchprograms for public prosecutors and other staff members in the Ministry of Justice.
For newly recruited public prosecutors, for example, there is a six-month training course.
The training consists of lectures and actual case dealings in the Tokyo District Prosecutors Office.
After about three years, they receive additional training based on their actual case disposals. For
public prosecutors who have around six or seven years experience, another program focusing on
economic or financial cases is provided. For rather senior public prosecutors who have aroundten years experience, a management program is offered. More than that, there are other programs
such as computer programming, special training focused on tax evasion cases in the Special
Investigation Departments, and so on. To enable public prosecutors to gain general knowledge orcommon sense, some relatively young public prosecutors are sent to private offices, or otherpublic offices. For international awareness, around 5 young public prosecutors are sent to foreigncountries to study in graduate schools annually, around the same number are sent abroad for 5 or
6 months to study foreign criminal justice systems annually. Some public prosecutors as well as
judges participate in each International Training Course and the International Seminar held by
UNAFEI annually.
Judges are given similar types of training as public prosecutors. The biggest difference
between judges and public prosecutors is that of their professional authority when they are newly
recruited. A newly recruited Judge is usually appointed as an assistant judge in a district court.
For the first five years, the judicial authority of an assistant judge is restricted. He/she can be amember of three judges court, but as a single judge, he/she can decide only limited matters suchas detention orders at the investigation stage, and cannot preside over a trial in a single judge
court. So a newly recruited assistant judge is expected to be trained by a presiding judge of thethree-judge court or by other senior judges.
Practicing lawyers have fewer opportunities, but they often arrange study forums and train
themselves.
However, because of the rapid advancement of technology and globalization, the training
for legal professionals is still not sufficient. Basically, legal professionals in Japan are generalists
covering all fields as far as legal matters are concerned. But more specialized experts should
increase in number to cope with the difficult situation at present.

21 The public prosecution service consisting of the public prosecutors office is a part of the Ministry of Justice, but not subject to the direct control of the Minister ofJustice. The head of the public prosecution service is the Prosecutor General who is a career public prosecutor, and thus the public prosecution service is protectedfrom the infl uence of political power.

−104−

E.

Exchange Programs among Legal Professionals

As shown before, Japanese legal professionals have equal qualifications, and many judges
and public prosecutors pursue their professional careers near the end of their mandatory
retirement age. The career system is carried out both in the judiciary and public prosecution
service. A relatively small number of judges become public prosecutors in the middle of theircareers, and vise versa. It happens that some practicing lawyers become judges or publicprosecutors, but not too often. However, some judges and public prosecutors exchange posts foraround three year terms to learn from each other.
Some people recommend that judges should be appointed from amongst practicing
lawyers (or public prosecutors) who are well trained and experienced like in the United States.
F.

Problems with the Legal Training System in JapanAs stated above, the biggest problem the current Japanese legal training system faces is
the shortage of legal professionals. In general, they perform well in their respective fields,
however, sometimes they cannot afford to meet with the expectations of their clients or citizens
in Japan, because they are too busy to manage their most pressing workloads.
To supplement this situation, some paralegals have been utilized. For example, paralegals
can help clients do paper work related to the court procedures, but they cannot attend court topursue the procedures for the sake of the clients.
Assistant public prosecutors are recruited based on in-house types of examinations, andthey can pursue the court procedures as far as is so designated. However, they are not given
qualifications as legal professionals. Summary court judges are usually appointed among those
who pass the in-house type of examinations among the court clerks. They are not qualified aslegal professionals similar to the assistant public prosecutors. There are some problems related tothese matters, and there is a lot of discussion in this regard. However, these problems can besolved in a constructive and progressive manner so as not to disappoint the paralegals who haveimportant roles in the justice system or the lawyers who are specially trained.
Moreover, as stated above, there are other issues interrelated to one another. There are a
lot of local cities and towns without sufficient numbers of practicing lawyers. According to therecent survey by the Supreme Court, 119 jurisdictions out of 253 (Jurisdiction means that it haseither a district court or its branch within the area) have none to four practicing lawyers within
the area. 22 It means that it is inconvenient for local people to access the justice system. Thissituation also affects court procedures; civil cases especially, are said to take a long time to settle
in court. Thus, some citizens involved in civil disputes, tend to settle the case outside thecourtrooms. The justice system may alienate the citizens from using it.
The competitive National Bar Examination system has produced a group of elite, who are
however not fully exposed to ‘real society’, and not knowledgeable in various fields. Especiallyfor judges and public prosecutors, it is said that they are raised in a greenhouse, because of the
career system, and some of them are very distant from the feelings of the ordinary people.

22 “Justice System Reform”, by Koji Sato, Morio Takeshita, Masahito Inoue, Yuhikaku,
20 October, 2002, page 225−105−

Finally, due to the rapid changes of the world in accordance with the advancement oftechnology and globalization, it is said that it is extremely difficult for Japanese legal
professionals to keep pace with such changes, because most of them cannot afford to havespecific expertise due to their wide responsibilities.
These problems may not have instant and perfect solutions, however, now Japan ismoving toward a vigorous reform of the system so that it can better serve the citizens to meettheir trust and expectations.
IV.

THE ISSUES OF LEGAL TRAINING SYSTEM REFORM IN JAPAN 23

The lengthy discussions 24 on the future reform of the legal system, initiated by focusing on
the legal professionals and their roles in Japan called upon political will. Some members of the
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP, the ruling political party in Japan) became interested in theissues, and they established an ad-hoc research committee inside the Party in 1997, and madesome reports and recommendations regarding the reform of the Japanese justice system. Finally,
the Law Concerning Establishment of the Justice System Reform Council was enacted on 9 June
1999, and came into force on 27 July 1999. On the same day as the law was put into effect, theCouncil was established under the Cabinet25 and immediately began its devoted endeavor. Over a
period of 2 years, it held more than 60 meetings, a number of public hearings in major cities,
interviews on experts, and received opinions from the general public through the internet etc. It
finally submitted its Recommendations 26 to the Cabinet on 12 June 2001. The Recommendations
covered all the issues relating to reform of the justice system. In responding to the
Recommendations, the Law concerning the Promotion of Justice System Reform was enacted on
16 November 2001, and came into force on 1 December 2001. At the time, the Headquarters for
the Promotion of Justice System Reform was established in the Cabinet to enforce the Law. To
assist the Headquarters’ work, a secretariat, consisting of public officials seconded from somegovernmental offices, was set up. The Headquarters is also supported by a councilors’committee27 for discussions on specific issues related to the Justice System Reform and to holdmeetings in order to realize the reform suggested by the Recommendations. By 29 November
2002, the Diet adopted the draft laws 28 relating to the establishment of Law Schools.
This section will show the points of the Recommendations and the further developments
after the Recommendations, in terms of legal training, as well as new issues stemming from thereform program.
The Recommendations clearly set the aims and targets to increase the legal population
23 This section is mainly based on the Recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council-For a Justice System to Support Japan in the 21st Century-The
recommendations are available in English. See: www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/judiciary/2001/0612report.html
24 Especially when and after the Ad-hoc Committee for deliberating fundamental issues regarding the legal professionals was formulated in 1987. See III. B.
25 The members of the Council were 13 (University Professors at Laws, Attorneys including a former judge and a former public prosecutor, Business Executives, andothers). They were appointed by the Cabinet with the approval of the Houses of the Representatives, and Councilors, according to the Law.
26 Recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council-For a Justice System to Support Japan in the 21• £st• £ Century- (Hereinafter referred to as simply "theRecommendations".)
27 One of the important issues was the legal training system.
28 They are following laws:(1) The Law for the partial amendment of the School Education Law(2) The Law to Ensure the Interrelationship between the Educational Programs at Law Schools and the National Bar Examination, and so on(3) The Law for the partial amendments of the National Bar Examination Law and the Courts Law−106−substantially as follows;(i) Immediately increasing the number of successful candidates passing the National Bar
Examination with the aim of reaching 1,500 successful candidates in 2004.
(ii) While paying heed to the progress in the establishment of the new legal training system,
including law schools, the aim should be to have 3,000 successful candidates for the new
National Bar Examination in about 2010.
(iii) Through these increases in the legal population, by about 2018, the numbers of legal
professionals actively practicing is expected to reach 50,000.
A.

Increasing the Number of Legal Professionals, by the Establishment of Law Schools

Thus, the Recommendations strongly recommended the establishment of law schools as
one of the measures to increase the number of legal professionals, and also as a part of the newlegal training system.
The Recommendations said that Law schools should be established, with the aim ofstarting to accept students by April 2004. The following are the main points of the plan for law
schools made by the Recommendations.
(i) Law schools should be established as postgraduate schools, where practical education
especially for fostering legal professionals will be provided.
(ii) The standard training term should be three years, and completion in two years as a shortened
term should be recognized.
(iii) Applicants should be selected, with the principle of securing fairness, openness and diversity,
by considering not only their admission examination results but also their grades atundergraduate schools and actual performance overall.
(iv) To expand diversity, students from faculties other than law and working people, etc., should
be admitted.
(v) Law schools should provide educational programs that, centered on legal theory, introduce
practical education, with a strong awareness of the necessity of building a bridge between
legal education and legal practice.
(iv) Law schools should provide thorough education so that a significant ratio of the students
who have completed the course (e.g. 70 to 80 per cent of such students) can pass the newnational bar examination.
(v) The small group education system should be adopted with regard to the educational methods.
A sufficient number of teachers should be secured for the purpose.
(vi) A certain ratio of practitioner-teachers should be secured.
This will be the first experience for Japan to have law schools, and the plan seems to be
attractive. If the plan goes well, the number of more qualified legal professionals, with various
academic backgrounds will increase at a rapid pace in Japan, and will work to meet the various
expectations of the public.
However, there will be some issues to solve in the future. For example, the law faculties atundergraduate level will be maintained. So the educational program for undergraduate students
and for law school students may be duplicated to some extent. The students of the law faculties
may have classes of legal theory again in the law schools with the students who graduated fromother faculties. Moreover, it takes a longer time to acquire a certificate before applying for the
National Bar Examination, for such students from the law faculties compared with the former−107−

system.
On the other hand, for the graduates from other faculties, it may be difficult to gain
enough theoretical ground compared to those who graduated from law faculties in a short time.
Moreover, they have to learn some practical issues such as basic skills concerning fact finding
within the three years.
Each law school will have to recruit substantial numbers of practicing lawyers or otherpractitioners, as teachers, to maintain small class education. It may be difficult to secure qualified
practitioners, and it will cost a lot and this may be reflected in the tuition at the law schools.
There might be some conflict regarding the respective roles between the law schools andgraduate schools of laws, and that may affect the management of the private universities and law
schools. Theoretically, law schools may differ from the graduate schools of law, but in the past,some applicants for the National Bar Examination proceeded to the graduate schools to maintaintheir studentship. Moreover, some law schools may produce promising scholars from among
those who study the law from a practical viewpoint. So some universities will find difficulties inmanaging the graduate schools because there may be a decrease in the number of graduate
students.
On the other hand, the universities having law faculties may be interested in establishinglaw schools so that they may attract students by providing them with more opportunities andpossibilities for their future.
B.
The Management of the New National Bar Examination System, and the New Legal
Training System
The Recommendations said that the new National Bar Examination System should be
introduced after law schools are open. The Recommendations also offered some measures for asmooth transition to the new system. The points are:(i) The National Bar Examination should be transformed into a new one that responds to theeducational programs at law schools;(ii) A specific system should be established to ensure the interrelationship between the new
National Bar Examination and the Educational Programs at law schools ;(iii) Those who have completed the course at law schools that have achieved accreditation should
be awarded the qualification of candidacy for the new National Bar Examination;(iv) Proper routes for obtaining the qualification of legal professional should be secured for those
who have not gone through law schools for reasons such as financial difficulty or because
they have sufficient practical experience in the real world;(v) The number of times one is allowed to take the new National Bar Examination should be
limited, e.g., to three times;(vi) The new National Bar Examination should be introduced as an examination aimed at the firstcandidates to complete the course at law schools in the shortened two-year term, which is
projected to occur in fiscal year 2005;(vii) For about 5 years after the introduction of the new National Bar Examination, the current
National Bar Examination should be implemented in parallel to the new Examination;(viii) The priority system for determining successful candidates on the existing National Bar
Examination (Plan Hei) should be abolished in 2004, when the number of successful
candidates for the current Examination is expected to reach 1,500.
−108−

The Recommendations also made proposals regarding the New National Bar Examination:(i) The new National Bar Examination should be designed taking the educational programs at law
schools into account, and should have the purpose of judging whether candidates areequipped with enough knowledge and abilities to think, analyze and express themselves so as
to be qualified to start practice as legal professionals if they take the apprenticeship training
provided following the Examination.
(ii) For securing the co-relationship between the new National Bar Examination and theeducational programs at law schools, a mechanism should be established to, for example,
exchange opinions of parties involved in law schools as well as external well-informed
persons who can be appropriately reported to and the results reflected in the National Bar
Examination Administration Commission.
In short, the New National Bar Examination will aim at switching the selection system
based on “One Time Examination” or “the Evaluation on a Single Point” into a new system
based on “Process of Education”. However, there might be remaining problems. When thenumber of law schools increases, and it may be unavoidable that some prestigious law schools
will emerge and become the top law schools. Some others will not. The preparatory schools may
again try to catch such people who want to enter the good law schools. Again such “One Time
Examination” may be duplicated before entering law schools.
And the way of implementing the new National Examination for many candidates will betime consuming and will be a heavy burden on the limited number of people who are in charge of
the Examination.
The Recommendations did not deeply explore legal training for the successful candidatesof the new National Bar Examination, but they did say;(i) Apprenticeship training provided after the introduction of the new National Bar Examination
should be designed to cope with the increase in the number of judicial apprentices (legal
trainees). At the same time, properly devised training programs should be provided, in light ofthe educational programs at law schools, placing on-site training at the core.
(ii) The stipend system should be reconsidered.
(iii) With regard to the administration and operation of the Legal Training and Research Institute,the cooperative relationship among the three branches of the legal profession should befurther strengthened, and mechanisms should be established whereby opinions of persons
involved in law schools as well as external well-informed persons will be appropriatelyreflected.
As the apprenticeship training depends on the results of the new systems such as the law
school system and the new National Bar Examination, apprenticeship training was not clearly
defined at the time of the Recommendations. However, a substantial increase in the number ofsuccessful candidates for the new National Bar Examination will be inevitable in the near future,so it may be necessary to accelerate the applicable measures. The capacity for the Legal Training
and Research Institute is around 1,500 and it will reach saturation point in a couple of years or so.
Moreover, local offices of courts, public prosecutors, and practicing lawyers will have to receive
the legal trainees and provide them with on-site training programs which will be a very heavy
burden on them. Some effective measures should be undertaken immediately for effective
training.
−109−

C.

Developments after the Recommendations 29

After the Recommendations were submitted to the Cabinet on 12 June 2001, immediate
action was taken in accordance with the Recommendations. Since the law schools are within the
category of “schools” under the School Education Law, and are regulated by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, the Ministry, in August 2001, began toconsider the conditions or requirements for the establishment of law schools 30 .
The draft law for the partial amendment of the School Education Law was submitted in
October 2002, and was subsequently adopted by the Diet. According to the new School
Education Law, law schools are positioned as graduate schools for professionals. The main issues
pointed out by the Recommendations were incorporated into the law.
(i) The standard training term is set for three years, but for students that have acquired
fundamental knowledge of laws, the term can be shortened to two years.
(ii) All applicants for law school are required to take a vocational aptitude test held nationwide.
Applicants for the short-term course should take the other examination for the evaluation oflegal knowledge. On the other hand, other applicants may be tested and selected in various
ways by individual law schools. Law schools should receive a certain ratio or a majority ofstudents who have graduated from faculties other than law and working people.
(iii) Every law school is required to have a certain ratio of practitioners as teaching staff.
(iv) The law school’s activities should be under continuous and careful examination by anindependent organization of well-informed persons to conduct third party evaluations.
As stated before, on 1 December 2001, the Headquarters31 for the Promotion of the Justice
System Reform was established in the Cabinet to make practical plans and to enact necessary
laws for the purpose of the realization of legal system reform, paying the greatest respect to the
Recommendations. The Headquarters drafted “the Plan for the Promotion of Legal System
Reform” in March 2002, and promoted the drafting of the necessary laws.
The Japan Times 32 recently reported (Nov. 30 2002) the adoption of the laws 33 by the Diet
as follows:
Law Education Bills Enacted by the Diet
The Diet on Friday34 enacted into law two bills aimed at improving the system foreducating legal professionals. The bills, approved by the House of Councilors after
passing through the House of Representatives on Nov. 12, are intended to pave the way for
29 References: The information from the homepage of Prime Minister’s Official Residence, and “Legal System Reform” See footnote 17.
30 The Central Education Committee attached to the Ministry did the job. The Committee is divided into some smaller sub-committees. The group of experts
formulated the sub-committee for the law schools, held meetings and then issued the final recommendations in August 2002.
31 Members of the Headquarters are all Cabinet members headed by the Prime Minister. The Headquarters is supported by the Secretariat consisting of a number ofpublic officials seconded from the relevant Ministries, and a councilors committee consisting of 8 well-informed experts.
32 An English newspaper based in Tokyo, Japan
33 (1) The Law to Ensure the Interrelationship between the Educational Programs at Law Schools and the National Bar Examination, and so on(2) The Law for the Partial Amendments of the National Bar Examination Law and the Court Organization Law
34 29 November 2002−110−

a more comprehensive legal education system linking law schools, bar examinations andlegal apprenticeships. One of the laws is aimed at expanding the number of legal
professionals in Japan through increased educational opportunities, setting up a new bar
exam, and linking them with the process of legal apprenticeship. It will be introduced in
2004. Under the existing system, people can enter the legal profession based solely on
how well they do on national bar exams. The second law calls for a revision of thenational bar examination law that would require those who are not graduates of law
schools to take a pre-exam before qualifying to take the bar examination. It would also
limit the number of times an individual can take the new national bar exam to three times
in five years and shorten the period of legal apprenticeships to one year from 18 months.
A new bar exam for law school graduates would be introduced in 2006. The current exam
will be kept until 2010 for those who do not attend law school. The pre-exam would be
introduced in 2011.
As shown above, the combination of three-years of education (or two-years of education
for specific people) in law schools, the new National Bar Examination and one-year of practicaltraining as legal trainees are expected as new measures to expand the number of qualified legal
professionals 35 .
Now the Japanese Legal Training System is facing substantial change whether we want it
or not.
V.
FUTURE PERSPECTIVES – THE MAINTENANCE OF A TRAINING SYSTEMTO PRODUCE QUALIFIED AND RESPONSIBLE LEGAL PROFESSIONALS INRESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC’S TRUST AND EXPECTATIONS
A.

Possible Problems and Solutions for the New System

The Japanese Reform of the Legal System, if it works, will produce substantial numbersof legal professionals in a relatively short time. We are required to ensure the quality of legal
service to the citizens, and have to be ready to take any necessary steps to avoid problems.
1.

Education in the Universities

The role and function of education in the law faculties at undergraduate level should befully considered. The Recommendations said that the function of the law faculties in the past will
not change, as far as they produce and send human resources to various sectors in society.
However, the Recommendations commented as follows:(i) Education at undergraduate law faculties after the introduction of law schools is expected to
be vitalized as a whole in a situation where universities compete with each other indeveloping their own characteristics and identities to divide the burden of legal education
with law schools. For example, the academic minor system with basic legal education as abase can be introduced by aiming at providing broader educational programs.
(ii) With respect to the term for completion of programs at the undergraduate stage, it is desirable
that the so-called grade-skipping system be applied as appropriate.
35 The Asahi Newspaper wrote, “Whether the law schools can acquire students from various backgrounds may be the key.” The article said that 98 universities (26public universities) are now under consideration as to whether they can have law schools in the future. The details of each of the law schools will be announced byaround next fall.

−111−

2.

Maintaining the Quality of Legal Professionals

As shown in this paper, the number of Japanese legal professionals has been very small
compared with other major countries, because only a few candidates have annually been able topass the very strict and competitive National Bar Examination. After the introduction of the new
system, the number of legal professionals will increase drastically. (If the system works well, it isexpected to increase to 2.5 times the present number by the year 2018.) It implies the risks ofdeterioration of the quality not only in their academic level but also in their ethics.
The Recommendations accessed this issue as follows:(i) Law schools should take on the role of training high quality legal professionals who will leadthe justice system into the 21st century. To ensure the fruitful realization of that end,
significant labor, time and funds should be invested in human and physical resources,
including teachers, educational programs and methods. The responsibility of those involved
with universities and with the legal profession is grave, and, with a deep appreciation for thegraveness of that responsibility, those parties must devote efforts to the establishment andoperation of law schools.
(ii) In order to train and secure legal professionals with the character and capabilities (including
legal ethics) fit to support the justice system in the 21st century, continuing education should
be developed as a part of a comprehensive and systematic approach to legal training. In thisrespect, it seems to be significant for legal professionals currently engaged in legal practice tostudy subjects in advanced and up-to-date fields, international fields and interdisciplinary
fields by appropriate means including taking classes at law schools, so as to update the legal
knowledge required for providing the most appropriate legal services and broaden their views
and activity areas. Voluntary and positive efforts of the parties concerned are called for.
(iii) What is appropriate with regard to professional ethics in connection with the expansion inscope of activities (of practicing lawyers) should be studied, and the observance ofprofessional ethics should be secured by improving ethics training, properly applying theofficial disciplinary system, etc.
Indeed, the new system was also aimed at producing more qualified legal professionals, aswell as increasing the legal population, but with regard to maintaining the quality of legal
professionals, it would not be an easy task, and it would be necessary to undertake appropriate
measures using various means.
3.

Budgetary Issues for Courts and Public Prosecutors Offices

The Recommendations said that in the process of increasing the legal population as awhole, the number of judges and prosecutors, as well as the staff supporting the justice system,
such as court clerks, or staff in public prosecutors offices, should be increased greatly. For yourreference, the Supreme Court estimated that it would be necessary to have 500 more judges
during the next 10 years. The Ministry of Justice expressed the opinion that it would be necessary
to increase the number of public prosecutors by 1,000.
It means that the budget for paying salaries for judges and public prosecutors should be
expanded substantially. It is extremely difficult because of the economic recession in Japan, andother circumstances. It would also be necessary to call for the understanding of the people ofJapan, as costs will increase. Of course, the quality of the judges and public prosecutors, and the−112−

level of their service and performance, should be maintained to meet with the high expectationsof the public.
4.

Access to Practicing Lawyers Especially in the Local Areas

In the process of increasing the number of practicing lawyers, measures to secure thenumber of practicing lawyers in local areas are also necessary. It is desirable for everyone to haveeasy access to some practicing lawyers, but even if the number of practicing lawyers increases,
the majority of them may head to the mega cities such as Tokyo, Osaka and Yokohama. In thissense, it is recommended that the bar associations send, at least on some days a month on aregular basis, lawyers to the local areas where none, or only a few lawyers are available.
It may be necessary for the government to consider establishing a public defender systemor to expand the system of defense lawyers for defendants in criminal cases and to establish
similar systems in civil cases.
In these cases, there might be difficult issues to be resolved between the defense lawyers’
independence, and the private nature of lawyers in that they need to be paid. There are issues thatarise in the establishment of a public defense service, surrounding the quality of service a publicdefender might provide if his/her remuneration is a lot less than that of a private lawyer. This canalso apply to the civil law.
5.

Recruiting More Judges from Practicing Lawyers

As was shown earlier, in Japan, most judges are recruited from those who have justfinished their training and graduated successfully from the Legal Training and Research Institute.
The system itself will be maintained, but practicing lawyers are expected to expand theiractivities to carry out their social responsibility. The Recommendations said. “...it is desirable forlawyers to more positively engage themselves in such other legal professions as judges andprosecutors so that they can contribute to the administration of a justice system that can respondto public expectations and public trust... considering that it will become necessary to vigorously
promote the appointment of lawyers as judges, the bar associations have to make more efforts
than ever to ensure that numbers of qualified member layers will be able to accept those
appointments.”
This is regarded as equally important for both of the parties, career judges and practicing
lawyers to the betterment of the justice system reform.
6.

Judges Role in Speedy and Appropriate Procedures

Judges, especially presiding judges may be expected to play more important roles inprocedures, than other parties, such as public prosecutors or practicing lawyers, including pretrial or mediation procedures. Strong leadership based on a strengthened legal authority will benecessary to promote speedy trials and to secure fairness. Against the obstruction of proceduresby other parties or intentional non-cooperation without due reason, presiding judges should be
provided with specific legal power. In terms of the methods of court proceedings, such parties
who do not obey judges’ legal orders, should be criminally liable.

−113−

B.

Other Issues to Promote Reform for a Better System

Needless to say, producing qualified legal professionals is not an easy task, and it cannot
be achieved in a short time. What the people in the justice system need to do is to make a strong
and sustained effort. Trial and error is sometimes part of the education process. The best system
in one county may not work in another country. However, some points should be pointed out for
the future Japanese legal training system.
(1) Better legal training systems should always be sought, not only in relation to candidates to belegal professionals, but also existing legal professionals, with the aim of providing broad andprofound knowledge and wisdom overriding technical and practical knowledge of laws to see
issues in the right perspective, to enhance humanity, to feel the happiness, sorrow and pain ofothers, and to inspire a sense of internationalization.
(2) Exchange programs among different professions, not only among legal professionals but also
within different fields should be encouraged. Seeing is believing, and experience makes the
person.
(3) People who manage the administration of the justice system should always be ready to takethe necessary steps for the reform of the training system, being sensitive to changes indomestic and international society and the needs of the people in society.
VI.

RECOMMENDATIONSAs stated above, it is a time and labour consuming task to produce qualified legal
professionals. So it is necessary to make practical, but comprehensive and sustainable plans withlong-term, mid-term, and short-term targets. It may be easier and effective to have limited targets,
such as to produce a handful of elites who will be leading figures as the first step, then, gradually,
the number of such elites should be enlarged. At the same time, measures should be taken forlegal professionals as a whole.
Such a huge job inevitably needs the strong political will of the nation. However, it is thetask of the practitioners who work in the justice system, to make every effort to move the people
towards the right direction.
There are several points to recommend to my colleagues in Indonesia, but solely based on
my own opinions.
It is recommended:(i) To consider the necessity of holding a national examination for candidates applying to be legal
professionals, to consider academic ability, and to grade them. (for the first step, it may be
useful to organize a committee or an organization consisting of well-informed people todeliberate the issue comprehensively.);(ii) To find promising people as candidates to be future legal professionals from the broader poolof human resources (for that purpose, to establish scholarship programs for intelligent
students with financial difficulties to continue study, and to encourage such people to study at
the law faculties of universities);(iii) To promote or to expand on-the-job training programs to educate legal professionals by
utilizing available resources;(iv) To promote exchange programs among legal professionals, in order to give them more
opportunities to get to know each other and get to know details of each other's work;−114−

(v) To hold seminars and conferences among legal professionals to discuss the focal points
among them, so that they have a common understanding as legal professionals;(vi) To promote comparative study by scholars and practitioners. (Without doubt, learning about
the various types of legal training systems in the world is very important. To participate in
UNAFEI programs could be one of the opportunities for practitioners to open their eyes to theworld and to broaden their views. After close deliberation, it may be considered appropriate toincorporate some legal training systems exercised abroad into the domestic system withnecessary modifications).
VII.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, I've tried to show the Japanese legal training system as an example, toprovide our colleagues in Indonesia with the raw materials necessary to start the discussion.
What I wanted to say was that the current situation is the result of accumulated practices of pastlegal education and training, and that the current situation will eventually help us to formulate thefuture situation. In the case of Japan, it took around 130 years to develop, with much trial anderror, and I think it has achieved a certain level of success.
Still, the Japanese system is now facing some substantial reform for its betterment. It will
also take some time for the new system to develop. Until then, I suppose we will have to strive
for better implementation of the current system, and make minor refoms little by little.
We cannot produce qualified legal professionals in a day. We cannot establish a perfectsystem for that purpose, and even if we can establish a better one than that of present, it rests
with the people who operate it. We cannot do anything but make continuous efforts towards thegoal that we are now heading for.

−115−

−116−

REFORM OF THE LEGAL TRAINING SYSTEM IN INDONESIA
By
Justice Abdul Rahman SALEH, S. H., M. H.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Indonesia
I.

INTRODUCTION

It is known among the community of legal professionals that legal training is very
important for the foundation and rule of law. However we do not yet handle this properly in all of
the aspects such as: organization, human resources, educational methodology, and financial
allotments.
This paper will limit itself with a discussion on the legal training within the courts system.
However we can be sure that the outcome of this training within other contexts, such as other law
enforcement institutions will be similar.
Up until the present day in Indonesia we do not have one functional unitary legal training
institute for judges, attorneys, lawyers or the police. Each individual department of the justicesystem has its own training regime. The outcome of which is a justice system that produces
inequitable outcomes with each branch of the justice system competing for positive outcomes
regardless of the impact on the rule of law as a whole. In the field the daily practice of Individual
players in the justice system witnesses competitive practices that go against mutually beneficial
outcomes because of the arrogance that one division displays towards the other.
II.

JUDICIAL TRAINING IN INDONESIAIn Indonesia when an individual finishes the study of law in a law faculty and he/she want
to be a judge, he/she must sit for an exam administered by the Justice Department. The substanceof which consists of, among other things, criminal law, law of criminal procedure, civil law, lawof civil procedure, administrative law, traditional law, civil/human rights and professional ethics.
In the event that a candidate is successful he/she must then enter into an eight monthtraining program (pusdiklat) offered by the Justice Department. There the candidate will further
study the above laws, in addition to moot court. The instructors for pusdukalt, are drawn
primarily from the High, and Supreme courts. Upon completion of this training a candidate isaccepted for internship in the primary courts (Pengadilan Negeri) for two years as a court
administrative clerk (panitera). At such time when the initial internship is completed the intern is
accepted as a judge, in the primary courts (Pengadilan Negeri).
After several years the judge will join a training program offered by the pusdiklat of theSupreme Court. As one may be aware the total number of judges in Indonesia is 5,600 and thenumber of court clerks (panitera) stands at 10,000.
A.

In 2002 the Following were Trained

1.

Hakim Pengadilan Negeri
Hakim Pengadilan Agama

223 (Primary court)
276 (Religious Court)−117−

Hakim Tata Usaha Negara
Hakim Militer
Hakim HAM
Hakim Niaga

77 (Administrative Court)
30 (Military Court)
43 (Human Rights Court)
41+
690 persons

2.

Panitera peradilan Umum :Panitera peradilan Agama:

150 (Court Clerks)
150 + (Religious Court Clerks)
300 persons

3.

300 persons have joined the Commercial Court and English language training offeredjointly by Caltex, several NGOs, and the Bank of Indonesia.

For the year 2002, 990 judges and 300 court clerks, (1290 persons) received training under
the tutorage of the Supreme Court. These training sessions last from four to six days. This total
represents a decline from the year 1997 in which 2300 persons undertook training. This decline is
the result of a reduction in the national budgetary allocations for training in the court.
Persons who undertook training in the year 2002 were able to participate in three training
sessions respectively. Under the one roof of the judiciary system that will be implemented nextyear, all the training activities will be conducted only by the Supreme Court.
III.

REFORM OF THE LEGAL TRAINING SYSTEMA.

Organizational Reform:(i) A unified training program administered by the Supreme Court for all branches of the judicial
system.
(ii) Classification of trainees : - Hakim PN / Primary Court- Hakim PT / High Court- Hakim MA /Supreme Court- Attorney / Lawyers- Court clerk- Police
B.

Material Reform:(i) Adjustment of the instructional materials of the one roof system training centre.
(ii) Alongside the inclusion of English language training the inclusion of Dutch language training
in recognition of the genesis of Indonesian jurisprudence.
C.

Reform of Judicial Direction and Goals:(i) Training as an avenue for recruitment(ii) Training for standardizing practice(iii) Integrated training
D.

Reform of the Judicial Training Budget:(i) The provision for adequate finances from the government fund.
−118−

E. Reform of the Training and Methodology:(i) Pada awal jabatan (Initial)(ii) Pada pertengahan jabatan (intermediate)(iii) Kenaikan pangkat (Progression).

−119−

IMPROVING THE LEGAL SYSTEM THROUGHCONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING
By
Prof. Dr. Harkristuti HARKRISNOWO,
Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia, Indonesia
I.

INTRODUCTION

Within the criminal justice process in Indonesia, it is general knowledge and often allegedthat the system has not done its job as professionally as expected. Out of the many factors alleged
as contributing to this poor performance is the education and training system within theinstitutions, in addition to the recruitment system. However, it would be unfair to look only at the
final result (i.e. the performance of the judges and prosecutors) without first probing into thebasic legal education received by these lawyers. Legal education in Indonesia has played asignificant role in molding the type of lawyers working in the system. I will discuss this first.
In the next part of this essay I will discuss the unit that is responsible for training the
Public Prosecution Service, namely the Centre for Education and Training. Training and teaching
methods, curricula and instructors are some of the issues addressed in this context. The final partof this essay consists of a set of proposed actions for enhancing capacity within the institutions to
support the objective of the criminal justice system in general.
II.

LEGAL EDUCATION IN INDONESIA IN A NUTSHELLA.

The Faculty of Law

On October 28, 1928, the first higher legal education institution in Indonesia wasestablished under the name of Rechsthogeschool, by the colonial government. The main objectiveof its establishment was to fulfill the need for government lawyers to fill various positions at the
Department of Justice. A degree of Meester in de Rechten was conferred upon those graduatingfrom this institution after a minimum of five years of study. Various changes were made in termsof its name, curriculum and qualification during the history of the law school, the mostsignificant being the change to the Faculty of Legal and Social Science in 1950, and theseparation of this school into the Faculty of Law and Faculty of Social and Political Science in
1969.1
Today, the majority of private and public universities have a faculty of law, whichbasically requires four-years of study for a high school graduate to complete a first law degree.
This might be due to the fact that establishing a faculty of law requires less than a scientificdepartment, and there are a great number of potential students. The number of enrolled students
annually for this faculty ranges from 30 (in a remote area or for a new faculty of law) to 800 (in aprivate faculty of law in the metropolitan area). The number of graduates from faculties of law
annually is estimated to be about 13,000, the government a few years ago decided not to allow
the establishment of any new faculties of law, taking into account the job market for its
1 Harkristuti Harkrisnowo (1995). Legal Education in Indonesia in a Nutshell. A paper prepared for ELIPS Project in cooperation with the Faculty of Law, Universityof Indonesia.

−121−graduates.
In order to be enrolled in a public faculty of law, one must have passed a national
examination conducted by the Consortium of Universities while a similar test is also required in
private institutions2 . Yet in many universities such examination is more a matter of form thansubstance, which creates a problem of quality in the future. With the establishment of the
National Board of Accreditation whose assessment on each higher education institution is
published, the government attempted to create a new sense of competitiveness among theseschools. It is also expected that in the long run, the market, the public itself would be able toscreen the qualified versus the unqualified law graduates.
B.

The Curriculum and Teaching Method

In the very beginning, the curriculum within a faculty of law was very concise, consistingof 24 courses to be completed within five years, or on average, each student must pass about fivecourse annually. Thus, it was more of a grade or class system; in order to be able to pass to ahigher grade, one must pass all courses taken in that very year. Failure to pass retakes would
result in staying in the same grade in the following year.
Due to the influences of the then colonial education atmosphere, most course materials
were delivered in lecture form, where student participation or discussion was limited. This haschanged overtime, since now lecturers tend to encourage their students to participate in critical
dialogue and discussion, which trains their legal mind to work at ease and speed when they later
practice.
Today, the curriculum has also developed significantly, and there is a National
Curriculum3 applicable to all faculties of law consisting of 23 main courses. At present thiscurriculum is being reviewed by the National Legal Science Commission of the Department of
National Education, it has been seven years since its last review.
The minimum requirement to complete a law degree as stipulated in the Decree on the
National Curriculum is 144 credit hours, 82 of which are allocated for mandatory courses,
including 6-credit hours of legal practice4 . A theses is required at the end of the course, where astudent must defend his her work before a defense committee. In general, a minimum of four
years are needed to complete this law degree.
C.

Clinical Legal Education

Clinical legal education has become an inherent part in the law curriculum since 1970s.
The main objective is to introduce students to the actual implementation of all the laws theylearned in classes. At first, this education took the form of attendance in court proceedings only,
followed by a lecture delivered by a senior judge. Today however, this method has beendeveloped quite progressively with the introduction of, for example, the following programs:

2 At present there are about 27 public and 180 private faculties of law across the nation with different qualification s according to the assessment made by the National
Accreditation Unit.
3 As stipulated in the Decree of the Minister of Education NO. 0325/U/1994.
4 In the past decade there were some people who proposed to change the theses into a shorter and more practical legal document, such as legal memorandum or legal
opinion.

−122−

(i) moot court proceedings(ii) apprenticeship (mostly in law- firms)(iii) involvement in the actual preparation of a litigation case in the legal-aid unit(iv) contract drafting, etc.
All the above are in addition to the conventional legal practice courses, which originatedfrom the mere visits to the court buildings in the past. At present, the Legal Practice course is theimplementation of the course on Procedural Law, involving practicing lawyers as instructors.
Consequently, to achieve its objective each faculty of law must build up networks andcooperation with, at least, the court and law firms. As such the existence of the so-called ‘lawlaboratory’ within the university becomes very significant indeed, since it is here that all courses
for clinical legal education are developed, for instance in the form of a legal aid Unit.
The degree conferred upon law graduates is called Sarjana Hukum (more widely known
as SH), which is the first degree in legal education.
D.

The Centre for Education and Training

Recruitment of judges and prosecutors within the Public Prosecution Service admittedly
must undergo a revision, due to the lack of enthusiasm of qualified law graduates to enter these
professions. Today, both the judiciary and the prosecutor’s office have attempted to improve theknowledge of their personnel through establishing a Centre for Education and Training, tosupport their works.
The Centre in each institution is established for the sole purpose of providing training forseveral groups:a.
New recruits;
These new people recruited to be judges and prosecutors are designated to attend training ranging
from four to six months.
b.
Functioning judges and prosecutors;
Due to the ever growing problems in criminal law and criminal justice, it is felt that thesefunctioning lawyers must keep up with recent developments. As such, continuing legal educationof this sort is provided for judges and prosecutors. The duration of such programs vary from fourto twelve weeks, depending upon the bulk of materials that need to be delivered, and sometimes
also subject to the availability of funding.
In addition, some of this continuing legal education also serves as a stepping stone forpromotion to a better position in the office.
1.

The Training:
The training provided by the Centers is not limited to legal training, but also includes:(i) administrative skills;(ii) practical legal skills for new recruits;(iii) practical and theoretical skills for practicing prosecutors;
Judging from the content of all training, apparently the Centres have tried to design a−123−curriculum which is deemed to best suit their purpose. However, according to information fromvarious sources, there are several issues that must be given a lot of attention in the future as to therunning of these programs, for example, with regard to:(i) Lecturers are mostly retired judges and prosecutors. And they accordingly lack the ability todeliver good lectures. This is understandable since they are not equipped nor trained forteaching. No matter how good they were as lawyers, if they fail to transfer their wealth ofknowledge to the participants, little can be achieved.
(ii) There is also a lack of mastering the method of teaching, since most lecturers rely heavily on
lecture-type deliverance of materials, and seldom encourage in-class dialogues anddiscussions. Many questions are answered normatively, while many participants feel theyshould instead reveal more of their practical experience.
(iii) Lack of funding sometimes result in a paucity of materials being distributed, that participants(at least, the diligent ones) are compelled to find materials on their own.
(iv) Despite the practical experience possessed by the lecturers, participants are not given
sufficient practical legal skills whether due to time constraints or other considerations,especially for new recruits. Such that it is possible for these new recruits to be immediately
assigned as a practicing judge or prosecutor while their practical experience is still very
limited.
It is also important to note that both the judiciary and the Attorney Generals’ office needto network with various institutions where they can send their officers to be trained, both for
degree and non-degree programs. For degree programs, cooperation with various prestigious law
schools for graduate programs has been initiated (for example with the University of Indonesia
and University of GajahMada), and with institutions outside Indonesia (for example forintellectual property rights, environmental crimes etc). Many of these programs actually havevery beneficial prospects for the institution, but unfortunately many are just a one-time project.
Efforts then, should be made to maintain its sustainability where of course, the issue of funds
mostly prevails. A visionary leader is needed to make sure that education and training become thepillar of this institution.
E.

Proposed Actions for Enhancing Capacity Building

1.

Recruitment System of Trainees(i) New recruits: alleged collusion and corruption in the recruitment system has been recognized
as one of the contributing factors that result in the poor quality of prosecutors (both incapacity and integrity). Thus the Centres, in cooperation with the personnel office must work
hand in hand to ensure that the would-be judges and prosecutors do possess certain
qualifications to enter the profession. As in any other educational institutions, there areseveral criteria that must be satisfied by potential trainees which should not be compromised.
Without these qualifications rigidly implemented, it would be very difficult to produce
qualified judges and prosecutors.
(ii) Practicing judges and prosecutors elected to attend or participate in the training programsmust fulfill the needed criteria, so the result of the training will bear significant fruit. The roleof the Bureau of Planning is very important, since normatively they are in charge of careerplanning for each legal officer. The level of experience, capacity, knowledge and motivation
or drive of a candidate must be weighed equally, before one is enrolled in the training
program. Being in one level in the institution does not automatically warrant a judge orprosecutor to participate in training.
−124−

2.

Curriculum Design

The success of training is also dependent upon the curriculum designed for a very specificpurpose. This design has to take into account several indicators such as:(i) specificity(ii) measurability(iii) absorbability(iv) actuality
3.

Course Material

Sometimes lecturers are not diligent enough to make efforts to compile materials that are
as complete as possible in accordance with the subject matter they present. As a consequence, theparticipants do not receive what actually should be their due. This problem is exacerbated by thelack of sufficient funds of the Centre to duplicate these materials.
4.

Practical Legal Skills

Since this training is conducted in order to improve the legal skills of judges andprosecutors in the field (especially for the new recruits), the bulk of the training must be focusedon the actual work they are going to perform. To do this, experienced or retired lawyers would
greatly contribute to improve the participants’ skills.
5.

Capacity of Lecturers

Due to the importance of this issue, rigid criteria for potential lecturers warrant special
attention. Being a retired legal officer (judge or prosecutor) alone should not make one eligible tobe a lecturer, since there are other requirements needed, such as the :(i) ability to convey thoughts and experiences;(ii) ability to conduct dialogues;(iii) ability to provoke thoughts;(iv) ability to produce qualified materials;(v) ability to provide alternatives etc.
6.

Teaching Method

Methods that allow an instructor to merely deliver lectures should not be used incontinuing legal education as they need more than just basic information. Group dynamics,
semina rs, debates on how to write legal documents on certain issues might prove more beneficial
for participants. Discussion and debates would make these lawyers familiar with the way laws
should be argued, a skill badly needed at this time, because the public often perceive that lawyers
and judges always have the upper-hand when it comes to arguing in comparison with prosecutors.
Training methods should encourage participants to participate actively instead of merely serving
as a listener.

−125−

7.

Evaluation

No institution should boast a 100 percent pass rate for all participants. Education specialist
warn us that people have different capacities for absorbing and retaining materials they receive
during training. A transparent and objective evaluation mechanism should be designed for eachtraining course, where involvement of lecturers is a must, for this is a part of their responsibility
as teachers. This transparency also opens the door to correct possible cheating, while at the sametime teaching discipline, honesty and hard work to participants.
III.

CONCLUSION

While some people claim that saying that the fate of the supremacy of just law inIndonesia lies in the hands of the justice system, sounds like it puts too much burden on the legal
officers, it is undeniable that they play a very significant role in Indonesian legal reform. The
present crime ledger is so full of alleged corruption, in which the public prosecution service has
the sole authority to investigate and prosecute the culprits, while the judiciary is in charge ofdetermining their guilt or innocence. The successful prosecution of alleged corruptors and thepunishment of the guilty ones appears to be the priority in this era of legal reform. However,
without the necessary knowledge to bring these cases to court, all this will be to no avail.
Improving the knowledge of the judges and prosecutors through training centres is ofcourse only one avenue to alleviate further legal problems, yet their performance is in dire needof revolutionary restructuring. Since this unit should be the first hand that feeds the judge’s andprosecutor’s corporate culture into the new recruits, naturally its existence becomes verysignificant. Thus strengthening this unit should be a conditio sine qua non for these legal
institutions, if they strive and are committed to the quality product of law enforcement. Whether
they would be willing to serve this purpose, we shall wait and see.

−126−