White Paper on Attorneys. by Japan Federation of Bar Associations

Transcription

1 White Paper on Attorneys 2013 by Japan Federation of Bar Associations

2 Contents Part 1 Current Situation of Attorneys and Other Legal Professions 1 Chapter 1 Population of Attorneys 1 I. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Number of Attorneys 1 II. Constitution According to Age 2 Chapter 2 Change in the Number of Attorneys, etc. 3 I. The Status of the Number of Applicants for Law Schools and Enrollment of People 3 II. The Status of Successful Bar Examination Candidates 4 1. Pass Rate of New Bar Examination 4 III. The Number of Legal Apprentices who Have Completed Legal Training per Chosen Profession 5 IV. Comparison of the Total Number of Lawyers, Judges, and Public Prosecutors with those of Foreign Countries 6 1. The Number of People per Lawyer (Cross-country Comparison) 6 2. The Number of People per Judge (Cross-country Comparison) 7 3. The Number of People per Public Prosecutor (Cross-country Comparison) 8 4. The Number of People per Legal Professional (Cross-country Comparison) 9 V. Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions 12 Chapter 3 Mergers of Law Offices and the Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations 13 I. The Number of Attorneys in Law Offices 13 II. Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations The Number of LPCs Size of Legal Professional Corporations 16 Chapter 4 Current Situation of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi ("Registered Foreign Lawyers") 17 I. Changes in the Number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi ( ) 17 II. Registration of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers) 18 III. Situations regarding Alliances with Foreign Law Joint Enterprises 19 IV. The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional Corporations By Nationality By Home Jurisdiction 22 V. World Law Firms and Their Entry into the Japanese Market 23 Part 2 Activities of Attorneys 24 Chapter 1 Criminal Advocacy Activities 24 Section 1 Duty Attorney and Court-Appointed Attorney Systems 24 I. Outline of Duty Attorney and Court-Appointed Attorney Systems 24 II. Current Situations of Duty Attorneys (Toban Bengoshi) 25

3 III. Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cass and Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases 26 Section 2 The Status of Defense Attorneys Involvement in the Overall Criminal Cases 27 I. The Status of Court-Appointed Attorney Contracts, and the Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys 27 II. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at District Courts 28 III. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at Summary Courts 28 IV. Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at High Courts 29 Section 3 Defense Activities in Juvenile Cases 30 I. Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the Proportion of Cases in which Attendants are Present 30 II. Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) with Appointed Attendants (by type) 31 Section 4 The Lay Judge System 32 I. Cases Determined by Lay Judges 32 II. Actual Practice of Lay Judge Trials The Number of Persons Who Have Been Subjected to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials and Whose Trials Have Been Finalized Comparison of the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations and the Average Period of the Pretrial Conference Procedure (by confession and denial), etc. 35 Chapter 2 Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits 38 Section 1 Civil Lawsuits 38 I. Attorneys Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before District Courts 38 II. Attorneys Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before Summary Courts 40 III. Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instance Trials (before High Courts) 41 Section 2 JFBA s Assistance for Disaster Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake 42 I. JFBA s Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident 42 II. Statistical Results of Free Legal Consultations in Regard to the Great East Japan Earthquake 43 III. JFBA s Response to Double Loan Payment Issues 45 IV. JFBA s Response to the Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc. 46 Chapter 3 Expansion of Attorneys Activities 47 I. Current Situation of In-house Attorneys Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys 47

4 2. Public Officers with Fixed Terms 48 II. Diet Member and Head of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys 49 Part 3 Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations 50 Chapter 1 Autonomy of Attorneys 50 Section 1 Complaints and Dispute Conciliations 50 I. Complaints against Attorneys 50 II. Dispute Conciliation Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received Handling of Dispute Conciliation Cases (All Bar Associations) 2003 to Section 2 Disciplinary System for Attorneys 52 I. Summary of the Disciplinary System for Attorneys Request for Discipline Investigation by Disciplinary Enforcement Committee Examination by Disciplinary Actions Committee Filing of an Objection, etc Public Notice by the Official Gazette, etc. 53 II. Operation of the Disciplinary System Cases Handled by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA 54 (1) Bar Associations 54 (2) JFBA Processing Cases at Disciplinary Actions Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA 55 (1) Bar Associations 55 (2) JFBA 55 i. Objections 55 ii. Appeals Processing Cases at the JFBA Board of Discipline Review 56 Section 3 Disciplinary Actions and Disciplinary Procedure 57 I. Statistics Regarding Disciplinary Actions Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) 1996 to Number of Requests for Disciplinary Action and Details of Handling the Requests (All Bar Associations) Percentage of Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) 59 (1) Percentage of Cases with Disciplinary Actions out of All Requests for Disciplinary Actions 59 (2) Changes in Percentage of Members with Disciplinary Actions 59 II. The Flow and Current Situation of Disciplinary Procedure The Disciplinary System 60

5 Chapter 2 The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Relief 62 I. Appeal System Procedures for Human Rights Relief 62 II. The Number of Human Rights Relief Cases (by Category) 64 Chapter 3 International Activities of the JFBA 65 Section 1 International Human Rights Activities 66 I. Activities at the United Nations (UN) 66 II. Activities Related to the UN and UN Human Rights Bodies 66 Section 2 International Exchange Activities 67 I. Membership of International Organizations 67 II. MOUs with Overseas Bar Organizations 67 Section 3 International Cooperation 69 I. JICA Long-Term Experts Achievement 69 II. Past and Current JFBA Assistance Projects for Bar Associations in Developing Countries (by Country) 71 Section 4 Overseas Visiting Fellow Program and Support for Working in International Organizations 73 I. JFBA Overseas Visiting Fellow Program Past Overseas Visiting Fellows 73 II. Support for JFBA Members Interested in Working in International Organizations 75 III. Other Support 75

6

7 Part 1 Current Situation of Attorneys and Other Legal Professions Chapter 1 Population of Attorneys I. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Number of Attorneys The Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) is a juridical person established in September 1949 based on the Attorney Act enacted in the same year. It consists of its membership, which includes attorneys, legal professional corporations, and 52 local bar associations throughout Japan. Individual attorneys and legal professional corporations across Japan are required to register with the JFBA at the same time as they are admitted to their local bar associations. Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi) are also registered with the JFBA as special foreign members. Furthermore, Article 44 of the Attorney Act stipulates that bar associations situated in an area within the jurisdictional district of the same high court may, in order to jointly perform certain matters, formulate rules and establish a federation of bar associations with the approval of the JFBA. Currently, a total of eight federations of bar associations are established in regions such as Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto, Chubu, Kinki, Chugoku, Shikoku and Kyushu. The population of attorneys was approximately 5,800 when the JFBA was established and has now grown to 33,624 at the end of March Please note that "attorneys" in this White Paper means JFBA regular members. (cf. "Categories of JFBA Membership" as follows: [Categories of JFBA Membership] Regular Members Foreign Special Member Quasi Members Those who have been qualified in accordance with Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Attorney Act and have been registered in the roster of attorneys held by the JFBA. Those who have been qualified as lawyers in foreign jurisdictions and, after obtaining approval of the Minister of Justice of Japan, have been registered with the JFBA as Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-jimu-bengoshi ). Foreign lawyers who were approved by the Supreme Court of Japan pursuant to Article 7 of the Attorney Act before eits major revision in 1955 and Article 65 of the Act on Special Measures esincidental to Reversion of Okinawa to engage in practice as stipulated in Article 3 of the Attorney Act. *As of March 31, 2013, there is no applicable person. Special Members in Okinawa Those who had been qualified pursuant to the laws and regulations of Okinawa before the reversion of Okinawa in 1972, and after the reversion, were permitted to engage in practice as stipulated in Article 3 of the Attorney Act with the title of Okinawa Bengoshi (attorney) within Okinawa Prefecture. Data Changes in the Number of Attorneys ( ) (Person) The Number of Attorneys as of March 31, 2013: 33,624 (Female: 5,936) The Number of Attorneys 33, ,827 (5,936) 0 (6) (The Number of Female Attorneys) (Year) [Note] 1. The figures above were those as of March 31 per year. 2. The number of attorneys here only refers to regular JFBA members. The figure within the brackets is the number of female attorneys. 1

8 Year Number of Attorney Women Attorneys Year Number of Attorney Women Attorneys Year Number of Attorney Women Attorneys Year Number of Attorney Women Attorneys , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % , % [Note] as of the end of March per year Data The Number of Attorneys ( ) II. Constitution According to Age The following graph shows the age distribution of attorneys, divided into male and female. As can be seen in the graph, the greatest number of attorneys for both male and female are those in their 30s. Data Constitution According to Age or older (1,012) 31 (as of the end of March 2013) Male: 27,688 2, (2,569) 126 Female: 5,936 4, (5,311) 282 3, (4,059) 453 4, (5,311) 1,094 8, (10,776) 2,556 4, (5,492) 1,394 10,0009,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 (person) 0(Age) [Note] Values within the brackets show the total number of attorneys in each age range. 2

9 Chapter 2 Changes in the Number of Attorneys, etc. I. The Status of the Number of Applicants for Law Schools and Enrollment of People The graphs below show the number of applicants for law schools and the enrollment of both people with work experience and non-law graduates for law schools. The total number of applicants for law schools has been decreasing since 2007 and the number of applicants across the nation totalled 13,924 in In addition, the numbers of enrollments of people with work experience and non-law graduates for law schools have been declining on a year by year basis. Data Changes in the Number of Applicants for Law Schools (Person) 80, Applicants(person) Ratio of Applicants (Competitive Ratio) ,000 72, ,000 20, ,756 40, , , ,714 24,014 22, ,446 13, (Year) Data Enrollment of People with Work Experience and Non-law Graduates for Law Schools Enrollment after Non-law Graduates Ratio of Working Ratio of Non-law 社会人入学者 Work Experience ( 人 ) 非法学部出身者 ( 人 ) 社会人割合 (%) 非法学部出身者割合 (%) (Person) (person) People (%) Graduates (%) (%) Ratio 29.8 of Working People (%) Non-law 18.8 Graduates (person) Ratio of Non-law Graduates (%) (Year) [Note] 1. The above graph was made by the JFBA, based on materials published by the Central Education Deliberation Council Sectional Meeting, Special Committee for Law School in MEXT (the 54th). 2. The number of applicants refers to the total number of applicants across Japan taking an admission test for law school conducted individually at each law school after conducting an aptitude test. For example, in the case that an applicant has applied to both A law school and B law school, it would be calculated as one applicant to each A and B law schools, meaning two in the total. 3. The ratio of applicants: The number of applicants for law schools (total for all of Japan) is divided by the maximum number of admissions (total for all of Japan). 3

10 II. The Status of Successful Bar Examination Candidates 1. Pass Rate of New Bar Examination Data Pass Rate of New Bar Examination (Person) The Number The Number of Successful The Pass Rate 受験者数 of Applicants ( 人 ) 合格者数 Candidates ( 人 ) (%) 合格率 (%) (%) (Year) [Note] The table was based on data issued by the Ministry of Justice. Data Pass Rate of New Bar Examination (per Law Graduate and Non-law Graduate) Law Graduates (A) (person) 893 1,439 1,618 1,617 1,679 1,689 1,685 1,582 Examination Pass Rate 48.8% 41.9% 35.0% 29.4% 27.5% 25.9% 26.8% 27.7% Non-law Graduates (B) (person) Examination Pass Rate 44.6% 35.2% 27.3% 22.6% 19.2% 16.7% 17.7% 19.6% Total (A + B) (person) 1,009 1,851 2,065 2,043 2,074 2,063 2,044 1,929 Examination Pass Rate 48.3% 40.2% 33.0% 27.6% 25.4% 23.5% 24.6% 25.8% [Note] The table was made by the JFBA based on data issued by the Ministry of Justice. Data Pass Rate (Cumulative Pass Rate) of Law School Graduates who Have Taken New Bar Examination per Year (As of the end of Sep. 2013) The Year when Studying at Law is Completed The Number of People Completing Their Studies at Law School (person) The Cumulative Number of Successful Candidates (person) Total Cumulative Pass Rate The Number of The Number of People who People who did Completed not Study Law Law as as Undergraduates Undergraduates Law School Graduates in 2005 (Qualified for taking a bar exam between 2006 and 2010) Law School Graduates in 2006 (Qualified for taking a bar exam between 2007 and 2011) Law School Graduates in 2007 (Qualified for taking a bar exam between 2008 and 2012) Law School Graduates in 2008 (Qualified for taking a bar exam between 2009 and 2013) Law School Graduates in 2009 (Qualified for taking a bar exam between 2010 and 2014) Law School Graduates in 2010 (Qualified for taking a bar exam between 2011 and 2015) Law School Graduates in 2011 (Qualified for taking a bar exam between 2012 and 2016) Law School Graduates in 2012 (Qualified for taking a bar exam between 2013 and 2017) 2,176 1, % 69.8% - 4,418 2, % 63.4% 39.5% 4,911 2, % 65.4% 32.6% 4,994 2, % 68.7% 31.9% 4,792 2, % 66.4% 32.2% 4,535 1, % 60.9% 31.8% 3,937 1, % 53.0% 24.8% 3,457 1, % 44.2% 16.7% [Note] 1. Data has been made by the JFBA based on data materials provided by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). 2. Cumulative Pass Rate is a ratio showing how many applicants have passed under the limitation on the number of times an applicant may sit for the bar examination (currently limited to three times within a period of five years after completion of law school.) 4

11 III. The Number of Legal Apprentices who Have Completed Legal Training per Chosen Profesion Data The Number of Legal Apprentices who Have Completed Legal Training per Chosen Profession Year of Entrance to (Completion of) Legal Training Institute The Number of Those who Have Completed Legal Training Judges Prosecutors Attorneys Others Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female 1983 (1985) (1986) (1987) (1988) (1989) (1990) (1991) (1992) (1993) (1994) (1995) (1996) (1997) (1998) (1999) (2000) (2000) (2001) (2002) (2003) 1, (2004) 1, (2005) 1, (2006) 1, , (2007) 2, , (2008) 2, , (2009) 2, , (2010) 2, , (2011) 2, , (2012) 2, , Data Changes in Legal Apprentices who Have Completed Legal Training per Chosen Profession (Judges, Prosecutors, Attorneys) (person) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Judges Prosecutors Attorneys Others (1985) 1984 (1986) 1985 (1987) 1986 (1988) 1987 (1989) 1988 (1990) 1989 (1991) 1990 (1992) 1991 (1993) 1992 (1994) 1993 (1995) 1994 (1996) 1995 (1997) 1996 (1998) 1997 (1999) 1998 (2000) 1999 (2000) 2000 (2001) 2001 (2002) 2002 (2003) 2003 (2004) 2004 (2005) 2005 (2006) 2006 (2007) 2007 (2008) 2008 (2009) 2009 (2010) 2010 (2011) 2011 (2012) [Note] 1. Data is based on the "Courts Data Book 2013." 2 Regarding legal apprentices who started training 1983 and 1998, such apprentices completed their training in the April of the second year afterward. (Their training period was two years.) For those who started between 1999 and 2005, they completed their training in October, one and a half years later. (The training period was one year and six months.) For those between 2006 and 2008, they completed their training in September or December of the following year. For those who started in 2009 and 2010, they completed their training in August or December of the following year. For those who started in 2011, they completed their training in December of the following year. 3. This number was calculated based on the timing immediately after the completion of legal training. 5

12 IV. Comparison of the Total Number of Lawyers, Judges, and Public Prosecutors with those of Foreign Countries The graph below compares the numbers of lawyers, judges, and public prosecutors of major foreign countries. It uses the statistics of the numbers of legal professionals of each country obtained by the Supreme Court of Japan (except for the number of attorneys in Japan) and compares the population per judge, public prosecutor, and legal professionals in each country. Regarding each country's population of legal professionals, see pages 10 and The Number of People per Lawyer (Cross-country Comparison) The graph below is a cross-country comparison of the number of people per lawyer. In 2013, there were approximately 3,700 people per attorney in Japan, while the number of people per lawyer in the other four countries was all below 1,200. Data The Number of People per Lawyer 9,000 Population Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 5,792 5,518 5,098 4,737 4,423 4,196 3,977 3,786 3,000 2,000 1, ,402 1,363 1,363 1,275 1,235 1,244 1,204 1, Year [Note] 1. The statistics of the graph above are the population divided by the number of lawyers in each country. 2. The statistics of the populations of legal professionals are obtained by the "Courts Data Book 2013 (by the Supreme Court of Japan)," except for that of attorneys in Japan. 3. Japan: The number of attorneys is as of April 1 of each year (See the table on page 10). The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (See the table on page 10). 4. U.S.: The number of lawyers is calculated by deleting the number of judges and public prosecutors from the total number of legal professionals in practice in each state researched by the American Bar Association (See the table on page 10). The population is based on the research of the U.S. Census Bureau (See the table on page 10). 5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of lawyers (See the table on page 10) is the sum of those of barristers in private practice and solicitors with practicing certificates except for those solicitors serving as part-time judges, public prosecutors, and the Attorney General. The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics (See the table on page 10). 6. Germany: The number of lawyers is based on the research of the German Federal Bar (See the table on page 11). The population is based on the research of the German Federal Statistical Office (See the table on page 11). 7. France: The number of lawyers is the sum of lawyers including legal advisers of the past, avoué prés la cour d appel, and avocat au Conseil d'etat et a la Cour de cassation based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France (See the table on page 11). The population is based on the research of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table on page 11). 6

13 2. The Number of People per Judge (Cross-country Comparison) The graph below is a cross-country comparison of the number of people per judge. In 2013, there were approximately 44,000 people per judge in Japan, while the number was below approximately 15,500 people per judge in the other four countries. There is a large gap between the number in Japan and that in other four countries. Population 60,000 Data The Number of People per Judge Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France 50,000 50,397 48,954 47,587 46,265 45,458 44,932 44,375 43,789 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 13,897 14,777 14,765 13,990 14,753 15,074 14,826 15,549 10,782 10,530 10,530 10,756 10,668 10,964 11,018 11,186 9,388 9,349 9,445 9,589 9,680 9,553 9,587 9, ,045 4,042 4,088 4,083 4,080 4,070 4,005 4, Year [Note] 1. The statistics of the graph above are calculated by dividing the population by the number of judges in each country. 2. The statistics of the populations of legal professionals are obtained by the "Courts Data Book 2013 (by the Supreme Court of Japan)." 3. Japan: The number of judges is a fixed number of each fiscal year (excluding judges of summary courts) (See the table on page 51). The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (See the table on page 10). 4. U.S.: The number of judges is the fixed total number of judges at federal courts and the number of judges in the states (all 50 states and Washington D.C.) (See the table on page 10). The population is based on the research of the U.S. Census Bureau (See the table on page 10). 5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of judges is the total number of full-time and part-time judges researched by the U.K. Ministry of Justice (See the table on page 10). The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics (See the table on page 10). 6. Germany: The number of judges is the total number of judges who belong to federal and state jurisdictions (including probation judges), based on research of the Federal Ministry of Justice (See the table on page 11). The population is based on the research of the German Federal Statistical Office (See the table on page 11). 7. France: The number of judges is based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France and the Supreme Judicial Council (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) (See the table on page 11). The population is based on the research of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table on page 11). 7

14 3. The Number of People per Public Prosecutor (Cross-country Comparison) The graph below is a cross-country comparison of the number of people per public prosecutor. In 2013, there were approximately 70,000 people per prosecutor in Japan, which is far above the number in the other four countries. Data The Number of People per Prosecutor Population 100,000 Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France 90,000 80,000 80,300 78,195 76,099 74,110 72,121 71,500 70,607 69,986 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, ,885 32,519 32,677 32,839 34,159 29,474 29,207 29,207 18,292 17,522 22,061 16,696 16,385 17,082 17,929 19,128 16,158 16,145 16,191 16,172 16,010 15,971 15,584 15,601 8,558 9,335 9,386 9,396 9,483 9,455 9,762 9, Year [Note] 1. The statistics of the graph above are calculated by dividing the population by the number of public prosecutors in each country. 2. The statistics of the populations of legal professionals are obtained by the "Court Data Book 2013 (by the Supreme Court of Japan)." 3. Japan: The number of public prosecutors is a fixed number of each fiscal year (excluding assistant prosecutors) (See the table on page 10). The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (See the table on page 10). 4. U.S.: The number of federal prosecutors is the sum of the number of federal prosecutors and assistant federal prosecutors researched by the U.S. Department of Justice (See the table on page 10). The number of state prosecutors is the estimated number of those who belong to state prosecutor offices and deal with serious crimes (See the table on page 10). The population is based on the research of the U.S. Census Bureau (See the table on page 10). 5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of public prosecutors is the sum of the number of barristers and solicitors serving as public prosecutors researched by the U.K. Crown Prosecution Service. It also includes the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (See the table on page 10). The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics (See the table on page 10). 6. Germany: The number of public prosecutors is based on the research of the German Federal Ministry of Justice (See the table on page 11). The population is based on the research of the German Federal Statistical Office (See the table on page 11). 7. France: The number of public prosecutors is based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France and the Supreme Judicial Council (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) (See the table on page 11). The population is based on the research of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table on page 11). 8

15 4. The Number of People per Legal Professional (Cross-country Comparison) The graph below is a cross-country comparison of the number of people per legal professional by each country. In Japan, the number of people per legal professional is more than that in foreign countries. Data The Number of People per Legal Professional 6,000 Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France 5,000 4,000 4,880 4,663 4,342 4,061 3,818 3,642 3,471 3,319 3,000 2,000 1,191 1,159 1,159 1,102 1,070 1,080 1,051 1,024 1, Year [Note] 1. The statistics of the graph above are the population of each country divided by the number of legal professionals in each country. 2. The statistics of the populations of legal professionals are obtained by the "Courts Data Book 2013 (by the Supreme Court of Japan)," except for that of attorneys in Japan. 3. The statistics on the graph are based on those of a particular day of each year in each country and for each profession (See pages 10 and 11). 9

16 Data The Number of Legal Professional for Main Foreign Countries (List of Deadlines for Referenced Data) (Upper Cell: Date, Lower Cell: The Number of Persons) Population Attorneys Japan Judges (excl. Judges at Summary Courts) Public Prosecutors (excl. Assistant Prosecutors) Oct. 1, 2005 Oct. 1, 2006 Oct. 1, 2007 Oct. 1, 2008 Oct. 1, 2009 Oct. 1, 2010 Oct. 1, 2011 Oct. 1, ,756, ,770, ,771, ,692, ,510, ,056, ,799, ,515,000 Apr. 1, 2006 Apr. 1, 2007 Apr. 1, 2008 Apr. 1, 2009 Apr. 1, 2010 Apr. 1, 2011 Apr. 1, 2012 Apr. 1, ,056 23,154 25,062 26,958 28,828 30,518 32,134 33,682 Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY ,535 2,610 2,685 2,760 2,805 2,850 2,880 2,912 Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY ,591 1,634 1,679 1,723 1,768 1,791 1,810 1,822 Population Lawyers Judges (Federal) Judges (States) Prosecutors (Federal) Prosecutors (States) U.S Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul ,410, ,410, ,398, ,059, ,006, ,006, ,591, ,914,040 Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Dec Dec ,026,356 1,041,262 1,066,536 1,084,396 1,102,106 1,124,077 1,146,668 1,166,269 Sep Sep Sep Jan Jan Jan Mar Mar ,811 1,812 1,800 1,818 1,826 1,829 1,823 1, ,763 29,892 29,900 29,891 29,891 30,309 30,678 30,157 Mar Mar Mar Apr Mar Mar Apr Mar ,375 5,230 5,376 5,836 5,852 5,947 5,465 5, ,262 26,524 26,524 26,524 26,524 26,524 26,453 26,777 U.K Population Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Mar ,045,000 53,390,300 53,728,800 54,072,000 54,439,700 54,809,100 55,240,500 56,100,000 Lawers (Barristers) Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec (Solicitors) Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul , , , , , , , ,474 Judges Sep May 2006 Feb. & Mar. Apr Feb. - Apr. (Full-time judges) *Partially, Mar Apr Apr Apr Mar (Part-time judges) incl. Mar. Mar. & Apr. Mar. & Apr. Apr. & Oct. Apr Apr Apr Mar Oct Mar Mar ,817 3,613 3,639 3,865 3,690 3,636 3,726 3,608 Prosecutors Feb *Partially, incl. Dec. Feb Feb Jan Feb Mar Mar Feb ,900 3,047 3,218 3,300 3,187 3,057 2,888 2,543 [Note] Regarding the number of lawyers in the U.K., statistics were collected at different dates depending on the categories of lawyers. 10

17 Germany Population Lawyers Judges Public Prosecutors Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2010 Dec. 31, ,501,000 82,438,000 82,314,906 82,217,830 82,002,356 81,802,257 81,751,602 81,843,743 Jan. 1, 2006 Jan. 1, 2007 Jan. 1, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, , , , , , , , ,894 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2010 Dec. 31, ,395 20,395 20,138 20,138 20,101 20,101 20,411 20,411 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2010 Dec. 31, ,106 5,106 5,084 5,084 5,122 5,122 5,246 5,246 France Population Nov Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan ,863,000 61,538,322 61,538,322 62,448,977 62,793,432 65,026,885 65,350,181 65,585,857 Lawyers (incl. Legal Advisers) Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2012 (avoué près la Cour d'appel) Jan. 1, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, (avocat au Conseil d'etat et a la Cour de cassation) Jan. 1, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2011 (Trainee Lawyers) Jan. 1, 2005 Jan. 1, 2006 Jan. 1, ,403 45,150 45,150 48,983 50,844 52,286 54,273 56,278 Judges Public Prosecutors Jan Jan Jan Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, ,645 5,844 5,844 5,806 5,886 5,931 5,931 5,863 Jan Jan Jan Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, ,065 2,107 2,107 1,899 1,931 1,990 1,990 1,920 [Note] Regarding the number of avoué près la Cour d'appel in France, such number was integrated into the number of lawyers as of January 1,

18 V. Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions There are several qualified professions which deal with the law like attorneys: judicial scriveners, certified public tax accountants, patent attorneys, certified public accountants and administrative scriveners, etc. In cross-country comparisons of populations, it should be noted that attorneys in some other countries handle the matters which are dealt with by these other legal professions in Japan. The table below shows the populations of the other legal professions. Data Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions Attorneys 20,224 21,185 22,021 23,119 25,041 26,930 28,789 30,485 32,088 33,624 % of Women in 2013 Number of Women 2,448 2,648 2,859 3,152 3,599 4,127 4,660 5,115 5,595 5, % Patent Attorneys 5,654 6,127 6,695 7,186 7,732 7,789 8,148 8,684 9,145 9,644 (Unit: Person) Number of Women ,012 1,107 1,201 1, % Those who may represent clients in specified infringement litigation 496 1,061 1,479 1,736 1,974 2,221 2,409 2,563 2,735 2,863 Certified Public Tax Accountants 67,370 68,642 69,243 70,068 70,664 71,177 71,606 72,039 72,635 73,725 Number of Women 7,182 7,794 7,961 8,242 8,580 8,858 9,097 9,438 9,710 10, % Certified Public Accountants 14,826 15,469 16,213 17,257 17,915 18,943 20,038 21,325 23,119 24,964 Number of Women 1,347 1,451 1,610 1,798 1,904 2,102 2,320 2,560 2,853 3, % Judicial Scriveners 17,667 17,735 18,059 18,520 18,877 19,394 19,766 20,313 20,670 20,979 Number of Women 1,982 2,071 2,199 2,362 2,529 2,706 2,850 3,020 3,171 3, % Those who may represent clients before Summary Courts 6,351 8,462 9,242 9,986 10,880 11,674 12,415 13,258 13,898 14,483 Administrative Scriveners 37,607 38,449 38,874 38,883 39,203 39,846 40,475 41,584 42,177 43,126 Number of Women 3,793 3,944 4,086 4,102 4,212 4,403 4,559 4,827 4,977 5, % Public Consultants on Social and Labour Insurance 27,926 29,075 30,343 31,137 32,332 33,671 34,732 35,801 36,850 37,784 Number of Women ,420 9,076 9,489 9,987 10, % Land and House Investigators 18,590 18,462 18,320 18,146 18,002 17,820 17,617 17,487 17,328 17,269 Number of Women Total 209, , , , , , , , , ,115 [Note] The statistics in the above table are as of the end of March of each year, except for the below mentioned professions. - means that the statistics are not taken. Judicial Scriveners: As of April 1 of each year, except for the following: The number of women is as of June 5. The number of judicial scriveners who are granted the right to represent clients before summary courts in 2004 is as of May 1. Administrative Scriveners and Land and House Investigators: As of April 1 of each year. 12

19 Chapter 3 Mergers of Law Offices and the Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations I. The Number of Attorneys in Law Offices The table below ranks law offices nationwide by the number of attorneys. Mergers of law offices are progressing mainly in urban areas. Recently, law offices with more than two attorneys have increased. There are 9 offices with more than 100 attorneys as of the end of March Among them, there are one office with attorneys, and three offices with attorneys, and one office with more than 400 attorneys. The tables below show the changes in the number of law offices and attorneys classified by size. Data Major Offices (Top 10 Offices) (As of the end of March 2013) 1 Nishimura Asahi Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo Nagashima Ohno Tsunematsu Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo Mori Hamada Matsumoto Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo Anderson Mori Tomotsune Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo Bengoshi Hojin Adire Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo City-Yuwa Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo Baker & McKenzie Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Tokyo Bengoshi Hojin Oh-Ebashi Horitsu Jimusho Osaka Bengoshi Hojin Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho Osaka 89 [Note] 1. In those offices, the locations of legal professional corporations are those of their principal offices. 2. A legal professional corporation includes its principle office, secondary offices, and partner offices. Data Percentage of Law Offices by Size Offices with Offices with % 0.13% Offices with 101 or more Offices with % 06% 0.33% Offices with % Offices with % Offices with % Offices with two 17.71% One-attorney Offices 60.29% As of the end of March 2013 Data Changes in the Number of Law Offices Classified by Size One-attorney Offices Offices with two Offices with 3 to 5 Offices with 6 to 10 Offices with 11 to 20 Offices with 21 to 30 Offices with 31 to 50 Offices with 51 to 100 Offices with 101 or more Total [Note] As of March in each year. (Unit: the number of offices) ,960 7,821 7,926 8,114 8,318 8,608 1,815 1,900 2,024 2,236 2,355 2,528 1,540 1,657 1,820 1,948 2,109 2, ,922 12,098 12,541 13,115 13,653 14,278 13

20 Data Percentages of Atrtorney by Size of Office Offices with % Offices with % Offices with 101 or more 6.36% Offices with % Offices with % One-attorney Offices 25.60% Offices with % Offices with two 15.04% Offices with % As of the end of March 2013 Data Changes in the Number of Attorneys in Each Size of Office (Unit: Person) One-attorney Offices Offices with two Offices with 3 to 5 Offices with 6 to 10 Offices with 11 to 20 Offices with 21 to 30 Offices with 31 to 50 Offices with 51 to 100 Offices with 101 or more Total Total Women 7,960 7,821 7,926 8,114 8,318 8, ,630 3,800 4,048 4,472 4,710 5, ,606 5,999 6,658 7,125 7,690 8,057 1,554 3,097 3,805 3,886 4,203 4, , ,766 1,982 2,389 2,523 2,625 2, ,054 1, ,331 1,709 1,850 1,916 1,998 2, ,041 26,930 28,789 30,485 32,088 33,624 5,936 [Note] As of March in each year. 14

21 II. Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations The system of Legal Professional Corporations (LPCs) came into effect on April 1, Under this system, law offices, which have been managed mainly by individual attorneys, are allowed to be juridical persons in order to ensure continuity in dealing with legal matters as well as to accelerate streamlining and mergers of law offices. An LPC becomes a member of the bar association in the district where its principal office is located. In the event an LPC opens a branch office, the LPC also becomes a member of the bar association in the district where the branch office is located. 1. The Number of LPCs 81 LPCs were established from April 2012 to March As of the end of March 2013, the number of LPCs nationwide was 657 (including corporations in liquidation). The table below classifies LPCs by the year of establishment and bar association). Data Number of LPCs Established in Each Year Data Number of LPC Members of Each Bar Association (2012) (Unit: corporation) (Unit: corporation) Shimane Aomori 5 Niigata 11 Hiroshima 15 Kumamoto 6 81 Tokyo 118 Aichi 61 Yamaguchi 10 Kagoshima 18 Dai-ichi Tokyo 58 Mie 3 Okayama 6 Miyazaki 11 Daini Tokyo 50 Gifu 8 Tottori 6 Okinawa Sapporo Yokohama Fukui 2003 Hakodate Saitama Kanazawa Kagawa 2004 Asahikawa Chiba Toyama Tokushima 2005 Kushiro Ibaraki Osaka Kochi 2006 Sendai Tochigi Kyoto Ehime 2007 Fukushima Gunma Hyogo Fukuoka 2008 Yamagata Shizuoka Nara Saga 2009 Iwate Yamanashi Shiga Nagasaki 2010 Akita Nagano Wakayama Oita Total 140 Data Comparison of the Number of LPC Members of Each Bar Association (2012) Sapporo Hakodate Asahikawa Kushiro Sendai Fukushima Yamagata Iwate Akita Aomori Tokyo Dai-ichi Tokyo Daini Tokyo Yokohama Saitama Chiba Ibaraki Tochigi Gunma Shizuoka Yamanashi Nagano Niigata Aichi Mie Gifu Fukui Kanazawa Toyama Osaka Kyoto Hyogo Nara Shiga Wakayama Hiroshima Yamaguchi Okayama Tottori Shimane Kagawa Tokushima Kochi Ehime Fukuoka Saga Nagasaki Oita Kumamoto Kagoshima Miyazaki Okinawa [Note] 1. The total of the "Number of LPC Members of Each Bar Association" is more than the number of LPCs as of the end of March 2013, because some LPCs belong to several bar associations. 2. The statistics are based on notifications by the end of March

22 2. Size of Legal Professional Corporations The table below classifies the number of attorneys (representative members, members and employed attorneys) who belong to LPCs. Data Classification by Number of Attorneys of LPCs (Including Employed Attorneys) # of Persons # of LPCs # of Attorneys # of Women # of GJBs # of Persons # of LPCs # of Attorneys # of Women # of GJBs Total , # of Persons # of LPCs Data Classification by Total Number of Member Total (Unit: corporation) [Note] 1. The statistics are based on notifications submitted by the end of March The numbers of attorneys who belong to LPCs are counted by each LPC including its principal and branch offices. 3. The numbers of LPCs exclude those in liquidation. 16

23 Chapter 4 Current Situation of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi ( Registered Foreign Lawyers ) The system of gaikokuho-jimu-bengoshi (GJB) was introduced by the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services by Foreign Lawyers (Act No. 66 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as GJB Act ). A GJB, a registered foreign lawyer, is a person whose professional duties are providing legal services in a foreign jurisdiction, with a qualification equivalent to the Japanese attorney qualification (a qualification to be a foreign lawyer) and who has obtained approval of the Minister of Justice and registered in the Roll of Registered Foreign Lawyers kept by the JFBA. The GJB Act before the revision (hereinafter referred to as Old GJB Act ) prohibited GJBs from employing Japanese attorneys (Old GJB Act Art. 49, para. 1). In addition, joint enterprises and profit sharing between GJBs and Japanese attorneys or Legal Professional Corporations were restricted in principle (Old GJB Act Art. 49, para. 2). As an exception, specified joint enterprises were allowed under certain requirements (Old GJB Act para. 49-2), by which a GJB aimed to do a certain range of legal services by making a partnership contract or other continuous contract with an attorney who had five or more years of experience. In the rapid globalization of Japanese economic society, however, the needs for comprehensive and inclusive legal services of Japanese and foreign laws increased and correspondingly the necessity to construct closer cooperation and collaboration of Japanese attorneys and GJBs has grown. Accordingly the GJB Act was partially revised (enforced on April 1, 2005) to lift the prohibitions on employment of attorneys by GJBs, joint enterprises and profit distributions. Instead, the Revised GJB Act requires GJBs who are to employ or engage in joint enterprises with Japanese attorneys to notify the JFBA (Revised GJB Act Art. 49-3). Furthermore, in order to prevent GJBs from engaging in conduct beyond the scope of permitted practices, the law puts a certain restriction on the conducts of GJBs and employed attorneys (Revised GJB Act Art. 49 and Art. 49-2). I. Changes in the Number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi ( ) The next graph shows the changes in the numbers of GJB registrations. From 1987, when the GJB system was launched, registrations tended to see year-upon-year increases until 2010; however, registrations have remained at almost the same level for the past few years. In April 2013, the number of registered GJBs was 360. (Number) 400 Data Changes in the Number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi Year [Note] 1. Data are as of April 1 of each year. 2. There were no registrations on April 1, 1987 because the GJB Act was enacted on April 1,

24 II. Registration of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers) Data Details of Registration of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers) (As of April 1, 2013) [by bar association] (Total: 360) [by home jurisdiction] (Total: 361 (55) / * Numbers in ( ) refer to the Daini Tokyo 147 number of female GJBs) Dai-ichi Tokyo 116 U.S. Total 207 (23) Tokyo 68 New York 101(14) Osaka 10 California 47 (2) Aichi-ken 6 Hawaii 15 Yokohama 3 Washington DC 11 Fukuoka-ken 3 Illinois 9 (1) Gifu-ken 2 Virginia 6 Iwate 1 Massachusetts 3(2) Ibaraki-ken 1 Texas 3 Shizuoka-ken 1 Connecticut 2(1) Hyogo-ken 1 Florida 2 Okinawa 1 New Jersey 2 (1) Georgia 1 [by nationality] (Total: 361) Louisiana 1(1) U.S. 138 Maryland 1 Japan 70 North Carolina 1 (1) U.K. 40 Pennsylvania 1 China 29 Washington 1 Australia 27 U.K. 58(4) Canada 15 China 29(10) Germany 7 Australia Total 22 (6) France 6 New South Wales 15 (4) Brazil 5 Victoria 4(1) Singapore 3 Queensland 3 (1) Republic of Korea 3 Canada Total 8 India 3 British Columbia 6 Ireland 2 Ontario 2 Republic of the Philippines 2 France 7(1) Switzerland 1 Germany 6 Italy 1 Hong Kong 5(3) Bulgaria 1 Brazil 5(2) Spain 1 Republic of Korea 2 Nepal 1 Republic of the Philippines 2(1) Samoa 1 Singapore 2(2) Paraguay 1 India 2(1) Greece 1 Paraguay 1(1) Sweden 1 Nepal 1 New Zealand 1 New Zealand 1 (1) Belgium 1 Spain 1 Switzerland 1 Italy 1 [Note] 1. Regarding nationalities, some persons have dual nationalities and in that case, both nationalities were counted. 2. Regarding home jurisdictions, some persons have been licensed in multiple jurisdictions and in that case, all were counted. 3. The names of the countries in the above list are shown in line with those shown in the list of gaikokuho-jimu-bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers) 18

25 III. Situations regarding Alliances with Foreign Law Joint Enterprises A foreign law joint enterprise means an enterprise jointly operated by a GJB and an attorney or a legal professional corporation (LPC) under a partnership contract or other continuous contract for the purpose of providing legal services (Article 2-15 of the GJB Act). The revised GJB Act which came into effect on April 1, 2005, lifted the ban on running joint enterprises and sharing profits between GJBs and attorneys/legal professional corporations and instead required GJBs who were going to enter into foreign law joint enterprises to submit notifications to the JFBA (Article 49-3 of the revised GJB Act). Foreign law joint enterprises of which notifications have been submitted are as follows. Data Situations regarding Alliances with Foreign Law Joint Enterprises GJB Offices Law Firms Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny & Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny & Myers Horitsu Jimusho Myers Horitsu Jimusho Atsumi Sakai Horitsu Jimusho Atsumi Sakai Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo White & Case Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi White & Case Horitsu Jimusho Jimusho Skadden Arps Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Skadden Arps Horitsu Jimusho Jimusho Clifford Chance Horitsu Jimusho Clifford Chance Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Linklaters Jimusho Linklaters Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Orrick Tokyo Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Ashurst Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Ashurst Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Jones Day Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Jones Day Horitsu Jimusho Horitsu Jimusho Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho Kyodo Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Squire Sanders Miki Yoshida Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Tokkyo Jimusho (As of April 1, 2013, in order of date of notification submission) (Unit: person) Attorneys (Women) LPCs GJBs (Women) Employed Attorneys Employed GJBs (5) 0 1 (1) (1) (1) 0 3 (1) (2) 0 5 (1) Squire Sanders Miki Yoshida Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Tokkyo JJimusho Morrison & Foerster Gaikokuho Jimu Ito Mitomi Horitsu Jimusho Bengoshi Jimusho 6 (2) 0 4 (2) 11 0 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Gaikokuho TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho 8 (1) 0 3 (1) 7 0 Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Kyodo Jigyo 12 (4) Wakely Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho Jimusho Bingham McCutchen Murase Gaikokuho Sakai Mimura Aizawa Horitsu Jimusho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho 13 (4) 0 1 (1) 39 0 Sullivan & Cromwell Gaikokuho Kyodo Sullivan & Cromwell Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Horitsu Jimusho Baker & Mckenzie Horitsu Jimusho Baker & Mckenzie Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 27 (4) 0 13 (2) 84 3 Nishikawa Sidley Austin Horitsu Nishikawa Sidley Austin Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo DLA Piper Tokyo Partnership Gaikokuho DLA Piper Tokyo Partnership Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho

26 GJB Offices Hwawoo Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Hogan Lovells Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo OL Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Simmons & Simmons Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Maritax Nagatani Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Nakamoto & Samon Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Takahashi & Davis Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Nihon Saitsu Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Kobe Sejong Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Law Firms Toranomon Horitsu Keizai Jimusho Hogan Lovells Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Tatsumura Horitsu Jimusho TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Maritax Horitsu Jimusho Attorneys (Women) LPCs GJBs (Women) Employed Attorneys Employed GJBs K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Nakamoto & Samon Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Takahashi & Davis Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Bengoshi Hojin Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho Kobe Sejong Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Total 183 (24) 2 77 (9) [Note] 1. "Attorneys" is the number of attorneys who are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises. The figure within the brackets indicates the number of female attorneys. 2. "LPCs" is the number of LPCs which are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises. 3. "GJBs" is the number of GJBs who are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises. The figure within the brackets indicates the number of female attorneys. 4. "Employed Attorneys" is the number of attorneys who are hired by attorneys or GJBs operating foreign law joint enterprises. 5. "Employed GJBs" is the number of GJBs who are hired by attorneys or GJBs operating foreign law joint enterprises. 20

27 IV. The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional Corporations Attorneys and legal professional corporations should submit notifications to the JFBA if they employ foreign lawyers. (A foreign lawyer means a person whose professional duties are to provide legal services as a practice in a foreign state (in the case of a federal state stipulated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, the term "foreign state" shall mean its constituent unit such as a state, territory and others stipulated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice (Article 2 (ii) of Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services by Foreign Lawyers); the same shall apply hereinafter) and who is equivalent to an attorney.) The table below shows the number of employed foreign lawyers by nationality and by home jurisdiction in descending order. Foreign lawyers do not include GJBs. (See Page 17 for the information on GJBs.) 1. By Nationality Those who have U.S. nationality form the largest number followed by the U.K., Japan, Australia, and China (Top 5). Data (1) The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional Corporations by Nationality (As of April 1, 2013) (Unit: person) Total Nationality U.S U.K Japan Australia China Canada New Zealand Republic of Korea Singapore Germany Philippines Finland Ireland Russia Taiwan India Iceland France Greece Sweden Indonesia 2 2 Israel 1 1 Slovakia 1 1 Belgium 1 1 Bulgaria 1 1 Mexico 1 1 Brazil 1 1 Jamaica 1 1 Total [Note] 1. "Japan" in Nationality means the number of those who have Japanese nationality but have been qualified in foreign jurisdictions. 2. The above numbers of employed foreign lawyers are based on the date of their employment in the notifications submitted by April 1, Those whose employment has been terminated are not reflected in the numbers so that the total number is not equal to the number of those actually employed at the time of April 1,

28 2. By Home Jurisdiction Looking at the number of employed foreign lawyers by home jurisdiction, the number of those whose home jurisdiction is in the U.S. is more than that of those who have U.S. nationality mentioned previously. It indicates how many people have obtained qualifications in the U.S. The next largest number is those whose home jurisdiction is in the U.K. followed by Australia. Data (2) The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional Corporations by Home Jurisdiction (As of April 1, 2013) (Unit: person) Home Total Jurisdiction U.S U.K Australia China New Zealand Germany Hong Kong Singapore Philippines Canada India Russia Taiwan Republic of Korea 1 1 Belgium 1 1 Mexico 1 1 Brazil 1 1 Jamaica 1 1 Indonesia 1 1 Total [Note] 1. Regarding the above numbers of employed foreign lawyers, please refer to [Note] 2 of "1. By Nationality" in the previous page. 2. Some persons hold qualifications in multiple jurisdictions so that the total number of the above table is not equal to that of the table on the previous page. 22

29 V. World Law Firms and Their Entry into the Japanese Market The wave of internationalization is coming into the Japanese legal market and world's major law firms have built their presence in Japan. The table below shows law firms by the number of lawyers among those of the top 100 (by gross revenue) in the world, of which GJBs are running foreign law joint enterprises with Japanese attorneys. Data The Top 100 (by gross revenue) Law Firms in the World, of which GJBs are Running Foreign Law Joint Enterprises with Japanese Attorneys Law Firms (Location) Country of Main Office Number of Lawyers Countries in which Firm Has Offices Lawyers Outside of the Country of Main Office Rank by Gross Revenue Baker & McKenzie U.S. 4, % 1 DLA Piper U.S. 3, % 2 Clifford Chance U.K. 2, % 5 Jones Day U.S. 2, % 11 Allen & Overy U.K. 2, % 7 Hogan Lovells U.S. 2, % 10 Linklaters U.K. 2, % 6 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.K. 2, % 8 Latham & Watkins U.S. 2, % 4 White & Case U.S. 1, % 13 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom U.S. 1, % 3 K&L Gates U.S. 1, % 23 Sidley Austin U.S. 1, % 12 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius U.S. 1, % 18 Squire, Sanders U.S. 1, % 41 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe U.S. 1, % 32 Morrison & Foerster U.S. 1, % 26 Paul Hastings U.S % 30 Bingham McCutchen U.S % 31 Ashurst U.K % 71 O'Melveny & Myers U.S % 36 Sullivan & Cromwell U.S % 21 Simmons & Simmons U.K % 91 [Note] 1. The above ranks and numbers are taken from 'The Global 100', The American Lawyer (October 2012). 2. Law firms in the table are listed in order of the number of lawyers among those within the top 100 law firms in the world ranked by gross revenue and are assumed as the same law firms that have submitted notifications concerning foreign law joint enterprises to the JFBA as of April 1,

30 Part 2 Activities of Attorneys Chapter 1 Criminal Advocacy Activities Attorneys have wide-ranging duties that are continually expanding. One of the most important activities in which only attorneys are allowed to engage is that of acting as a criminal advocate. Recently, various changes in criminal defense practices have started to occur, due partly to the series of criminal justice reforms such as the implementation of the saiban-in (lay-judge) system. The various ways in which attorneys are engaged as criminal advocates are outlined below. Section 1 Duty Attorney and Court-Appointed Attorney Systems Data Flow of Procedures in Criminal Cases (from Arrest to Indictment) and the Role of Attorneys Activities toward prevention of detention Interview, settlement negotiation, etc. Occurrence of crime Arrest A court-appointed attorney for suspects is appointed (depending on the case). Detention Indictment Commencement of investigation Duty attorney can be requested Request Appoint as a private defense counsel Activities toward dropping of charges, and release from physical detention Interview, request for disclosure of the grounds for detention, request for rescission of the detention, appeal against the detention and the extension thereof, and settlement negotiations, etc. Charges dropped [Note] 1. At any stage, it is possible to appoint a private defense counsel. 2. In appointing a private defense counsel, the criminal suspect legal assistance system can be used under certain conditions. I. Outline of Duty Attorney and Court-Appointed Attorney Systems Under the Duty Attorney System, a bar association dispatches an attorney when it receives a request from an arrested suspect or from a member of their family, etc. In principle, an attorney visits them on the day of the request, and the first interview is free. The court-appointed attorney system in which a court appoints an attorney as counsel for a defendant (a person who has been indicted) and a suspect (a person who has not been indicted) when a defendant or a suspect is unable to appoint counsel privately because of indigency or other reasons and requests the court to appoint an attorney. Also, a court may appoint one ex-officio under a certain condition. Until September 2006, there was no court-appointed attorney system for suspects, and thus, in order for any attorney to continue to act for the suspect after conducting an interview as a duty attorney, it was necessary for the attorney to be privately retained by the suspect. A suspect with financial difficulties who is not able to pay for their defense expenses can use the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System, which has been self-funded by the JFBA and other bar associations. The JFBA has requested the expansion of the court-appointed attorney system to cover suspects as well as defendants. Since October 2006, the court-appointed attorney system for suspects has been expanded to include cases that should be tried by a collegiate panel, and it has been further extended since May 2009 to cover all cases in which the presence of a defense council is mandatory. 24

31 II. Curent Situations of Duty Attorneys (Toban Bengoshi ) Even though the court appointed attorney system has now been introduced, a court appointed attorney is still appointed only after the detention order has been issued to the suspect after a maximum of 72-hour detention following arrest. In addition, the range of cases to which a court-appointed attorney may be assigned is limited. Therefore, the duty attorney system plays an important role for any suspect whose detention has not been decided yet, and any other type of suspect whose case falls outside the scope of cases in which a court appointed attorney is to be provided. The following table shows the status of the duty attorney system in recent years. The number of Cases Undertaken is the number of cases in which attorneys who had interviewed suspects or defendants as duty attorneys accepted to privately undertake the cases. The number of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases is the number of cases for which the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System granted aid for defense expenses due to financial difficulties of the suspects. The number of Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases is the number of the juvenile cases for which the Juvenile Attendant Aid System granted aid for attendant expenses. Attorneys who were dispatched as duty attorneys undertook most of the cases covered by both systems. Registrations Data Status of the Duty Attorney System in Recent Years # of Duty Attorney Registrations Duty Attorney Requests Cases Undertaken by Duty Attorneys % of Attorneys Registered Cases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase % of Cases Undertaken ,122 43% 67,711 7% 12,237 12% 19% ,664 44% 67,826 0% 12,524 2% 19% ,829 42% 63,396-7% 12,438-1% 21% ,016 40% 64,708 2% 13,808 11% 22% ,806 40% 51,462-20% 14,250 3% 30% ,402 40% 38,074-26% 13,050-8% 37% ,356 41% 37,952-26% 14,901 5% 42% ,843 43% 43,674 15% 18,179 22% 45% Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases Number of Detention Requests Cases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase ,290 23% 3,394 15% 142,272 0% ,480 2% 3,645 7% 136,685-4% ,556-11% 3,382-7% 127,412-7% ,457 52% 4,361 29% 121,811-4% ,956-39% 6,429 47% 121,398 0% ,318-24% 7,276 13% 115,804-5% ,565 23% 8,013 10% 111,699-4% ,503 30% 8,104 1% 113,617 2% [Note] 1. Statistics related to duty attorneys are based on calendar years (from January 1 to December 31 of each year), except for the number of duty attorney registrations and the percentage of duty attorneys registered, which are as of April 1 from 2005 to 2009, and from 2010, are from February 1 of each year. 2. The denominator of % of Cases Undertaken is the number of cases undertaken by duty attorneys except for cancelled, unclear, or uncertain cases. 3. The number of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases and Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases in 2006 is the number of cases for which aid was actually granted by the Japan Legal Aid Association. The number in 2007 is the sum of the cases for which aid was actually granted by the JFBA from April to September 2007 (statistics taken as of the end of March 2008) and the number of cases in which aid commencements were decided by the Japan Legal Support Center from October 2007 to March The number after 2008 is that of completed cases in each financial year of the Japan Legal Support Center. 4. The Number of Detention Requests is based on the added number of cases involving both "detention permitted" and "detention rejected" in the "measures taken after arrest" section of the "Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution" for each year. 5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole numbers. 25

32 III. Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cases, and Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases The number of requests for duty attorneys nationwide has gradually decreased from the peak seen in 2006, due to the court-appointed attorney system for suspects launched on October 2, In 2012, the number of requests slightly increased. However, even after the scope of the court-appointed attorney system was expanded in 2009, the fact that the number of cases undertaken by duty attorneys still exceeds more than 30,000 cases each year illustrates the fact that the duty attorney system still retains its own meaning and importance. The number of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases is the number of cases in which suspects without enough financial resource used the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System and were granted aid for defense expenses before indictments. In 2012, there were 8,503 cases. The Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System was operated by the Japan Legal Aid Association from 1990 by the request of the JFBA. The system provided aid for defense expenses in cases where attorneys were privately appointed but it was difficult for the suspects to pay the attorneys' expenses. This system has always suffered from budget shortages so the JFBA established the Emergency Fund for Duty Attorney System in 1995 to support the system. This fund was replaced with the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal Defense in June Data Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cases, and Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases Cases 75,000 # of Duty Attorney Requested Cases # of Duty Attorney Appointed Cases # of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases 70,000 67,711 67,826 63,396 64,708 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 39,690 47,143 54,181 60,023 63,106 51,462 38,074 37,952 43,674 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, ,571 30,271 8,519 5,807 6,493 3,144 3,564 4,982 18,179 9,684 10,269 10,537 10,900 12,237 12,524 12,438 13,808 14,250 14,901 13,050 11,457 8,290 5,901 6,357 6,644 6,764 8,480 7,556 6,956 6,565 8,503 5, [Note] 1. The number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases and the number of Duty Attorney Appointed Cases are based on calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December each year). 2. The number of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases in 2007 is the sum of the cases for which aid was actually granted by the JFBA from April to September 2007 (statistics taken as of the end of March 2008) and the number of cases in which aid commencements were decided by the Japan Legal Support Center from October 2007 to March The number after 2008 is that of completed cases of each fiscal year at the Japan Legal Support Center. The numbers before 2006 are the numbers of cases for which aid was actually granted by the Japan Legal Aid Association. Year 26

33 Section 2 The Status of Defense Attorneys Involvement in the Overall Criminal Cases I. The Status of Court-Appointed Attorney Contracts and the Number of Defendants with Court- Appointed Attorneys Since October 2006, courts, etc. appoint court-appointed attorneys from the list of court-appointed attorneys contracted with the Japan Legal Support Center (Contracted attorneys). The table below shows the number of court-appointed attorneys contracted with the Japan Legal Support Center, the number of defendants with court-appointed attorneys, and the number calculated by dividing the number of defendants by the number of contracted attorneys. Data Number of Defendants per Attorney Contracted as Court-Appointed Attorney Total Number of Attorneys Contracted as Court-Appointed Attorneys ( ) Number of Attorneys Contracted Percentage of Attorneys Contracted Number of Attorneys ( ) Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys (2012) Number of Defendants per Contracted Attorney 21, % 32,134 56, [Note] 1. The number of attorneys contracted as court-appointed attorneys is from the statistics taken by the Japan Legal Support Center, as of April 2, 2012, and the number of attorneys is as of April 1, As "Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys" is as of 2012, "Number of Attorneys Contracted as Court-Appointed Attorneys" and "Number of Attorneys" as of April 2012 are used. 2. "Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys" is the sum of the statistics of all the district and summary courts based on the "2012 Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal Part)." 27

34 II. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at District Courts The total number of criminal cases handled at district courts peaked in 2004 at approximately 80,000, and has gradually been decreasing. In these cases, almost 100% of defendants were with defense counsel. When observing the percentage of defendants with privately retained counsel and those with court-appointed counsel, one can see that there was not much difference between them in the 1980s, but the court-appointed counsel cases increased to 85.1% in On the other hand, the private counsel cases have decreased to the level of 17%. Data Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (at District Courts) (Number of persons whose trials have Total Number of Cases Defendants with Defense Counsel been finalized) (%) Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel (%) Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel (%) (Percentage) (Person) 97.4% 97.0% 97.1% 97.7% 98.4% 99.4% 100% 90,000 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 61, % 61.7% 46, % 36.6% 69.2% 57, % 75,570 70, % 74.2% 24.7% 25.3% 85.1% 80,000 70,000 60,000 56,734 50,000 40,000 30,000 20, % 10,000 0% (Year) III. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at Summary Courts The total number of criminal cases (the total number of persons whose trials have been finalized) at summary courts increased from the year 2000 but is decreasing recently. Defense counsel is retained in almost 100% of the cases, mostly appointed by courts. Data Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (at Summary Courts) (Number of persons whose trials have been finalized) (Number of defendants (%) finalized) Total Number of Cases Defendants with Defense Counsel (%) (Percentage) Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel 98.6% 100% 94.8% 96.1% 16,000 14, % 97.4% 98.1% 90% 94.0% 80.3% 89.0% 90.5% 14,000 80% 12, % 80.8% 12,000 11,482 70% 9,621 9,604 10,000 60% 8,340 50% 8,000 40% 6,000 30% 16.7% 4,000 20% 14.7% 13.5% 9.1% 8.8% 6.3% 2,000 10% (Year) 0% [Note] 1. The data is based on the "Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal Part)". 2. "Total Number of Cases" indicate the actual number of persons whose trials have been finalized, namely, by either the rendering of a judgement of conviction, the making of a decision to close a trial, or the withdrawal of a claim for a formal trial, in the applicable period (year). 3. In the case of both a privately retained counsel and a court-appointed counsel being appointed to the same defendant, both appointments are counted. 4. The "Percentage" of "Defendants with Counsels" is relative to "the number of persons whose trials have been finalized." (%) (Person) 28

35 IV. Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at High Courts The percentage of defendants with court-appointed counsel at the high court level has also increased similar to the tendency seen at the district and summary court level. Data Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (High Courts) (Percentage) (Number of defendants finalized) Total Number of Cases (person) Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel (%) Defendants with Defense Counsel (%) Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel 120% 10,000 (%) (Person) 100% 8,347 8,422 9, % 93.6% 93.4% 93.1% 94.9% 96.1% 8,000 80% 60% 6,189 4,715 5, % 68.0% 69.4% 6,619 7, % 6,000 5,000 40% 20% 49.3% 44.3% 46.4% 48.1% 34.6% 26.7% 27.3% 4,000 3, % 2,000 1,000 0% (Year) [Note] 1. The data is based on the "Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal Part)". 2. "Total Number of Cases" indicate the actual number of persons whose trials have been finalized, namely, by either the rendering of a judgement of conviction, the making of a decision to close a trial, or the withdrawal of a claim for a formal trial, in the applicable period (year). 3. In the case of both a privately retained counsel and a court-appointed counsel being appointed to the same defendant, both appointments are counted. 4. "Percentage" of "Defendants with Counsels" is relative to "the number of persons whose trials have been finalized." 29

36 Section 3 Defense Activities in Juvenile Cases After juveniles have been referred to family courts, there is no system for appointing attorneys as defense council for juveniles unlike criminal trials. However, for juvenile cases, a juvenile may at any time appoint an attandant acting in the role of protecting his/her rights. In the Juvenile Act, attendants are not limited to attorneys, however, most attendants are attorneys. Since there was no system for appointing attorneys as attendants for juveniles with public money after they were referred to family courts, the Juvenile Attendant Aid System financed by the JFBA has been used. The revision of the Juvenile Act in 2000 introduced a system for providing court-appointed attorney attendants for juveniles through public funds only in certain serious cases in which public prosecutors were involved, and the Juvenile Act was further revised in 2007 to enhance this system. Even so, however, in the current system, the juvenile cases in which court-appointed attorneys are able to attend are limited to certain serious cases such as the crime of committing an intentional criminal act that caused death to a victim, and any crime punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment with or without labor, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than two years, for juveniles placed in juvenile classification homes, and cases where the family courts deem it necessary. The number of appointed attendants for juvenile criminal cases was only 319 in 2012, and this number represents only 3.2 percent of the total number of juveniles sent to classification homes (10,048 persons). Through the expansion of applicable cases under the court-appointed defense attorney system for suspects from May 2009, more juvenile suspects have been provided court-appointed defense councils. However, the cases covered by the court-appointed attendant system were not expanded and thus court-appointed attorneys for juvenile suspects are not necessarily appointed as attendants once the cases are referred to family courts. Thus, the JFBA has been encouraging court-appointed attorneys for juvenile suspects to continuously act as their attendants after cases have been referred to family courts by using the Juvenile Attendant Aid System as necessary. As a result, the number of cases involving attendants has been increasing in recent years. I. Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the Proportion of Cases in which Attendants are Present The proportion of cases involving attendants has been increasing since 2000, but the percentage is still relatively low in total. Data t Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the Proportion of Cases in which h Attendants are Present (Percentage) Total Number of Cases With Attendant Without Attendant (Cases) 100% 350,000 90% 99.5% 99.1% 98.5% 290, % 92.6% 300,000 80% 81.5% 70% 236, , ,824 60% 200,000 50% 40% 150,000 30% 83, ,000 20% 59,697 46,582 10% 18.5% 50, % 7.4% 0% 0 (Year) [Note] 1. The statistics are based on the "Annual Report of Judicial Statistics (Juvenile Section)." 2. The total number of cases from 1999 excludes those cases referred to summary courts, those involving death or injury through negligence in the pursuit of social activities when driving vehicles, those transferred to other courts, or those jointly tried that were not counted as completed cases (subordinate cases). From 2002, the number also excludes cases involving death or bodily injury through dangerous driving. 3. A person other than an attorney may be an attendant. The statistics of "with attendant" and "without attendant" above include attendants other than attorneys. 30

37 II. Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) with Appointed Attendants (by type) The graph below shows the changes in the number of juvenile cases before family courts with appointed attendants, by type of relationship with the juvenile. The respective proportions of cases involving courtappointed attorneys and privately retained attorneys were 3.8 percent and 96.2 percent in Data Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) with Appointed Attendants (by type) (Cases) 10,000 Attorneys Custodians Others 9,000 8, ,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, , ,347 4, ,968 2,154 1, '(Year) 31

38 Section 4 The Lay Judge System I. Cases Determined by Lay Judges On May 29, 2009, the Act on Criminal Trials Examined under the Saiban-in (lay judges) system was enacted and the Saiban-in (lay judges) system was implemented. After approximately 65 years since the expiration of the Jury Act in 1943, a system allowing citizens to participate in the judicial process was once again implemented. The Saiban-in system aims to achieve better criminal trials, where citizens having a wide range of experiences and coming from many different backgrounds participate in trials directly, and where penal trial principles, such as the presumption of innocence, are honored. Moreover, it is a further aim of the system to assist in bringing about common sense being more heavily reflected in the judicial process as well as to revitalize the democracy of the country and to strengthen the national foundations in relation to its judicial system. Under the Saiban-in system, lay judges (numbering six, in principle) selected from the general public, serve alongside professional judges (numbering three, in principle) in examining cases involving certain serious crimes, namely, (1) crimes punishable under statute by the death penalty or indefinite penal servitude/imprisonment, and (2) crimes punishable under statute by short-term imprisonment of one year or more, and which are legally prohibited to be tried by judicial panels consisting of a single judge (i.e., the cases stipulated in Article 26, Paragraph (2), item (ii) of the Court Act), in addition to cases in which victims have died through deliberate criminal acts. Lay judges are heavily involved in all steps of the criminal proceedings, help to determine the facts and decide on sentences with an authority that is basically equivalent to that of the professional judges involved. The lay judges provide a strong contribution to criminal trial procedures in that they assist with the determining of facts and the assessing of cases. Saiban-in (lay judges) trials are conducted at District Courts (50 places) in addition to certain branches thereof (10 places). 32

39 Data The Number of Prosecuted Cases per Offence for Crimes Subject to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials (January December 2012) Crime Number Cases Robbery Causing Injury 322 Homicide 306 Arson of Inhabited Buildings 132 Rape Causing Death or Injury 125 Injury Causing Death 153 Indecent Assault Causing Death or Injury 108 Rape and Armed Robbery 58 Robbery Causing Death or Injury 32 Dispersion of Counterfeit Currency 34 Counterfeiting Currency 20 Gang Rape Causing Death or Injury 6 Dangerous Driving Causing Death 27 Abandonment Causing Death by a Person Responsible for Protection 7 Other Crimes under the Penal Code 3 Violations of the Stimulants Control Act 102 Violations of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Control Act 60 Violations of the Criminal Regulations to Control Explosives 6 Violations of the Act for Controlling the Possession of Firearms or Swords and Other Such Weapons. 2 Crimes Other than those stimulated in the Penal Code 1 Total Number of Crimes 1,504 of [Note] 1. The above data was collected and prepared by the JFBA based on materials provided by the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office. 2. The numbers shown above were calculated on the basis of one prosecution case per accused. 3. In the above data, in cases of the prosecution of crimes to be subjected to Saiban-in (lay judges) trials featuring more than one crime contained in a written indictment, the most severe crime in terms of the severity of statutory penalties available has been chosen to be counted as one crime. If the severity of the applicable statutory penalty is the same, a) in the case of crimes stipulated in the Penal Code and crimes other than those stipulated in the Penal Code, crimes stipulated in the Penal Code were chosen to be counted as the one crime, and b) in the case of more than one crime being stipulated in the Penal Code, the crime first set forth therein, i.e. in an earlier Article, was chosen. 4. In terms of crimes committed and attempts thereof, not only the crimes themselves but also the attempts have been included. 5. Regarding the number of crimes other than those stipulated in the Penal Code, only cases processed by Saiban-in (lay judges) trials are counted. 33

40 II. Actual Practice of Lay Judge Trials 1. The Number of Persons Who Have Been Subjected to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials and Whose Trials Have Been Finalized The following table shows the number of persons who have been subjected to Saiban-in (lay judges) trials over which the final judgments thereof have been rendered between the period of January and December, Based on the number of attorneys, the number of persons whose trials have been finalized per attorney was calculated. Data Number of Persons Who Have Been Subjected to Saiban-in Trials and Whose Trials Have Been Finalized and the Number of Such Persons per Attorney January 2012 to Decmber 2012 Number of persons whose trials have been finalized (Persons) Convicted Convicted, but partly acquitted Acquitted Transferred to the family court Others (Note 3) Number of attorneys ( ) (Persons) Number of persons whose trials have been finalized per attorney (Persons) Total 1,526 1, , [Note] 1. The above number of persons whose trials have been finalized is written in the "Materials relating to the actual practice status of lay judge trials in 2012," created by the Supreme Court of Japan, i.e., the actual number of persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courts of first instance over ordinary criminal cases. 2. "Number of persons whose trials have been finalized" indicates the actual number of defendants finalized, namely, either the rendering of a judgement of conviction, the making of a decision to close a trial, or the withdrawal of a claim for a formal trial, in the applicable period (year). 3. "Others" shown in the above table indicates dismissing the prosecution, transferring the case to other courts, and so on. 4. The above number of attorneys is as of April 1,

41 2. Comparison of the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations and the Average Period of the Pretrial Conference Procedure (by confession and denial), etc. The amount of time taken for court deliberation at trials which have been tried by judges that include lay judges (hereafter referred to as Saiban-in trials ) varies greatly between denial cases in which the issue of whether or not the crime has been committed is in dispute, and confession cases in which the issue of whether or not the crime has been committed is no longer in dispute. The tables below show the average period taken for court deliberations, the average periods of the pretrial conference procedure (compared to those in the past) and the periods taken for court deliberations, as well as the actual period taken for court deliberations (by confession and denial cases) for Saiban-in trials and that have been finalized during the year 2012 (from January 2012 to December 2012). Data Comparison of the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations and the Average Period of the Pretrial Conference Procedure (by confession and denial) Trials which have been Saiban-in trials tried by professional judges only Total ( ) Number of persons whose cases have been finalized 3,080 4, ,506 1,525 1,500 Average period taken for court deliberations Total Average period (months) of the pretrial conference procedure Average period (months) taken for portions other than the pretrial conference procedure Number of persons whose cases have been finalized 1,783 2, Average period taken for court deliberations Confession Average period (months) of the pretrial conference procedure Average period (months) taken for portions other than the pretrial conference procedure Number of persons whose cases have been finalized 1,297 1, Average period taken for court deliberations Denial Average period (months) of the pretrial conference procedure Average period (months) taken for portions other than the pretrial conference procedure [Note] 1. The number of persons whose cases have been finalized indicates the actual number of persons. 2. The period taken for court deliberation indicates the period from indictment to finalization of the trial, including the preparation period for the trial. 3. The average period (months) of the pretrial conference procedure was calculated excluding the cases which had opened without involvement of lay judges, but due to subsequent changes in the applicable penal code, were tried at Saiban-in trials, and thus had their conference procedures after the opening of the case. 4. The number of persons whose cases have been finalized includes cases which were eventually transferred to a family court, as stipulated in Article 55 of the Juvenile Act. However, the above figures exclude cases in which the prosecution has been dismissed without deliberations, even if having been conducted by a collegiate panel that includes lay judges. 35

42 5. The above figures do not include cases which have been determined as exceptional cases and were tried by professional judges only, as stipulated in Article 3-1 of the Act on Criminal Trials Examined under Lay Judge System. 6. Trials which have been tried by professional judges only are calculated by adding up the number of cases that are found guilty and not guilty among the cases that were included in the scope of Saiban-in trials and held pretrial conference procedures. Data Distribution of the Period Taken for Court Deliberations (by Confession and Denial) and the Average Period of Court Deliberations in 2012 Number of persons whose cases have been finalized 3 months or less Over 3 months - 4 months Period taken for court deliberations Over 4 months - 5 months Over 5 months - 6 months Over 6 months - 9 months Over 9 months- 1 year Over 1 year The average duration (months) Total 1, Confession Denial [Note] 1. This data is based on the actual number of persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courts of first instance over ordinary criminal cases. 2. This data includes the number of cases whose trials opened without being subject to Saiban-in trials, but during the process were added other cases subject to Saiban-in trials. Data Number of Persons whose Trials have been Finalized compared to the Actual Period Taken for Court Deliberations (from the First Trial until the Trial has been Finalized) (by Confession and Denial) and the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations in 2012 Number of persons whose cases have been finalized 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days Period taken for court deliberations Less than 10 days Less than 20 days Less than 30 days Less than 40 days 40 days or more The average period taken for court delibera tions (days) Total 1, Confession Denial [Note] 1. This data is based on the actual number of persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courts of first instance over ordinary criminal cases as well as the results of the individual research conducted by the Criminal Affairs Bureau of the Supreme Court of Japan. 2. As for the cases in which sectional deliberations were conducted, the total of all periods taken for deliberations as Saiban-in trials was counted as the actual period taken for deliberation. Sectional deliberation: In the event of a defendant being indicted for more than one (criminal) case in a Saiban-in trial, the trial may be divided into multiple sections/parts (each trial in charge of one or more of the cases involved), and lay-judges are assigned for each section to conduct deliberations. After a ruling has been rendered for each section, a collegiate panel, to which newly appointed lay judges are added, conducts a deliberation on all the cases for which the defendant is indicted, in order to decide on the final sentencing. 3. As regards the cases in which trials were first conducted only by professional judges, and which, at a later date, were subjected to Saiban-in trials due to indictment of another case and then a collegiate panel that includes lay judges conducted deliberations, the period for deliberations during which lay judges participated is counted as the actual period taken for deliberations. 4. Regarding those other than the periods described in 2 and 3, the actual deliberation periods are calculated as 36

43 from the time of the first trial until the closing of the trial. 5. The figures in this page are based on the "Materials relating to the actual practice status of lay judge trials in 2012," created by the Supreme Court of Japan, as well as the materials provided by the Supreme Court of Japan. 37

44 Chapter 2 Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits Activities in relation to civil cases are one of the important practices for attorneys. Such activities range widely to include civil, family affairs and administrative proceedings at courts, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), administrative tribunals, various hearing procedures, negotiations, legal counseling, and so on. The role attorneys play in the lives of civilians and in corporate activities is clearly quite significant. This chapter contains matters related to civil, family affairs and administrative cases at courts, and also attorneys' activities concerning civil cases, etc., which have been compiled based on statistical data. Section 1 Civil Lawsuits I. Attorneys Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before District Courts Although the total number of lawsuits tend to be on the increase until recent years, it has been decreasing since Attorneys involvement is approximately 80% in total in Observing the data by the purpose of the lawsuit, the percentage of appointment is high in lawsuits concerning labor and intellectual property. Data Changes in the Rate of Appointed Attorneys' Involvement in the First Instance of Ordinary Civil Lawsuit before District Courts Percentage Total Number of Cases With Attorneys Cases 100% 250,000 90% 83.5% 83.3% 80.9% 78.8% 80.7% 76.2% 80% 200, ,975 70% 168, , ,480 60% 150,000 50% 120, ,904 40% 100,000 30% 20% 50,000 10% 0% Year 38

45 Data Attorneys' Involvement in Lawsuits at District Courts (by Purpose) (2012) Cases with Attorneys Total One Side Purpose of Lawsuit Number Percentage of Total Number Both Sides Defendant Involvement Plaintiff Side Side Personnel Affairs Money 124, , % 50,482 44,712 6,333 Payment for Contracted Construction (1,771) (1,607) (90.7%) (1,014) (489) (104) Damages through Construction Defects (450) (441) (98.0%) (388) (37) (16) Damages through Medical Treatment (821) (806) (98.2%) (692) (43) (71) Damages through Pollution (55) (50) (90.9%) (37) (9) (4) Labor (2,129) (1,993) (93.6%) (1,587) (269) (137) Intellectual Property (222) (212) (95.5%) (178) (18) (16) Other (119,137) (96,418) (80.9%) (46,586) (43,847) (5,985) Buildings 25,163 17, % 3,152 14, Land 8,111 7, % 3,510 3, Labor (Except for Lawsuits Concerning Money) % Intellectual Property (Except for Lawsuits Concerning Money) % For Injunction against Pollution % Other 9,169 8, % 5,175 2, Total 168, , % 63,302 65,078 7,382 [Note] 1. The statistics of the graph and table are based on the "Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Civil and Administrative Affairs Part)." "With Attorneys" on the graph means cases in which attorneys were appointed by one party or both parties. 2. The jurisdiction over lawsuits related to personal status such as divorce was transferred to family courts on April 1,

46 II. Attorneys Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before Summary Courts The number of lawsuits has been increasing since 2000; however, it dropped in The recent increase in the number of lawsuits is said to have been influenced by lawsuits relating to excessive payments of interest (lawsuits related to requests for the return of excessive or usurious interest filed against money lenders). However, the number of such lawsuits is likely to decline gradually in the near future. Regarding attorneys and other representatives involvement (in ordinary civil lawsuits before summary courts), the percentage of parties involved without legal representation (denoted by "Without Representatives" in the graph below) is quite high. Data Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Defense Councils in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits (Summary Courts) Total Number of Cases With Attorneys Percentage (%) With Judicial Scriveners' Participation Without Representatives Cases 100% 650, % 86.6% 90% 85.3% 89.8% 600, ,000 80% 71.1% 500, % 461,128 70% 450, ,368 60% 400, , ,000 50% 273, ,000 40% 193, , ,000 30% 200,000 20% 20.2% 150, % 15.8% 9.4% 100,000 10% 13.5% 13.4% 9.7% 12.7% 50,000 0% Year [Note] 1. The statistics are based on the Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Civil and Administrative Affairs Part). 2. It includes ordinary lawsuits which were transferred from actions on small claims. 3. Statistics of lawsuits with judicial scriveners participation are taken from Summary courts have the jurisdiction over lawsuits claiming an amount of up to 1,400,000 yen raised from 900,000 yen since April With Attorneys and "With Judicial Scriveners" on the graph means lawsuits in which attorneys or judicial scriveners were appointed by one party or both parties. 40

47 III. Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instance Trials (before High Courts) Though the total number of cases on an annual basis had been on a downward trend since 2000, it has been increasing in recent years. The percentage of appointed attorneys has remained stable at approximately 94%. Data Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instances (High Courts) Percentage Total Number of Cases With Attorneys Cases 100% 94.2% 94.5% 93.4% 93.6% 94.1% 93.1% 25,000 90% 80% 18,986 20,000 70% 60% 50% 11,214 12,621 15,610 16,620 15,141 15,000 40% 10,000 30% 20% 5,000 10% 0% Year [Note] 1. The statistics are based on the Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Civil and Administrative Affairs Part). 2. With Attorneys on the graph means cases in which attorneys were appointed by one party or both parties. 3. The total number of cases in 2004 and 2005 include one case received as an appeal of a civil case but had a final judgment as an appeal of an administrative case. 41

48 Section 2 JFBA s Assistance for Disaster Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake I. JFBA s Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident More than two year and seven months have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake struck Japan and the subsequent accident occurred at the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant. However, there are still 286,000 evacuees according to an announcement of the Reconstruction Agency on September 25, 2013, and recovery and reconstruction from the disaster have not progressed as much as expected. In addition, we are concerned that people are gradually losing interest in this unprecedented disaster. The JFBA set up an Emergency Headquarters immediately after the earthquake and the nuclear power plant accident, and has been providing, in cooperation with bar associations, regional federations of bar associations and the Japan Legal Support Center, free legal-counseling services for the disaster victims through telephone as well as visiting evacuation centers, local governments, and other places in the affected areas. The JFBA has also been exerting its efforts to support the disaster victims by making recommendations on various legislation, modifications to existing laws, and necessary policies in order to resolve various post-disaster problems. As a principle, the JFBA believes that the disaster victims are the core of recovery and reconstruction of the affected areas and such recovery and reconstruction plans should be carried out aiming at reconstruction of people, that is, recovery of their fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Japan. According to this principle, the JFBA has been working to relieve people affected by the earthquake and the nuclear power plant accident and recover and reconstruct the affected areas by doing the following: providing legal support for the disaster victims such as free legal consultations at evacuation centers, etc., and making recommendations for solving double loan issues; making recommendations for the realization of appropriate compensation to those affected by the nuclear power plant accident, and calling for legislation to support the nuclear victims under the responsibility of the state in reconstructing their lives for which compensation is not enough; and providing support for reconstruction of towns and communities in the affected areas. 42

49 II. Statistical Results of Free Legal Consultations in Regard to the Great East Japan Earthquake The graphs below (Data ) show analytical results of free legal consultations provided in the four affected prefectures (Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima and Ibaraki prefectures) according to the residentail areas of disaster victims at the time of the earthquake through telephone or face-to-face meetings during the period from mid-march 2011 to late May 2012, although limited to those cases regarding which the JFBA could collect information. Regarding the issues dealt with in such legal consultations, reflecting the changes in the residential areas of the disaster victims who consulted, the ratio of categories such as "Disaster Laws and Regulations," "Leased houses-related issues" and "Liability of Possessors" is relatively high during the period immediately following the earthquake. During the same period one year later, the proportion of cases falling under the category of "Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc." accounts for approximately half of the total cases. Looking into some characteristics which can be found in each prefecture, in Iwate Prefecture, large proportions can be seen in the category of "Will/Inheritance" both at the three-month period immediately following the earthquake and that of one year later. In Miyagi Prefecture, the proportion of cases in the "Divorce, etc." category became relatively high one year after the earthquake. Data Proportion of Issues Dealt with in Legal Consultations per Period for Legal Consultations (for the Three Months Immediately following the Earthquake [Mar. to May 2011] and for the Same Months One Year Later [Mar. to May 2012]) C ategory of Legal Consultations Prefectures Total Iwate Miyagi Fukushima Ibaraki Mar. - Period for Legal Consultations May 2011 The Number of Legal Legal Consultations during the Period Mar. - May 2012 Mar. - May 2011 Mar. - May 2012 Mar. - May 2011 Mar. - May 2012 Mar. - May 2011 Mar. - May 2012 Mar. - May 2011 Mar. - May ,984 1,986 2, , ,767 1, Ownership of Real Property Ownership of Vehicles, Ships, etc. (incl. Loss of Ownership Current Assets (e.g. Deposits, Shares, etc.) Real Property Lease (Leased Land) Real Property Lease (Leased Houses) Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and Disputes between Neighbors Land Boundaries Debt Collection (Loans, Accounts Receivable, Contracts for Work, etc.) Loan or Lease of Houses, Vehicles, Ships, etc Payment of Other Loans Insurance Disaster Laws and Regulations Taxes New Loans Divorce/Relatives Wills/Inheritance Consumer Damage Labor Issues Foreign Nationals Risk-Bearing, Commercial or Corporate Issues Criminal Issues Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc Others Non-Disaster Issues Note: 1. The above figures indicate the percentage of legal consulations per period. 2. The figures highlighted in pink are the top three categories of legal consultations per prefecture. 3. Total figures include the figures for the above four affected prefectures (Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima and Ibaraki Prefectures) as well as other prefectures. 4. Legal consultations for which the issues discussed were not reported or are unknown have basically been excluded. 43

50 Data Proportions of People who had Legal Consultations per Affected Prefecture (for the Three Months Immediately following the Earthquake [Mar. to May 2011] and for the Same Months One Year Later [Mar. to May 2012] ) Mar. to May 2011 (Immediately after the Earthquake) Mar. to May 2012 (One year has passed since the Earthquake) Others (Other than four affected prefectures ) 5.9% Ibaraki 4.6% Fukushima 19.9% Iwate 13.6% The Number of People who Had Legal Consultations :18,995 (excluding the people (1,056) whose prefectures are unknown.) Others (Other than four affected prefectures) 6.1% Ibaraki 1.3% The Number of People who Had Legal Consultations :1,889 (excluding the people (101) whose prefectures are unknown.) Iwate 14.2% Miyagi 10.4% Miyagi 56.1% Fukushima 68.0% 44

51 III. JFBA s Response to Double Loan Payment Issues (The so-called Double Loan problem means the problem encountered by the victims of disaster who already had housing loans or other debts for their businesses but were obliged to make new loans because the assets which were mortgaged for the loans had been destroyed or could not be used any longer because of the disaster.) It is necessary to relieve disaster victims from unreasonable debts, including double loan payments, in order to facilitate the reconstruction of their communities and give them a fresh start in life. Concerned that these issues would pose a great problem in the affected areas, the JFBA strove to bring them to the attention of the public immediately after the earthquake and has been making recommendations with regard to the best way to alleviate such issues. As a result, the Study Group on the Individual Debtor Guidelines for Out-of-Court Workouts established and published guidelines on July 15, 2011, followed by the launch of the Management Committee of Individual Debtor Guidelines for Out-of-Court Workouts (the Management Committee ) on August 22, 2011, which began to receive applications from individuals on the same day. (Aiming to make this system well-known to the public, the JFBA started to call it the Disaster Loan Reduction System (the System) in order to present the objectives of this system in an understandable way.) It was expected that debt workouts based on the guidelines (the System) would greatly contribute to the reconstruction of the lives of a number of disaster victims. Regrettably, however, and contrary to our initial expectations, the System has not been used sufficiently by many disaster victims and, as of March 29, 2013, only 292 debt cases have been settled under this System. The reasons why not very many people are using this System may be insufficient publicity and PR, problems concerning the way in which the System is operated, and so on. It is necessary for the JFBA to make additional efforts, in cooperation with the institutions involved, towards promoting further publicity, conducting PR more thoroughly, and improving the operation of the System. Data Debt-Workout Settlements under the Management Committee (between Aug. 22, 2011 and Mar. 29, 2013) (Cases) Ibaraki The Number of Debt-Workouts Settled Fukushima Miyagi Iwate Aomori Tokyo /8/22 ~2012/5/25 ~6/29 ~7/27 ~8/31 ~9/28 ~10/26 ~11/30 ~12/28 ~2013/1/25 ~2/22 ~3/29 [Note] 1. The above figures were created by the JFBA based on official data issued by the Management Committee. 2. The number of debt-workouts settled indicated is cumulative. 3. As for Aomori Prefecture, the number of debt-workouts settled within the period shown above was zero. 45

52 IV. JFBA's Response to the Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc. Immediately after the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, the JFBA made a number of recommendations in relation to the moves by the Dispute Reconciliation Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation (the "Dispute Reconciliation Committee,") which established guidelines, and TEPCO which was the perpetrator, in order to properly provide compensation for damage suffered by the tremendous number of victims. In particular, from the early stages, the JFBA has been bringing up the necessity of an ADR institution specializing in disputes over compensation for damage from the nuclear power plant accident. As a result, the Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution Center was established under the Dispute Reconciliation Committee and began to receive applications for settlement on September 1, The JFBA has been offering full cooperation in the operation of the center and a total of more than 400 attorneys, etc. are involved in its operation, as 210 mediators and 190 research officials (including executives) (as of July 1, 2013). With reference to the statute of limitations for victims of the nuclear accident to seek compensatory damages, since there is a possibility that the time limit of three years during which such victims can claim compensation would be reached in March 2014 at the earliest, as per the stipulations set forth in the first paragraph of Article 724 of the Civil Code (Time limit for seeking compensation for damage caused by tort), the JFBA has called for the provisions of Articles 724 and 167 of the Civil Code not be applied. The enactment of a law (act on special measures) which stipulates a new, extended period during which such victims can claim compensation should be realized by the end of 2013 at the latest. Data Changes in the Number of Cases Filed and Cases Already Processed at the Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution Center (ADR Center) (2012) (Cases) 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Jan Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. The Cumulative Number of Applications Filed for Settlement 769 1,124 1,590 2,037 2,517 2,926 3,398 3,793 4,074 4,421 4,720 5,063 The Cumulative Number of Cases Settled ,098 1,364 1,624 1,862 The Number of Applications Filed for Settlement per Month [Note] 1. The above table has been created by the JFBA based on the "Report on Activities of the Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution Center under the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology (MEXT) - Situation during 2012." 2. The cumulative numbers in Jan include the total number of applications filed for settlement and the number of cases settled in

53 Chapter 3 Expansion of Attorneys' Activities The traditional image of attorneys was that they established their offices near courts and mainly acted as representatives or defense counsel in trials and subordinately engaged in negotiations and review of contracts for individual cases other than trials. Many attorneys still mainly engage in trials but their fields of activity have been broadening in order to meet the diverse range of legal needs which have emerged from the increasingly complex social and economic situations of recent times. The JFBA is providing various kinds of support for the activities of individual attorneys but unfortunately is unable to grasp every lawyer's individual situations. The following information is based on the limited data which the JFBA currently possesses. I. Current Situation of In-house Attorneys 1. Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys As attorneys are gaining work in a more diverse range of fields, the number of attorneys working in companies, ministries, local governments, and other bodies while utilizing their special knowledge and experiences as attorneys is increasing. An in-house attorney refers to an attorney who is a staff member or employee or is engaged as a director, board member or other officer of a government office or public or private organization except for legal professional corporations (Art. 50, Basic Rules on the Duties of Practicing Attorneys). Forms of In-house Attorneys Corporate In-house Attorney: An attorney who is working as an employee, worker, or officer of a corporation. Public Officer with a Fixed Term: An attorney who is employed by a central or local governmental organization for a fixed term in accordance with the related laws. The number of in-house attorneys in Japan was 965 as of the end of June, 2013, while the number of public officers with fixed terms was 120 as of June 1, Data Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys Number of Attorneys 1200 Corporate In-House Attorneys Public Officers with Fixed Terms Year [Note] 1. The number of corporate in-house attorneys was researched by the Japan In-House Lawyers Association (JILA) based on a survey conducted by the JFBA. 2. The number of public officers with fixed terms was researched by the JFBA. Data collection dates were: May 2005, Dec. 2006, and as of June of each year from 2007 to

54 2. Public Officers with Fixed Terms The "Act on Special Measures of Employment and Remuneration of Officials with Fixed Term of Office in the Regular Service" which came into force in November 2000 introduced a system enabling central government ministries and agencies to employ persons with expert knowledge and experience or advanced insights from outside sources for fixed terms by offering them appropriate salary levels. In addition, through the implementation of the Act on Employment of Fixed-Term Local Public Officers Engaged in Regular Services, since July 2002, local governments have also been able to employ persons from outside sources in accordance with the ordinances of each local government. Previously, attorneys were, in principle, unable to take up paid public positions (Old Art. 30, Para. 1, Attorney Act). When attorneys wished to work for government ministries or agencies, they were required to work as part-time staff members while retaining their registration as attorneys or rescind their registration before taking such public positions. Under such a situation, a system which enabled central and local governmental organizations to employ persons from outside sources for fixed terms was introduced and Article 30 of the Attorney Act was revised, more particularly, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Old Article 30 which restricted the assumption of public positions by attorneys were deleted (enforced on April 1, 2004). The table below shows the ministries, agencies and local governments which employ attorneys as of June 1, 2013, as confirmed by the JFBA. (Only the number of attorneys registered with the JFBA as of June 1, 2013 is counted.) Other than public officers with fixed terms, there are also attorneys who work for government ministries, agencies or local governments as full-time employees. Data Public Officers with Fixed Terms as of June 1, 2013 <Ministries, etc.> Number of Attorneys (Women) < Local Governments > Number of Attorneys (Women) Cabinet Office 4 (1) Special local public body for Tokyo 23 wards 1 (1) Japan Fair Trade Commission 9 (1) Miyagi Prefecture 1 (0) Financial Services Agency 19 (3) Ishinomaki City, Miyagi Prefecture 1 (0) Ministry of Internal Affairs 4 (1) Higashimatsuyama City, Miyagi Prefecture 1 (0) Consumer Affairs Agency 9 (3) Soma City, Fukushima Prefecture 1 (0) Ministry of Justice 3 (0) Machida City, Tokyo 1 (1) Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1 (0) Kunitachi City, Tokyo 1 (1) Ministry of Finance 10 (3) Kanagawa Prefectural Government 1 (1) National Tax Agency 14 (6) Atsugi City, Kanagawa Prefecture 1 (0) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 7 (0) Nagareyama City, Chiba Prefecture 1 (1) Agency for Natural Resources and Energy 1 (0) Choshi City, Chiba Prefecture 1 (0) Japan Patent Office 2 (0) Toyota City, Aichi Prefecture 1 (1) Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 1 (0) Nabari City, Mie Prefecture 1 (0) Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism 1 (0) Taki-cho, Mie Prefecture 1 (1) Ministry of the Environment 2 (0) Minamiise Cho, Mie Prefecture 1 (1) Legislative Bureau, House of Representatives 1 (0) Toyama City, Toyama Prefecture 1 (0) Legislative Bureau, House of Councillors 1 (0) Osaka City, Osaka 1 (0) Osakasayama City, Osaka 1 (1) Matsubara City, Osaka 1 (0) Akashi City, Hyogo Prefecture 5 (2) Wakayama City, Wakayama Prefecture 1 (1) Fukuyama City, Hiroshima Prefecture 1 (0) Yamaguchi Prefecture 1 (0) Anan City, Tokushima Prefecture 1 (0) Fukuoka City, Fukuoka Prefecture 1 (0) Koga City, Fukuoka Prefecture 1 (0) Minamisatsuma City, Kagoshima Prefecture 1 (0) (subtotal) 89 (18) (subtotal) 31 (12) TOTAL: 120 (30) [Note] 1. Only the number of attorneys registered with the JFBA as of June 1, 2013 is counted. 2. The number within the brackets refers to the number of female attorneys. 48

55 3. Diet Members and Head of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys The table below shows the number of diet members and heads of local governments registered as attorneys as of October 1, As of October 2013, there are four attorneys in the Cabinet: - Mr. Teiichi Tanigaki (Minister of Justice, House of Representative/The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan) - Ms. Tomomi Inada (Minister of State for Special Missions (Regulatory Reform), House of Representative/The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan) Minister of State for Administrative Reform, Minister of State for Civil Service Reform, Minister of State for the Cool Japan Strategy, Minister of State for the Challenge Again Initiative - Ms. Masako Mori (Minister of State for Special Missions (Support for Women's Empowerment and Child-rearing), House of Councillors/The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan) Minister of State for Consumer Affairs and Food Safety, Minister of State for Measures for Declining Birthrate, Minister of State for Gender Equality - Mr. Hideki Makihara (Parliamentary Secretary for Environment, House of Representative/The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan). Data Diet Members and Head of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys Organization Number of Attorneys House of Representatives 27 House of Councillors 13 Heads of Local Governments 8 49

56 Part 3 Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations Chapter 1 Autonomy of Attorneys Section 1 Complaints and Dispute Conciliations I. Complaints against Attorneys In the event that opposing parties or clients have complaints about attorneys or legal professional corporations, they may file their complaints to bar associations. Each bar association has established a Public Complaint Desk as a reception to receive and deal with complaints from citizens. The graphs below show the number of complaints filed at public complaint desks of bar associations from January to December of 2012 classified by applicants and contents. They also show the changes in the number of cases received at public complaint desks from 1998 to Data Details of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks (by Applicant) (2012) Number of Cases From Clients From Opposing Parties Others Dissatisfaction with Final Result Ways of Handling Delay of Handling Inappropriate Manner or Attitude Fees Handling of Entrusted Money Data Details of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks (by Contents ) (2012) Dissatisfaction with Final Result 5.2% Handling of Entrusted Money 2.1% Others 11.9% Fees 8.8% Ways of Handling 25.9% Others Inappropriate Manner or Attitude 33.0% Delay of Handling 13.0% *Total % may not be 100 due to rounding to one decimal place. Data Changes in the Number of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks Number of Complaints 12,000 10,000 8,000 11,129 10,807 9,764 9,427 8,861 8,668 8,112 8,212 6,646 11,020 6,000 5,050 4,000 2,000 2,203 2,533 2,791 3, Year [Note] 1. Please note that data before 2003 was collected under the conditions that some bar associations had not set up public complaint desks and methods of receiving complaints and taking statistics varied. From January 2004, statistics have been collected under the unified standards. 2. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December). 50

57 II. Dispute Conciliation 1. Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received The Dispute Conciliation System was created for resolving disputes with clients with regard to the duties of attorneys and the practices of law firms. Under this system, bar associations autonomously hear arguments from both parties and conciliate fairly and properly to settle amicably in the context of the actual situation (Article 41 of the Attorney Act). The table below shows the total number of dispute conciliation cases newly received from 2003 to Data Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received Year Total [Note] Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December). 2. Handling of Dispute Conciliation Cases (All Bar Associations) 2003 to 2012 The graph below shows the details of how dispute conciliation cases were handled by all bar associations from 2003 to The lower pie chart shows how cases were handled in These show that almost 40% of all the dispute conciliation cases are settled. Total number of dispute conciliation cases per year Data Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Handled (Cases) 800 Data Results of Dispute Conciliation Cases Others Withdra wals Not Settled Settled Data Handling Details of Dispute Conciliation Cases for 2012 Others 1.9% (Year) Withdrawals 17.9% Settled 39.1% Not Settled 41.1% [Note] Before 2004, statistics of handling details were taken in four categories: "Conciliated," "Not Conciliated," "Withdrawals" and "Others." The former "Conciliated" corresponds to "Settled" and "Not Conciliated" corresponds to "Not Settled." 51

58 Section 2 Disciplinary System for Attorneys I. Summary of the Disciplinary System for Attorneys Under any systems of the Daigen-nin Rules (1876) to the former Attorney Act (1933), the government had been authorized to supervise attorneys. The current Attorney Act (Act No.205 of 1949) has realized the autonomy of attorneys, by which the JFBA, the autonomous organization of attorneys, has been authorized to deal with the registration of attorneys on the roster of attorneys and the JFBA and bar associations have been authorized to take disciplinary actions against attorneys and legal professional corporations (hereinafter referred to as attorneys, etc. ). Attorneys, etc. are entrusted with the mission to protect fundamental human rights and realize social justice (Article 1 of the Attorney Act, hereinafter referred to as Act ). The self-disciplinary system has been established because if the government has the disciplinary authority, it is difficult for attorneys, etc. to complete their mission in case citizens fundamental human rights conflict with the government. A disciplinary action is interpreted as an administrative action in the broad sense, which is taken under the public authority given to the bar associations and the JFBA. This explains why an attorney etc. who has had a disciplinary action imposed on them by a bar association may appeal under the Administrative Appeal Act (Act Art. 59) and an attorney, etc. whose appeal is dismissed or rejected or who is subject to disciplinary actions by the JFBA may file a lawsuit for revocation of such decision with the Tokyo High Court (Act Art. 61). Below is the summary of the disciplinary system under the current Act after the revision in 2003 (Please see also the chart on page 61). 1. Request for Discipline Any person who believes that there are grounds for disciplining an attorney, etc. may make a request for disciplinary action to the bar association to which said attorney, etc. belongs (Act Art. 58, para. 1). 2. Investigation by Disciplinary Enforcement Committee If there has been a request for discipline, the bar association shall cause its Disciplinary Enforcement Committee to make an investigation (Act Art. 58, para. 2). The same shall apply if a bar association itself finds that there are grounds for disciplining an attorney, etc. (Act Art. 58, para. 2). The Disciplinary Enforcement Committee investigates the case and decides whether it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee to examine the case (the revision of 2003 clearly indicated that the committee can consider extenuating circumstances. Act Art. 58, para. 4). Please note that a disciplinary procedure begins with an investigation by the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee, so the statute of limitations (Act Art. 63) and restrictions on requests for transfer and rescission of registration (Act Art. 62) are decided based on the time when the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee for its examination. This point had been established as interpretation and was clearly indicated by the revision of Examination by Disciplinary Actions Committee When the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee (including its subcommittee) makes a resolution that it is appropriate to refer a matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee to examine the case, the bar association shall refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee for examination (Binding effect of resolutions, Act Art. 58, para. 3). The same shall apply if the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee or the JFBA Board of Discipline Review makes a resolution that it is appropriate to refer the case back to the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the original bar association for investigation and the JFBA has referred the case back to the original bar association based on the resolution (Act Art. 64-2, para. 2 and 3, Art. 64-4, para. 1 through 3). If the Disciplinary Actions Committee (including its subcommittee) finds with its resolution that it is appropriate to discipline the accused attorney, etc. and sets forth the details of the disciplinary action to be undertaken, the bar association (or JFBA) shall discipline the accused attorney, etc. (Binding effect of resolutions, Act Art. 58, para. 5 and Art. 60, para. 5.). 52

59 4. Filing of an Objection, etc. A Discipline-requesting party may file an objection thereto with the JFBA under the following circumstances (Act Art. 64, para. 1): (1) the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee of a bar association adopts a resolution that it shall not refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee for examination and the bar association issues a ruling not to discipline the accused attorney, etc. (2) the Disciplinary Actions Committee of a bar association adopts a resolution that it is appropriate not to discipline the accused attorney, etc. and the bar association issues a ruling not to discipline the accused attorney, etc. (3) a bar association has not concluded disciplinary procedures within a reasonable period (4) the discipline-requesting party finds that disciplinary actions imposed by the bar association were unjustly lenient. An objection shall be filed within 60 days (Act Art. 64, para. 2). Also in the case of (1), a discipline-requesting party may apply to the JFBA for a discipline review by the JFBA Board of Discipline Review (composed of academic experts, excluding legal professionals) (Act Art. 64-3, para. 1) if the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee dismissed or rejected the objection and if the JFBA adopted a resolution to that effect (Act Art. 64-2, para. 5). In that case, the application shall be made (Act Art. 64-3, para. 1) within 30 days (Act Art. 64-3, para. 2). Please note that the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee examines objections in the case of above (1), and the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee does in cases (2) and (4) (the revision of 2003 separated the disciplinary enforcement route and disciplinary actions route. For the case (3), these routes are also separated.). This revision provides the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee as the statutory body to examine the case (or investigate in the discipline of Art. 60). 5. Public Notice by the Official Gazette, etc. If disciplinary actions are imposed by the bar association or the JFBA, the facts are made public by the JFBA s journal Jiyu-to-Seigi (Liberty and Justice) and the Official Gazette (Act Art. 64-6, para. 3, Art. 68 of the Articles of Associations of JFBA). 53

60 II. Operation of the Disciplinary System 1. Cases Handled by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA (1) Bar Associations In 2012, bar associations accepted 3,898 filings of complaints for discipline. Observing the resolved cases in 2012, the periods from filing of complaints for discipline to resolution by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees were within 6 months in 34.6% of the cases. Approximately 85% of the cases were within 1 year. In recent years, approximately 10% of the cases on which Disciplinary Enforcement Committees investigated were referred to Disciplinary Actions Committees for examinations. 134 cases were referred in (2) JFBA In 2012, a total of 778 of the objections filed with the JFBA were with regard to investigations conducted by bar associations, and these objections were then referred to the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee for its examination. In 2012, the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee resolved 834 cases. In 6 of the cases, the committee resolved that disciplinary examinations were appropriate and referred the cases to bar associations. 76.9% of the cases reached resolutions within 6 months. Following are details of accepted filings of objections and resolutions ( ). Data Details of Accepted Filings of Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee) Year Details of Newly Accepted Filings of Objections No Disciplinary Action Prolonged Disciplinary Proceedings beyond a Reasonable Period Partially not Appropriate Illegal Objections Total [Note] Illegal objections: Objections remade, overlapping requests, and objections where the other party was not an attorney. Data Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee) Year Examination Appropriate Rejections Closed Cases Examination Inappropriate Dismissals Disqualification or Termination by Death Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures Unclosed Cases [Note] 1. Examination Appropriate: The JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee found it appropriate to refer the case back to the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the original bar association for investigation. 2. Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures: The JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee found the objection claiming prolonged proceedings was reasonable and resolved to order the bar association to promptly proceed with disciplinary procedures. 3. Among the total number of "Closed Cases" in 2010, one case was a partial rejection and partial dismissal, which was counted in the "Rejections" section, and the other case was "partly with reason and partly dismissed," which was counted in the "Dismissals" section. 4. The Unclosed Cases section includes cases which were investigated continuously from the previous year. 5. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December). Total 54

61 2. Processing Cases at Disciplinary Actions Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA (1) Bar Associations The number of cases referred to Disciplinary Actions Committees of bar associations nationwide for examinations has been approximately 100 a year recently. The number of disciplinary actions has been between 70 and 80 a year. It was 79 in Observing the resolved cases in 2012, approximately 34.0% of the cases reached resolutions within 6 months. The periods were within 1 year in approximately 75% of the cases. We had not spent over two years in any cases in recent years, but we did in 1.7% of the cases in 2010, 2.3% in 2011, and 2.8% in (2) JFBA i. Objections Among the objections filed with the JFBA in 2012, 32 of them concern the cases referred to Disciplinary Actions Committees of bar associations for examinations (11 objections against no disciplinary action, 18 against unjustly lenient disciplinary action and 3 against prolonged disciplinary proceedings beyond a reasonable period ). These cases were referred to the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee for examination. In 2012, the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee resolved 33 cases. Year Data Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee) Closed Cases Rejections Rescissions Modifications Dismissals Withdrawals Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures Disqualificatio n or Termination by Death [Note] 1. Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures: es: The JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee found the objection o claiming prolonged proceedings was reasonable and resolved to order the bar association to promptly proceed with disciplinary procedures. 2. Details of Rescissions (rescind the resolutions of bar associations) 2010: from no discipline to admonition in one case 2011: from no discipline to admonition in three cases 3. Details of Modifications 2010: from "admonition" to "suspension of practice for one month" in two cases 4. The Unclosed Cases of this table and the table below include cases which were investigated continuously from the previous year. 5. Data of this table and the table below are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December). Total Unclosed Cases ii. Appeals In 2012, 34 appeals were filed with the JFBA. In this year, the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee resolved 29 cases. Year Data Details of Resolutions on Appeals (JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee) Rejection s Rescissions of Primary Disciplinary Actions Closed Cases Modifications of Primary Disciplinary Actions Dismissals, Terminations etc. Total Unclosed Cases

62 [Note] 1. Dismissals : Because the valid period for filing an appeal has passed, etc. Terminations etc. : By withdrawal, disqualification, or death. 2. Details of Rescissions of Primary Disciplinary Actions (rescind the disciplinary actions of bar associations) 2010: from admonition to no discipline in four cases 2011: from admonition to no discipline in two cases 2012: from admonition to no discipline in two cases 3. Details of Modifications of Primary Disciplinary Actions (modify to lighter disciplinary actions) 2010: from suspension of practice for one month to admonition in one case, from suspension of practice for two years to one year and six months in one case, from suspension of practice for six months to five months in one case, from suspension of practice for three months to admonition in one case, from suspension of practice for two years to one year in one case. 2011: from suspension of practice for six months to admonition in one case, from suspension of practice for four months to two months in one case, and from suspension of practice for one year to eight months in one case. 3. Processing Cases at the JFBA Board of Discipline Review In 2012, 321 cases with applications for discipline review were referred to the JFBA Board of Discipline Review for examination. In this year, 277 cases reached resolutions. Three of these 277 cases were resolved to be transferred to bar associations for their disciplinary examinations. Following are details of accepting cases with applications for discipline review and resolutions from 2010 to Data Details of Resolutions on Cases with Applications for Discipline Review (JFBA Board of Discipline Review) Closed Cases Year Examinations Examinations Inappropriate Appropriate (Rejections) Dismissals Withdrawals Disqualification or Termination by Death Total Unclosed Cases [Note] 1. Examinations Appropriate : The board found that it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the original bar association to examine the case. 2. The Unclosed Cases section includes cases which were investigated continuously from the previous year. 3. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December). 56

63 Section 3 Disciplinary Actions and Disciplinary Procedure I. Statistics Regarding Disciplinary Actions 1. Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) 1996 to 2012 The graph below shows the number of newly accepted requests for disciplinary actions by all bar associations from 1996 to In 2012, 3,898 requests were newly accepted. Data Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Actions Number of Cases 10,000 9,585 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,898 3,000 2,000 1, , ,127 1,268 1,192 1,367 1,596 1,402 1,849 1, Year [Note] 1. Data are collected dby calendar years (from January 1to the end of fdecember). 2. If a request consolidates two or more matters regarding one attorney, it is counted as one case. 3. The number of newly accepted requests in 2007 was approximately seven times the requests of the previous year because 8,095 requests were made against the defense counsel of the Hikari City Mother-Child Murder Case. 4. The number of newly accepted requests in 2012 was approximately twice the number of requests for the previous year, mainly because there were 5 cases in which more than 100 requests were made per person (coming to a total of 1,899 requests for such five cases). 57

64 2. Number of Requests for Disciplinary Action and Details of Handling the Requests (All Bar Associations) This table shows the number of requests for disciplinary action and details of handling the requests by all bar associations from 1996 to In 2012, the number of disciplinary actions taken was 79 cases. The percentage of the total number of attorneys involved was 0.24%, as shown on the next page, and this has remained at a similar level for the past ten years. Year Newly Accepted Requests Admonitions Data Details of Handling the Requests for Disciplinary Action Closed Cases Disciplinary Actions Suspension of Practice Less than 1 1 to 2 Years Year Order to Withdraw from Bar Disbarments No Disciplinary Actions Expired Statute of Limitations Assoc , Dismissals and Terminations ,127 Dismissals Terminations , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , [Note] 1. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December). 2. If a request consolidates two or more cases regarding one attorney, it is counted as one case. 3. Rescissions and/or modifications of disciplinary actions and/or decisions by the JFBA are not counted. 4. Regarding the newly accepted requests, when one person simultaneously requests disciplinary actions against two or more attorneys, it is counted as one case per attorney. 5. "Newly Accepted Requests" means the sum of the number of requests for disciplinary action and the number of cases in which bar associations made attorneys subject to disciplinary procedures through their own motions. The numbers of "No Disciplinary Actions" and "Terminations" reflect the total numbers at both the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee and Disciplinary Actions Committee levels. 6. In the event that two or more resolutions and/or rulings are made in one case (eg. Partially discipline appropriate and partially inappropriate), they are all counted in the corresponding actions. 7. "Dismissals and Terminations" has included the category of "Expired Statute of Limitations" since "Dismissals and Terminations" was divided to "Dismissals" and "Terminations" from 2003, and "Dismissals" has been included in "No Disciplinary Actions" since Data Changes in Numbers of Disciplinary Actions and their Details Cases From the Bottom Admonitions Suspension of Practice 1 to 2 Years Disbarments Total Suspension of Practice Less than 1 Year Order to Withdraw from Bar Associations Year 58

65 3. Percentage of Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) The graph below shows changes in the percentage of disciplinary actions taken and the percentage of members who have had disciplinary actions imposed upon them in all bar associations from 1996 to (1) Percentages of Cases with Disciplinary Actions out of All Requests for Disciplinary Actions In 2012, the percentage of cases in which disciplinary actions were taken was 2.0%. The percentage declined because we received 3,898 requests in such year, a figure which was approximately double the number of requests received in the previous year. (%) 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% Data Percentage of Cases with Disciplinary Actions out of All Requests for Disciplinary Actions 5.0% 5.6% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% (Year) [Note] Percentages are calculated based on the number of disciplinary actions taken and the number of requests for disciplinary actions received by each bar association in each year. This is not a study of whether there were any disciplinary actions taken in each discipline request. (2) Changes in Percentage of Members with Disciplinary Actions The percentage of members who have had disciplinary actions imposed upon them remains between approximately 0.20% and 0.35% in the last ten years. (%) 0.40% Data Changes in Percentage of Members with Disciplinary Actions 0.35% 0.30% 0.25% 0.24% 0.20% 0.15% 0.17% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% (Year) [Note] The basic number of attorneys used to calculate is the number of regular members at the end of December of each year. 59

66 II. The Flow and Current Situation of Disciplinary Procedure Upon receipt of a request for disciplinary action against an attorney or a legal professional corporation, the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee of the bar association examines and decides whether or not the request should be referred to its Disciplinary Actions Committee. The Disciplinary Actions Committee decides whether it imposes a disciplinary action and the contents of the action. The attorney or the legal professional corporation who had the disciplinary action imposed upon them may appeal to the JFBA for examination. If the discipline-requesting party is not satisfied with the decision of the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee and/or the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the bar association, it may file an objection with the JFBA. If an objection is filed, the JFBA refers the matter to the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee or the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee. If the discipline-requesting party is not satisfied with the decision of the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee, it may request the JFBA Board of Discipline Review consisting of only citizens to conduct a discipline review. If the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee or the JFBA Board of Discipline Review concludes that it is appropriate to refer the case to the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the bar association for examination, the case is referred to the bar association. 1. The Disciplinary System The chart on the next page shows the present disciplinary system (effective from April 1, 2004). Data The Flow of Disciplinary Procedure for Attorneys 60

67 Disciplinary System Request for Disciplinary Action Anyone may request shows the procedural flow of objection filings against the disciplinary procedures which have not been concluded within a reasonable period of time. Bar Association Disciplinary Enforcement Committee of Bar Association Order Request Examination No Examination Failed to Proceed within Reasonable Period Disciplinary Actions Committee of Bar Association Disciplinary Action No Disciplinary Action Failed to Proceed within Reasonable Period Unjustly Lenient Order Appeal for Examination Filing of Objection Filing of Objection JFBA JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee Examination Appropriate Dismissal Rejection Dismissal Rejection Grounds founded for Objection against Prolonged Proceedings beyond Reasonable Period No Disciplinary Action Change Dismissal Rejection Change Disciplinary Action Dismissal Rejection Grounds founded for Objection against Prolonged Proceedings beyond Application for Discipline Review Reasonable Period JFBA Board of Discipline Review Lawsuit for Rescission Examination Appropriate Dismissal Rejection Tokyo High Court 61

68 Chapter 2 The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Relief Based on Article 1 of the Attorney Act, an attorney is entrusted with a mission to protect fundamental human rights and to realize social justice, the JFBA has been engaged in activities to support human rights relief for human rights violations for more than 60 years since its establishment in 1949, mainly through the JFBA Human Rights Protection Committee cooperating with local bar associations. Such activities to redress human rights abuses, for which we follow a strict inner procedure until we take relief measures, have garnered praise from Japanese society for past achievements and have gained the people s trust. Our human rights relief does not have binding power but practically exerts a strong influence on various sectors of society. This chapter explains the current status of the JFBA s activities for human rights relief. I. Appeal System Procedures for Human Rights Relief The JFBA investigates and researches various issues on human rights. Especially, the JFBA Human Rights Protection Committee investigates facts of human rights infringements in response to appeals for human rights relief. Based on the results of the committee's investigation, the committee takes relief measures including warnings, recommendations, and requests against infringers or their supervising bodies, etc. "In the event that the committee is to warn, request administrative agencies concerned to make rulings or rescind their rulings, or take measures of censure against relevant administrative agencies, the committee must request that the agencies provide an explanation or submit related materials in advance" (Article 9 of the above Regulations). Furthermore, in order to take proper and prompt actions for human rights protection, we established strict procedures by regulations on the organization of the committee and procedures to handle appeals for human rights relief. The chart on the next page shows the principle procedure flow of the JFBA s appeal system for human rights relief. 62

69 Data Flow Chart of the JFBA's Appeal System for Human Rights Relief Appeal Summary No Preliminary Start Preliminary Investigation Preliminary Investigation Transfer No Start Transfer Discontinu Main Take No Action Take Action (Legal Measures, Warning, Recommendation, Requests, Discontinue [Procedures] Summary Investigation: Determines the necessity of Preliminary Investigation in cases where redresses of human rights abuses are appealed. No Preliminary Investigation: Cases where no action will likely be taken based on the results of summary investigations or the nature of the case. Start Preliminary Investigation: (1) Cases which supposedly have important influence on society, (2) cases involving details or interested parties that are nationwide or widespread and (3) cases which require investigations into or requests to government organs. Transfer: Cases which are considered appropriate to be referred to bar associations or other institutions for investigation and research. Preliminary Investigation: Investigation to be conducted before the main examination. No Examination: Cases in which, based on the Preliminary Investigation, there likely will not be any recognition of infringement of human rights or risk of infringement through further examination. Start Examination: Cases in which, based on the Preliminary Investigation, there is a possibility of recognition of infringement of human rights or risk of infringement through further examination. Discontinue: Cases in which appeals are withdrawn, or the appellants were found to be dead or missing. Main Examination: Examination of infringement of human rights or the risk of infringement as cases for human rights relief. Take No Action: Cases in which examinations determine that taking action is unnecessary. Take Action: Cases in which examinations determine that actions should be taken. Actions taken by the JFBA include judicial measures (accusations/requests for trial), warnings (which notice JFBA opinions and ask for reconsideration), recommendations (which ask for appropriate measures), requests (for realization of their purposes), advices/cooperation, and expression of opinions. 63

70 II. The Number of Human Rights Relief Cases (by Category) The graph and table below are the number of appeals of human rights relief to the JFBA from 1996 to 2012, categorized by nature. Data Changes in the Number of Human Rights Relief Cases (by Category) Number of Cases 450 Others Retrial Cases Infringements by Police Administrative Organs or Legal System Infringements at Prisons or Detention Centers Year Data Details of the Number of Human Rights Relief Cases (by Category) (Unit: Case) Fiscal Year Category Infringements by Police Infringements at Prisons or Detention Retrial Cases Administrative Organs or Legal System Others Total [Note] "Others" includes Infringements by "Medical Facilities," "the Press," "Educational Institutions," "Companies," "Courts," and "Other Civil Servants." 64

71 Chapter 3 International Activities of the JFBA Japanese Attorneys are expanding their role and influence in international society. This chapter presents current international activities of the JFBA and their achievements, divided into four major categories, namely, 1) international human rights, 2) international exchange, 3) international cooperation, and 4) the overseas visiting fellow program and support for recruitment in international organizations. Other Major International Bar Organizations Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) Association Internationale des Jeunes Avocats (International Association of Young Lawyers) (AIJA) International Bar Bar Organizations International Bar Association (IBA) International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) <Member/ Council> Data International Activities of the JFBA (Correlation Diagram) Japan Federation of Bar Associations Officers Date: Date of Signature Law Council of Australia 1999/9/2 2009/7/28 (re-signed) Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (BAKC) 2000/4/20 Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA) Office of International Affairs/International Affairs Division <MOU, etc.> Korean Bar Association (KBA) 2004/12/4 International Criminal Bar (ICB) The Conference of the Presidents of Law Associations in Asia (POLA) Various Committees American Bar Association (ABA) 2006/10/24 German Federal Bar (BRAK) 2008/6/24 International Criminal Court (ICC) United Nations (UN) (Broad UN System: incls. Funds, Programmes, and UN Agencies) Human Rights Council (Geneva) Economic and Social Council (New York) Commission on the Status of Women (New York) Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Vienna) [Treaty Bodies] Human Rights Committee Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Committee Against Torture Committee on the Rights of the Child Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Secretariat Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Geneva) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Vienna) Division for the Advancement of Women (New York) <Accession> Japanese Government Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Organizations entered into MOUs <Agreement of Collaboration> <Overseas Visiting Fellow Program> Foreign Embassies in Japan < Three-Bar Meeting> Paris Bar 2010/6/24 All China Lawyers Association (ACLA) 2006/11/30 Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) New York University University of California, Berkeley University of Illinois University of Essex, Human Right Centre at the University of Essex International Bar Organizations Governmental Bodies, etc 65

72 Section 1 International Human Rights Activities I. Activities at the United Nations (UN) The JFBA has been accredited with consultative status by the Economic and Social Council and sends its delegation to various UN meetings. The JFBA sent a delegation to the United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in April II. Activities Related to the UN and UN Human Rights Bodies Japan has ratified various international human rights treaties. Under these treaties, Japan periodically submits reports on its human rights situation to respective UN human rights bodies and they review the Japanese situation based on the reports. The JFBA makes counter reports to governmental reports (hereinafter referred to as JFBA reports ) and submits them to UN human rights bodies. Also, the JFBA has prepared and released opinion papers relating to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR is a new system conducted by the Human Rights Council which was established under the reforms made to the UN human rights mechanism in 2006, and under which the human rights situation in all UN member states is reviewed once every four years by the Human Rights Council which then submits reports regarding the same to the Human Rights Council. For details, please refer to the International Human Rights Library section of the JFBA website. Data JFBA Report Concerning International Human Rights Documents (Conventions and Covenants) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1979) April 1993 (3 rd Periodic Report) / September 1998 (4 th Periodic Report) / December 2007 (5 th Periodic Report ) / August 2008 (Updated Report on 5 th Periodic Report) / January 2010 (Opinion Paper regarding the Japanese Government s Comments on the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on its 5th Periodic Report) / May 2013 (6 th Periodic Report) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified in 1979) March 2001 (2 nd Periodic Report) / February 2012 (Report to the Pre-Sessional Working Group of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ) / May 2013 (3rd Periodic Report) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (ratified in 1985) December 1993 (3 rd Periodic Report) / November 2001 (4 th Periodic Report) / May 2003 (5 th Periodic Report) / September 2008 (6 th Periodic Report) / May 2009 (Updated Report on 6 th Periodic Report) / July 2011 (Report on the Japanese Government s Follow-up to the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for the 6 th Periodic Report) Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1994) June 1997 (1 st Periodic Report) / May 2003 (2 nd Periodic Report) / July 2009 (3 rd Periodic Report) / January 2010 (Additional Information to the 3rd Periodic Report) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (acceded to in1995) January 2001 (1 st and 2 nd Periodic Reports) /June 2009 (3 rd, 4 th, 5 th, 6 th Periodic Reports) / February 2010 (Additional Information to the 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th, 6 th Periodic Reports) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (acceded to in 1999) January 2007 (1 st Periodic Report) / September 2008 (The JFBA report on Comments by the Japanese government on the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee Against Torture) / May 2013 (2 nd Periodic Report) Data Activities Related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) February 2007 Prepared a JFBA written statement on the UPR (submitted to the 4 th session of the Human Rights Council). February 2008 Prepared a JFBA report for the Summary of the Human Rights Situation in Japan to be prepared by the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights. March 2008 Prepared a JFBA written statement Universal Periodic Review: Review of Japan and Modalities of the Universal Periodic Review (submitted to the 8th session of the Human Rights Council). February 2011 Prepared a JFBA written statement on the UPR for review by the UN Human Rights Council (submitted to the 16 h session of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) April 2012 Prepared a JFBA report for the Summary of the Human Rights Situation in Japan to be prepared by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 66

73 Section 2 International Exchange Activities I. Membership of International Organizations The JFBA is a member of four international organizations: the IBA (International Bar Association), LAWASIA (The Law Association for Asia and the Pacific), the ICB (International Criminal Bar) and ILAC (International Legal Assistance Consortium). The JFBA also operates the information center that provides information for POLA (The Conference of the Presidents of Law Associations in Asia) member organizations. Further, the JFBA Secretary General is individually a member of the IILACE (International Institute of Law Association Chief Executives) although not as a representative of an organization (i.e. the JFBA). II. MOUs with Overseas Bar Organizations Data MOUs between the JFBA and Overseas Bar Organizations Bar Organizations Date of Signature Law Council of Australia 1999/09/02, 2009/07/28 (Re-signed) The Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia 2000/04/20 Korean Bar Association 2004/12/04 American Bar Association 2006/10/24 All China Lawyers Association 2006/11/30 German Federal Bar 2008/06/24 Paris Bar 2010/06/24 Bar Associations and Federation of Bar Associations Hokkaido Federation of Bar Associations Sapporo Bar Association Tokyo Bar Association Dai-ichi Tokyo Bar Association Daini Tokyo Bar Association Data MOUs between Local Bar Associations and Overseas Bar Organizations Bar Associations and Overseas Bar Overseas Bar Associations to Date of Federation of Bar Associations to which which MOU is signed Signature Associations MOU is signed Bar Chamber of Sakhalin Region (Russia) Uijeongbu Bar Association (Korea) Chicago Bar Association (US) 2008/11/ /12/ /03/26 Paris Bar (France) 2010/06/24 Hong Kong Bar Association (China) The Law Society of Hong Kong (China) The Law Society of England and Wales (UK) Hawaii State Bar Association Shanghai Bar Association (China) International Law Section, the State Bar of California (US) Section of International Law, American Bar Association (US) Chamber of Lawyers Frankfurt am Main (Germany) Seoul Bar Association (Korea) 2012/02/ /02/ /10/ /10/ /01/ /04/ /07/ /07/ /08/11 Yokohama Bar Association Saitama Bar Association Shizuoka-ken Bar Association Aichi Bar Association Osaka Bar Association Nara Bar Association Hiroshima Bar Association Fukuoka-ken Bar Association Saga Bar Association Nagasaki Bar Association Oita Bar Association Suwon Bar Association (Korea) Shanghai Bar Association (China) Incheon Bar Association (Korea) The Zhejiang Provincial Lawyers Association (China) Association of Mongolian Advocates (Mongolia) Seoul Bar Association (Korea) Australian Capital Territory Law Society (Australia) Deagu Bar Association (Korea) Busan Bar Association (Korea) Dalian Bar Association (China) Ulsan Bar Association (Korea) Tainan Bar Association (Taiwan) Daejeon District Bar Association (Korea) Jeju Bar Association (Korea) Date of Signature 2003/12/ /04/ /05/ /04/ /09/ /10/ /06/ /05/ /03/ /02/ /04/ /03/ /11/ /02/27 67

74 The Bar Association of San Francisco (US) Czech Bar Association (Czech) Queensland Law Society (Australia) Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan) Barreau de Toulouse (France) 2007/03/ /01/ /03/ /03/ /06/05 Kumamoto Bar Association Kagoshima Bar Association Miyazaki Bar Association Okinawa Bar Association Gyeongnam Bar Association (Korea) Taichung Bar Association (Taiwan) Jeollabukdo District Bar Association (Korea) Chungbuk Bar Association (Korea) Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan) 2004/03/ /03/ /02/ /06/ /02/25 68

75 Section 3 International Cooperation I. JICA Long-Term Experts Achievement The JFBA has been engaging in international cooperation since 1994 and sending instructors to seminars organized by various domestic organizations that invite overseas trainees and also dispatching attorneys to countries such as Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Mongolia, and China as JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) long-term experts. In 2001 the JFBA applied for a partnership enterprise with the JICA and for a three-year period from September 2002 to August 2005 provided assistance in establishing and operating the Lawyers Training Center in Cambodia and in developing the legal aid system in that country. The JFBA also entered into an agreement of collaboration with the JICA. Furthermore, the JFBA was entrusted and conducted a JICA project for a three-year period from 2007 to the summer of 2010 to provide legal technical assistance to the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia, such as assistance for the Lawyer s Training Center and provision of continuous legal education programs for lawyers. Data JICA Long-Term Experts (Fiscal ) Term Country Activity Indonesia Mar Mar Apr Mar Sep Sep Apr Apr May 2008 Jun Mar Mar May 2009 Mar Mar Mar May 2010 Nov Jul Jul Jul Jul Jan Jan Mar Mar Mar Mar Nov Nov Mar Mar Vietnam Cambodia China Cambodia Cambodia Vietnam Cambodia Mongolia Laos Nepal China Vietnam Cambodia Vietnam Cambodia Enhancing the settlement and mediation system (amendments to the rules of the Supreme Court on its mediation system, provided advice to improve training curricula for mediators) Assist in reforming the legal system (mainly laws on civil execution, real property registration, and security transaction registration), and advise on judicial reforms (establishment of a national federation of bar associations) Legal technical assistance (with a focus on improving laws and regulations related to the Civil Code and coordination of donors engaging in drafting other related laws) Assist with improving the Civil Procedure Law, the Arbitration Law, and other laws related to civil affairs (meetings with the National People's Congress and advice upon request) Assist the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (to improve the operation of the Lawyers Training Center and its training materials) Assist in drafting laws and regulations (mainly drafting laws and regulations related to the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code and coordination of other donors) Assist with judicial reforms related to the interests of lawyers (advice on how to work with counter partners, workshops, etc.) Assist in drafting laws associated with the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure Mediation System The Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure Advisor on legal technical assistance The Civil Procedure Law and laws related to Chinese civil affairs Enhancing the capacity of lawyers / Assisting in drafting laws Development of human resources / Assisting in drafting laws and regulations/ Conducting practical operations of civil law Enhancing the capacity of lawyers / Assisting in drafting laws The Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure/ Conducting practical operations of civil law/ Development of human resources 69

76 Data JICA Long-Term Experts (Total by Country) China: 2 As of May 31, 2013 Nepal: 1 Mongolia: 3 Laos: 2 Cambodia: 8 Vietnam: 8 Indonesia: 2 70