White Paper on Attorneys 2014 - 日本弁護士連合会 4 Current Situation of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi ("Registered Foreign Lawyers") 30 I ... Defense Aid Cases 39 Section 2 The Status

White Paper on Attorneys

2014 by Japan Federation of Bar Associations

Contents

Feature 1 Attorneys and Protection of the Rights of the Child 1

Chapter 1 Increasing Attorneys’ Roles 1

I. The Children’s Representative System 1

1. Outline of the Children’s Representative System 1

2. Attorneys as Children’s Representatives 1

(1) The Necessity and Roles of Children’s Representatives 1

Chapter 2 Defense Activities in Juvenile Cases 2

I. Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the Proportion of Cases in

which Attendants are Present 3

Feature 2 Disaster Reconstruction and the Role of Attorneys 4

Chapter 1 Footsteps of the JFBA and other Japanese Bar Associations in Assisting in Disaster

Recovery 4

I. Process of the JFBA’s Disaster Recovery Support Activities 4

1. The Eruption of Mt. Unzen-Fugen 4

2. The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake 4

3. The Niigata Prefecture Chuetsu Earthquake and Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake 5

4. The Great East Japan Earthquake 5

Chapter 2 JFBA Activities for the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima No. 1

Nuclear Power Plant Accident 7

I. Report on JFBA Support Activities 7

1. Main Activities in relation to Support for Affected People

(i) Legal Consultations 7

(ii) Legislative Proposal Activities 7

(iii) Activities for Relief for Victims of the Nuclear Power Plant Accident 7

(iv) Regarding the Reconstruction of Victims’ Lives 8

Part 1 Current Situation of Attorneys and Other Legal Professions 11

Chapter 1 Population of Attorneys 11

I. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Number of Attorneys 11

II. Constitution According to Age 13

Chapter 2 The Number of Populations relating to Legal Professionals 14

I. The Status of the Number of Applicants for Law Schools and Enrollment of People 14

II. The Status of Successful Bar Examination Candidates 15

1. Pass Rate of New Bar Examination 15

III. The Number of Legal Apprentices who Have Completed Legal Training per Chosen Profession 17

IV. Comparison of the Total Number of Lawyers, Judges, and Public Prosecutors with those of Foreign

Countries 19

1. The Number of People per Lawyer (Cross-country Comparison) 19

2. The Number of People per Judge (Cross-country Comparison) 20

3. The Number of People per Public Prosecutor (Cross-country Comparison) 21

4. The Number of People per Legal Professional (Cross-country Comparison) 22

V. Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions 25

Chapter 3 Mergers of Law Offices and the Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations 26

I. The Number of Attorneys in Law Offices 26

II. Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations 28

1. The Number of LPCs 28

2. Size of Legal Professional Corporations 29

Chapter 4 Current Situation of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi ("Registered Foreign Lawyers") 30

I. Changes in the Number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi 30

II. Registration of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers) 31

III. Situations regarding Alliances with Foreign Law Joint Enterprises 32

IV. The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional Corporations 34

1. By Nationality 34

2. By Home Jurisdiction 35

V. World Law Firms and Their Entry into the Japanese Market 36

Part 2 Activities of Attorneys 37

Chapter 1 Criminal Advocacy Activities 37

Section 1 Duty Attorney and Court-Appointed Attorney Systems 37

I. Outline of Duty Attorney and Court-Appointed Attorney Systems 37

II. Current Situations of Duty Attorneys (Toban Bengoshi) 38

III. Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cass and Criminal Suspect

Defense Aid Cases 39

Section 2 The Status of Defense Attorneys Involvement in the Overall Criminal Cases 40

I. The Status of Court-Appointed Attorney Contracts and the Number of Defendants with

Court-Appointed Attorneys 40

II. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment)

(Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at District Courts 41

III. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment)

(Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at Summary Courts 41

IV. Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment)

(Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at High Courts 42

Section 3 The Lay Judge System 43

I. Cases Determined by Lay Judges 43

II. Actual Practice of Lay Judge Trials 45

1. The Number of Persons Who Have Been Subjected to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials and Have Been

Finalized 45

2. Comparison of the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations and the Average Period of the

Pretrial Conference Procedure (by confession and denial), etc. 46

Chapter 2 Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits 49

Section 1 Civil Lawsuits 49

I. Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before District Courts 49

II. Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before Summary Courts 51

III. Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instance Trials (before High

Courts) 52

Chapter 3 Expansion of Attorneys’ Activities 53

I. Current Situation of In-house Attorneys 53

1. Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys 53

2. Public Officers with Fixed Terms 54

II. Diet Members and Head of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys 55

Part 3 Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations 56

Chapter 1 Autonomy of Attorneys 56

Section 1 Complaints and Dispute Conciliations 56

I. Complaints against Attorneys 56

II. Dispute Conciliation 57

1. Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received 57

2. Handling of Dispute Conciliation Cases (All Bar Associations) 57

Section 2 Disciplinary System for Attorneys and its Operation 58

I. Summary of the Disciplinary System for Attorneys 58

1. Request for Discipline 58

2. Investigation by Disciplinary Enforcement Committee 58

3. Examination by Disciplinary Actions Committee 58

4. Filing of an Objection, etc. 58

5. Public Notice by the Official Gazette, etc. 59

II. Statistics Regarding Disciplinary Actions 61

1. Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) 61

2. Number of Requests for Disciplinary Action and Details of Handling the Requests (All Bar

Associations) 62

3. Percentage of Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) 63

(1) Percentages of Cases with Disciplinary Actions out of All Requests for Disciplinary Actions 63

(2) Changes in Percentage of Members with Disciplinary Actions 63

III. Operation of the Disciplinary System 64

1. Cases Handled by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA 64

(1) Bar Associations 64

(2) JFBA 64

2. Processing Cases at Disciplinary Actions Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA 65

(1) Bar Associations 65

(2) JFBA 65

i. Objections 65

ii. Appeals 65

3. Processing Cases at the JFBA Board of Discipline Review 66

IV. The Flow and Current Situation of Disciplinary Procedure 67

Chapter 2 The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Redress 68

Section 1 The Operation of the Human Rights Redress System 68

I. Procedures for Human Rights Redress System 68

II. The Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category) 70

Section 2 Current Situations regarding the Retrial Request Cases Supported by the JFBA 71

I. Current Retrial Request Cases Supported by the JFBA 71

II. Achievement by the JFBA for its Support on Retrial Request Cases 71

Chapter 3 International Activities of the JFBA 73

Section 1 International Human Rights Activities 74

I. Activities at the United Nations (UN) 74

II. Activities Related to the UN and UN Human Rights Bodies 74

Section 2 International Exchange Activities 75

I. Membership of International Organizations 75

II. MOUs with Overseas Bar Organizations 75

Section 3 International Cooperation 77

I. JICA Long-Term Experts Achievement 77

II. Past and Current JFBA Assistance Projects for Bar Associations in Developing Countries (by Country) 79

Section 4 Overseas Visiting Fellow Program and Support for Working in International

Organizations 81

I. JFBA Overseas Visiting Fellow Program 81

II. Past Overseas Visiting Fellows 81

Section 5 Support for Working in International Organizations 83

I. Support for JFBA Members Interested in Working in International Organizations 83

II. Other Support 83

Part 4 Comprehensive Legal Support and Judiciary-Related Budget 84

Chapter 1 Japan Legal Support Center (Ho-terasu) 84

Section 1 Outline of the Japan Legal Support Center (Ho-terasu) 84

I. Ho-terasu 84

II. Scope of Operations of Ho-terasu 84

III. Entrusted Support Operations 85

1. Support Operations Entrusted by the JFBA 85

Feature 1 Attorneys and Protection of the Rights of the Child

Chapter 1 Increasing Attorneys’ Roles

I. The Children’s Representative System

1. Outline of the Children’s Representative System

In family law cases to date, each matter has been decided by parents, and children have not been present during mediation or judicial proceedings. The Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act (effective as of January 1, 2013) grants children (basically, children from the 5th grade in elementary school and above) with sufficient mental capacity to participate in a legal procedure the right to be involved in mediation and judicial proceedings on their own. As a result, children have been able to participate in procedures by way of obtaining a permit from the court by themselves or having the court use its authority to determine it necessary. The revised Civil Code (effective as of April 1, 2012) approves the right of children to file a motion regarding certain cases; namely, cases involving loss of parental authority, suspension of parental authority and loss of administration rights regarding property. However, as it is difficult for children to exercise their rights by themselves, attorneys can become “children’s representatives” in family law cases when appointed by the children themselves (privately-appointed attorneys) or by the family court (court-appointed attorneys). Note that only attorneys can become “children’s representatives”.

2. Attorneys as Children’s Representatives

(1) The Necessity and Roles of Children’s Representatives The “children’s representative system” provides a practical guarantee of children’s rights to express their views in family law or domestic relations cases in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This system enables children, who were previously merely the subjects of protection, to actively participate in such domestic relations case procedures as a “main character (a person who enjoys his/her own rights)” and to realize dispute resolution procedures centred around children. Even though children’s capacity for proceeding with such procedures has been approved, in reality, there are still a number of difficulties for children, who are still in the process of growing up and maturing, to be able to proceed with such procedures by themselves. Therefore, when such procedures are conducted, a children’s representative comes in to assist the child as a legal representative (in general litigation, such person is referred to as a “counsel”).

Specific practice for such counsels includes, first of all, reflecting the opinions of the child in the legal procedure, including providing children with necessary information and cooperating with children to help them form their opinion. Secondly, while taking children’s opinions into consideration, counsels: collect evidence by conducting necessary research, coordinate between related parties, and make suggestions toward resolution, etc., in order to realize the most beneficial result for the child. Thirdly, counsels respond to various questions and consultations from children while maintaining continuous relationships with the children.

With counsels representing children fulfilling such roles, in cases of disputes surrounding parental rights, custody, visitation or other contact with children, it will become possible for parents to proceed by focusing on the best interests of the child, and we can expect to see the further promotion of dispute resolution by way of mutual agreement.

[White Paper on Attorneys 2014] 1

Chapter 2 Defense Activities in Juvenile Cases

After juveniles have been referred to family courts, there is no system for appointing attorneys as defense counsel for juveniles, unlike in criminal trials. However, for juvenile cases, a juvenile may at any time appoint an attendant 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, and the activities the JFBA has been addressing have achieved a significant expansion in the scope of cases to which publicly-funded attorney attendants are to be appointed from 2014.


[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 injurythrough negligence in the pursuit of social activities when driving vehicles, those transferred to other courts, or thosejointly tried that were not counted as completed cases (subordinate cases). From 2002, the number also excludes casesi l i d th b dil i j th h d d i i

I. Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the Proportion of Cases inwhich Attendants are Present

290,870

215,139 214,304

81,558

54,054

40,987

6.1%8.9%

20.7%

99.4% 98.9% 98.4%93.9%

91.1%

79.3%

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Total Number of Cases With Attendant Without Attendant (Cases)(Percentage)

(Year)

■Data 1-2-1 Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the Proportion of Cases in which Attendants are Present ■

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" aboveinclude attendants other than attorneys.


Feature 2 Disaster Reconstruction and the Role of Attorneys Chapter 1 Footsteps of the JFBA and other Japanese Bar Associations in Assisting in Disaster Recovery

I. Process of the JFBA’s Disaster Recovery Support Activities

Although Japan is a notoriously disaster-prone country, it is only in recent times that it has been recognized that support activities for disaster victims are human rights activities that should be tackled by attorneys. Such activities by bar associations have been conducted since the eruption of Mt. Unzen-Fugen in 1991. The JFBA’s system for supporting disaster victims was streamlined after (i) its “Regulations on Assistance for Post-disaster Recovery by Local Bar Associations Nationwide” were established in 2003, (ii) the disaster restoration support fund was established, and (iii) a Working Group (later developed into the JFBA Committee on Disaster Recovery Assistance) which conducts such disaster recovery assistance activities was set up. In the beginning, the contents of such activities conducted by attorneys were limited to conducting legal consultations in designated spaces in municipal offices, etc., or suggesting declarative legislative proposals. After the occurrence of the Niigata Prefecture Chuetsu Earthquake in 2004 and the Niigata Prefecture Chuetsu-oki Earthquake in 2007, however, such attorneys’ activities were enhanced so that when the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred in 2011, activities were performed such as conducting legal consultations, which included providing information at evacuation facilities, and conducting lobbying activities using the results of such legal consultations to pursue legislative reform. As a result, a number of laws were enacted, and various systems were established. Further, from the support fund mentioned above, transportation fees, etc. were provided for attorneys conducting the legal consultations, which had a great effect in providing assistance activities. Even when another major disaster occurs in the future, based on the experience developed to date, attorneys will be able to conduct activities aimed at achieving the “restoration of humanity” representing the victims’ points of view.

1. The Eruption of Mt. Unzen-Fugen

The eruption of Mt. Unzen-Fugen that occurred in 1991 resulted in a death toll of 41 people, and caused significant damage to more than 2,500 buildings. Although affected residents launched a movement requesting the enactment of special legislation concerning individual compensation, the state took the stance that: “Damage caused by the disaster should be recovered by individual efforts, in principle,” and “Taxes should not be used for rebuilding privately-owned property.” Thus, the efforts of the local residents resulted in the establishment of a recovery fund, but did not achieve the enactment of special legislation. In 1992, the Kyushu Federation of Bar Associations issued an opinion paper calling for fundamental reform of the system regarding disaster relief measures, and the JFBA issued an opinion paper in 1994 calling for the fundamental revision of the Basic Act on Disaster Control Measures, etc.

2. The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake

In 1995, the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake occurred and resulted in an unprecedented scale of damage. Shortly after the disaster struck, a large number of legal consultations were conducted by attorneys who belonged to the Hyogo-ken Bar Association, and members of the Kinki Federation of Bar Associations (the “KFBA”) supported such activities by creating Questions & Answers concerning legal matters. Further, in order to deal with issues which were unable to be resolved through legal consultation alone, the KFBA set up a “Mediation Center for Procurement of Temporary Settlement for Disaster-Affected Cities (ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution)” and accepted 385 applications for ADR during the following three years. Furthermore, attorneys were actively involved in rebuilding cities together with residents and experts in other fields.

With the number of damaged buildings exceeding 520,000, since it was evident that the recovery fund and monetary donations would not be sufficient to cover the costs of rebuilding housing, the Hyogo-ken Bar Association, the Kyushu Federation of Bar Associations and the JFBA issued opinion


papers, etc., each calling for the establishment of a relief (redress) system for the owners of the affected housing. Though the JFBA did not actively conduct lobbying activities, such movement led to the enactment of the Act on Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims. However, under the Act, support for the rebuilding of housing was not covered, and remained as an issue to be addressed in the future.

3. The Niigata Prefecture Chuetsu Earthquake and Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake

The Niigata Prefecture Chuetsu Earthquake and the Chuetsu-oki Earthquake occurred in 2004 and 2007, respectively. Shortly after the Chuetsu Earthquake, attorneys, etc. from the Hyogo-ken Bar Association who had experienced the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, visited the affected areas, conducted training, and also undertook research together with attorneys, etc. from the Niigata-ken Bar Association and passed down their know-how regarding assistance for disaster victims to such attorneys. At a later date, attorneys from the Niigata-ken Bar Association and the Kanto Federation of Bar Associations conducted more than several hundred legal consultations at municipal offices, etc. After the Chuetsu-oki Earthquake struck, a one-stop service consultation was conducted by attorneys in coordination with other experts. In addition, after the Chuetsu Earthquake, the voices calling for the improvement of the Support System for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims increased, especially regarding the fact that such System was not easy to use, and in particular, that it did not cover support for the rebuilding of housing. Subsequently, in both June and July, 2007, the JFBA issued opinion papers with reference to the revision of the Act on Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims, and also actively worked together with the ruling and opposition parties, etc. regarding such revision. As a result, the revised Act on Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims was enacted in November 2007. Such system realized the provision of cash expenditure with no specification for the use thereof, the elimination of the upper limit for income, and the availability of the system for rebuilding of housing, taking the standpoint of disaster victims into account.

4. The Great East Japan Earthquake

Regarding the Great East Japan Earthquake that hit in 2011, significant achievement has been made, in particular, with regard to activities concerning legal consultation and legislative proposals. In terms of activities concerning legal consultation, it has now become the norm that: (i) legal consultations were conducted not at a designated place, such as municipal offices, but at the evacuation facilities where attorneys visited to provide information and conduct consultations. In order to conduct such consultations, attorneys negotiated with the operators of the evacuation areas, secured means of transportation by themselves to visit such areas, and set up places for such consultations; (ii) various measures were used allowing the affected residents to have easier and more comprehensible access to legal consultation, such as preparing bibs, armbands, and also tools such as flyers or picture cards on the public support system, in coordination with certified NPOs, etc.; (iii) by using the Internet, attorneys collected and provided information at the site, by using search sites and mailing lists used among the attorneys; (iv) as a significant number of attorneys from outside the affected areas visited the affected areas to conduct legal consultations, a manual which specified iron-clad rules to the effect that such attorneys should not become inconvenient to the affected areas and bar associations at such areas was implemented; and (v) at a later date, legal consultation sheets from consultations conducted in each area of Japan were collected by the JFBA and the contents of such consultations were officially consolidated and analyzed for the first time. Such analysis, etc. helped the JFBA’s legislative proposal activities, which brought about various achievements (Refer to Data 2-2-1 on page 9).

With reference to the reconstruction of lives, regarding the housing rebuilding assistance system, the necessity of which had been repeatedly pointed out since the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake, the double-loan problem attracted a large amount of attention. Such problem involved an unreasonable burden being placed on the loan-holders of remaining housing loans for the buildings washed away by the tsunami, thus making it difficult to newly build houses. The JFBA met such problem head on and


made efforts to create new legislation shortly after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Although no such law was ever enacted, the Guidelines for Individual Debtor Out-of-Court Workouts, (also known as the “System for Reduction of and Exemption from Double Loan Problems for Disaster Victims”) was established. Together with the revised Act on Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims, compared to the situation at the time of the eruption of Mt. Unzen-Fugen, when it was considered in principle that the property of an individual should be recovered by self-help, it can be said that a huge amount of progress has been made. . Furthermore, in terms of the Disaster Relief Fund established in 2003, in response to the appeal from the JFBA Committee on Disaster Recovery Assistance and a heightened attention to disaster recovery, the balance of such Disaster Relief Fund reached approximately 300 million yen in March 2012. As regards the Great East Japan Earthquake, other than approximately 20 million yen generated for the operating funds for the Disaster ADR established by the Sendai Bar Association, the amounts expended from such Fund were approximately 14.5 million yen as subsidies for the transportation fees for legal consultations conducted in the affected areas, approximately 0.6 million yen for call charges for the free telephone legal consultations, and approximately 66.8 million yen as aid provided to attorneys stationed in full in the affected areas. This provides a clear indication of the fact that the goodwill from attorneys all over Japan, as well as such attorneys’ assistance activities for disaster victims, have borne fruit. Though the balance of the Fund as of the end of March 2014 was 160 million yen, as it is predicted that the large-scale disasters will again occur in the future, it is vital that such Fund be continued to be enhanced.

On the other hand, even after four years have passed since the Earthquake, recovery has not yet been realized, and a number of problems still remain. Without letting our memories of this tragedy fade away, it is important to continue to provide support activities for victims of this disaster and to relay what we have learned from the experience related to the Earthquake to the future.


Chapter 2 JFBA Activities for the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant Accident

I. Report on JFBA Support Activities

After the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant Accident occurred, attorneys, the JFBA and bar associations across the nation, including those in the three most heavily-affected prefectures, conducted support activities for victims by way of utilizing various measures. Even at present, after four years have passed, heartfelt and tenacious activities are still continuing.

1. Main Activities in relation to Support for Affected People (i) Legal Consultations The number of legal consultations conducted shortly after the Great East Japan Earthquake in the three most-heavily affected prefectures and other prefectures throughout Japan exceeded 40,000 cases at the end of May 2012. The characteristics of such consultations have been described in the previous pages. What should specifically be noted as to the functions of such legal consultations is that, other than functions such as dispute prevention, psychological support and panic prevention, which have already been pointed out before, functions such as the provision of information and the collection of legislative facts have also been added.

(ii) Legislative Proposal Activities

Although legislative proposals concerning support for affected persons have not often been realized before, with regard to the Great East Japan Earthquake, nine pieces of legislation have already been realized (or decided not to be applicable) and two different systems have already been established (Refer to Data 2-2-1). Several factors described below may have contributed to such realization and establishment mentioned above: (a) the number of attorneys involving in support activities for the disaster victims has increased, a system was introduced wherein support activities for affected persons was enhanced at the JFBA, and the JFBA started to address the issues concerned as important human rights issues; (b) as a result, the JFBA and attorneys started not only making legislative suggestions but also engaging in a strenuous approach in relation to various fields; and (c) legislative facts were consciously gathered by collecting and analyzing the contents of the legal consultations conducted, and such facts were used effectively for lobbying activities. However, the legal system in relation to the support for affected persons remains insufficient and it is therefore necessary to continue to steadily conduct such activities.

(iii) Activities for Relief for Victims of the Nuclear Power Plant Accident

Victims of the nuclear power plant accident have suffered and continue to be afflicted by serious problems. Shortly after the accident, attorneys in Fukushima Prefecture and from all over Japan conducted legal consultations for the victims in order to provide information and advice. As a result of the JFBA’s appeal to various fields to ensure that a number of victims could receive appropriate compensation in a prompt and simplified manner, an ADR center was established under the name of the “Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution Center” (the “Center”). Further, defense teams were formed all over Japan in order to file collective ADR applications to the Center or to file lawsuits. Even though the JFBA is not directly involved in the activities of the defense teams, it has been providing logistical support, for instance, by posting information from the defense teams on the JFBA website, and by providing the defense teams with the opportunity to provide information and opinion exchanges. Furthermore, with regard to compensation issues, the JFBA has been issuing opinion papers in a timely manner to appeal for the necessity of relief for such victims on a continuous basis. Regarding issues concerning the reconstruction of the lives of the victims, which will not be able to be realized by way of compensation alone, the JFBA achieved the enactment of the Act on the Protection and Support for the Children and other Victims of the TEPCO Disaster. With reference to the


expiration of compensation rights due to the statute of limitations, the JFBA’s all-out efforts to resolve such issues has realized the enactment of the Act on Measures for Realizing Prompt and Assured Compensation Concerning the Nuclear-related Damage Caused by the Nuclear Power Plant Accident in the Wake of the Great East Japan Earthquake, and on Special Measures regarding Extinctive Prescription, etc. of Rights to Claim Compensatory Damages Caused by the Nuclear Accident. However, even now, it is hard to say that the victims have been appropriately compensated, and the reconstruction of their lives, including issues such as the possibility of returning to their hometowns in the affected areas are far from having been achieved. Since there is still a plethora of issues to be addressed, including the revision of interim guidelines, there is a need for activities to be continuously conducted over a long period of time.

(iv) Regarding the Reconstruction of Victims’ Lives

Even in prefectures such as Miyagi Prefecture and Iwate Prefecture where the impact of the Nuclear Power Plant Accident has been relatively small, there are certain issues remaining, such as: (i) the so-called “double-loan” problem wherein there is no money left for the rebuilding of houses because of existing housing loans for houses which were washed away due to the tsunami, and (ii) the slow progress of reconstruction due to a shortage of the types of land needed for reconstruction. With regard to issue (i), although the Guidelines for Individual Debtor Out-of-Court Workouts have been established, the use of such system has been stagnant even after three years have passed since the launch of applications for such system, and it is therefore necessary to conduct a fundamental reform of the system. With reference to issue (ii), although the Act on Partial Amendment of the Act on Special Reconstruction Zones in Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake (Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Reconstruction Work in Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake) was enacted in April 2014 with the support of the JFBA, the progress of such reconstruction, in particular the progress of the reconstruction of towns carried out mainly by residents has not been all smooth sailing, and thus, support activities should continue to be conducted in the future.


■ Data 2-2-1 Legislation and Systems Realized in response to the Great East Japan Earthquake ■

Opinions and Recommendations Issued by the

JFBA

Legislation and Systems Realized

2011.4.22

2011.5.19

Issued the “Recommendations on Relief from Unreasonable Debt including Double Loan Payments as a Result of the Great East Japan Earthquake.” Issued a “Draft Outline (the first draft) for Emergency Measures Act on Support for Recovery from the Great East Japan Earthquake.”

2011.8.22

2011.11.14

Operations of the Guidelines for Individual Debtor Out-of-Court Workouts were launched. “The Act on Corporation for Revitalizing Earthquake affected Business” was enacted.

2011.5.26 Issued an “Opinion Paper on the Extension of the Period for Due Consideration of Acceptance or Renunciation of Inheritance.”

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

2011.5.26 Issued an “Opinion Paper Calling for Early Revision of the Special Act on (Temporary Treatment of) Land and Building Leases of Stricken Cities.”

2011.9.30 Non-application of “the Special Act on (Temporary Treatment of) Land and Building Leases of Stricken Cities” was decided.

2011.5.27 Issued the “62nd JFBA General Meeting Resolution on Relief for Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake, the Nuclear Plant Accident and the Restoration and Recovery of Affected Areas.”

2012.3.23 “The Act on Special Measures on Operations of the Japan Legal Support Center to Support Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake (the Act on Special Measures for Disaster)” was enacted.

2011.6.23

2011.7.29

Issued an Opinion Paper Calling for the Revision of laws including the “Act on Provision of Disaster Condolence Grants.” Issued an “Opinion Paper Concerning Revision of and Improvement of the Operations of the Act on Support for Reconstructing the Livelihoods of Disaster Victims.”

2011.7.25

2011.8.23

“The Act on Provision of Disaster Condolence Grants” was revised. (The scope of the subjects who were able to receive such grants was extended to siblings who live together.) “The Act on Provision of Disaster Condolence Grants and the Act on Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims” were revised. (Prohibition of seizure of disaster condolence grants, etc.)


2011.6 Made recommendations to the government regarding improvements on the readiness of and preparations for Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution (ADR).

2011.9.1 The Dispute Settlement Center for Nuclear Disaster Compensation started to receive applications for mediated settlements.

2012.2.16 Issued an “Opinion Paper Concerning the Enactment of Special Legislation to Support the Rebirth of Fukushima, and the Victims of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident.”

2012.6.21 “The Act on Protection and Support for the Children and Other Victims of the TEPCO Disaster” was enacted.

2013.7.18 Issued an “Opinion Paper Calling for the Legislation of the Act on Special Measures to Extend the Period during Which Victims can Claim Compensation with Reference to the Statute of Limitations for Victims of the Nuclear Accident to Seek Compensatory Damages caused by Tokyo Electronics Power Company (TEPCO)’s Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant Accident.”

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

2014.3.19 Issued an “Opinion Paper Calling for Special Measures to Secure Land for Reconstruction Work”

2014.4.23 “The Act on Special Zones for Reconstruction in Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake” was revised.


Foreign SpecialMember

Quasi Members

Special Members inOkinawa

Those who had been qualified pursuant to the laws and regulations of Okinawa before the reversion ofOkinawa in 1972, and after the reversion, were permitted to engage in practice as stipulated in Article 3 ofthe Attorney Act with the title of “Okinawa Bengoshi (attorney)” within Okinawa Prefecture. *As of March31, 2014, there are nine applicable persons.

■　Data 1-1-1 Categories of JFBA Membership ■

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations ("JFBA") is a juridical person established in September 1949 basedon the Attorney Act enacted in the same year. It consists of its membership, which includes attorneys, legalprofessional corporations, and 52 local bar associations throughout Japan. Individual attorneys and legalprofessional corporations across Japan are required to register with the JFBA at the same time as they areadmitted to their local bar associations. Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi) are alsoregistered with the JFBA as special foreign members.Furthermore, Article 44 of the Attorney Act stipulates that bar associations situated in an area within thejurisdictional district of the same high court may, in order to jointly perform certain matters, formulate rules andestablish a federation of bar associations with the approval of the JFBA. Currently, a total of eight federationsof 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 to35,045 at the end of March 2014.Please note that "attorneys" in this White Paper means JFBA regular members. (cf. "Categories of JFBAMembership" as follows:

Those who have been qualified as lawyers in foreign jurisdictions and, after obtaining approval of theMinister 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 AttorneyAct before its major revision in 1955 and Article 65 of the Act on Special Measures Incidental to Reversionof Okinawa to engage in practice as stipulated in Article 3 of the Attorney Act. *As of March 31, 2014,there is no applicable person.

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

Those who have been qualified in accordance with Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Attorney Act and have beenregistered in the roster of attorneys held by the JFBA.

Regular Members


Year

Numberof

Attorney

WomenAttorneys

Year

Numberof

Attorney

WomenAttorneys

Year

Numberof

Attorney

WomenAttorneys

Year

Numberof

Attorney

WomenAttorneys

1950 5,827 6 1966 7,343 105 1982 11,888 477 1998 16,305 1,2951951 5,804 6 1967 7,645 128 1983 12,132 514 1999 16,731 1,3981952 5,822 9 1968 7,918 149 1984 12,377 554 2000 17,126 1,5301953 5,836 9 1969 8,198 166 1985 12,604 590 2001 18,243 1,8491954 5,837 10 1970 8,478 180 1986 12,830 620 2002 18,838 2,0631955 5,899 11 1971 8,797 197 1987 13,074 654 2003 19,508 2,2731956 5,967 14 1972 9,106 224 1988 13,288 694 2004 20,224 2,4481957 6,009 17 1973 9,541 254 1989 13,541 721 2005 21,185 2,6481958 6,100 24 1974 9,830 279 1990 13,800 766 2006 22,021 2,8591959 6,217 31 1975 10,115 303 1991 14,080 811 2007 23,119 3,1521960 6,321 42 1976 10,421 330 1992 14,329 846 2008 25,041 3,5991961 6,439 46 1977 10,689 344 1993 14,596 894 2009 26,930 4,1271962 6,604 54 1978 10,977 362 1994 14,809 938 2010 28,789 4,6601963 6,732 60 1979 11,206 384 1995 15,108 996 2011 30,485 5,1151964 6,849 69 1980 11,441 420 1996 15,456 1,070 2012 32,088 5,5951965 7,082 86 1981 11,624 446 1997 15,866 1,176 2013 33,624 5,936

2014 35,045 6,336[Note] as of the end of March per year

■ Data 1-1-2 The Number of Attorneys （1950 - 2014） ■

30000

35000

40000

35,045The Number of Attorneys as of March 31, 2014: 35,045（Female: 6,336）

■ Data 1-1-3 Changes in the Number of Attorneys （1950 - 2014） ■

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

（6,336）5,827

（6） The Number of Female Attorneys

(Year)2014

as of March 31, 2014: 35,045（Female: 6,336）

The Number of Attorneys

[Note] The figures above were those as of March 31 per year. The figure within the brackets is the number of female attorneys.


[Note] Values within the brackets show the total number of attorneys in each age range.

II. Constitution According to Age

The following graph shows the age distribution of attorneys, divided into male and female. As can be seen in thegraph, the greatest number of attorneys for both male and female are those in their 30s.

2,241

9,083

5,395

3,530

4,232

2,704

1,524

727

2,946

1,550

562

331

160

60

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,000

20～29（2,968）

30～39（12,029）

40～49（6,945）

50～59（4,092）

60～69（4,563）

70～79（2,864）

80 or older（1,584）

Female: 6,336

(Age)(person)

（as of the end of March 2014）

Male: 28,709

■ Data 1-1-4 Constitution According to Age ■


Chapter 2 The Number of Populations relating to Legal Professionals

I. The Status of the Number of Applicants for Law Schools and Enrollment of People

■　Data 1-2-2 Enrollment of People with Work Experience and Non-law Graduates for Law Schools ■

The graphs below show the number of applicants for law schools and the enrollment of both people with workexperience and non-law graduates for law schools. The total number of applicants for law schools has beendecreasing since 2008 and the number of applicants across the nation totalled 11,450 in 2014. In addition, thenumbers of enrollments of people with work experience and non-law graduates for law schools have beendeclining on a year by year basis.

■ Data 1-2-1 Changes in the Number of Applicants for Law Schools ■

72,800

41,756 40,341 45,207

39,555

29,714 24,014 22,927 18,446

13,924 11,450

13.0

7.2 6.9 7.8

6.8

5.2 4.9 5.1

4.1 3.3 3.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

（Competitive Ratio）（Person）

（Year)

志願者数（人）志願倍率（倍）Applicants(person) Ratio of Applicants

■ Data 1-2-1 Changes in the Number of Applicants for Law Schools ■

[Note] 1. The above graph was made by the JFBA, based on materials published by the “Central Education Deliberation CouncilSectional Meeting, Special Committee for Law School in MEXT (the 61st).”2. The number of applicants refers to the total number of applicants across Japan taking an admission test for law schoolconducted individually at each law school after conducting an aptitude test. For example, in the case that an applicant hasapplied 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 ofadmissions (total for all of Japan).

Non-law Graduates (person)

Ratio of Non-law Graduates (%)

Ratio of Working People (%)

Non-law Graduates (person)

2,792

2,091 1,925

1,834 1,609

1,298

993 763

689

514 422

1,988

1,660 1,634 1,490 1,410

1,224

868 748

591

502 346

48.4

37.7 33.3 32.1 29.8

26.8 24.1 21.1 21.9 19.1 18.6

34.5 29.9 28.3 26.1 26.1 25.3

21.1 20.7 18.8

18.6 15.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

（％）（Person)

(Year)

社会人入学者（人）非法学部出身者（人）社会人割合（％）非法学部出身者割合（％）Enrollment after Work Experience

Non-law Graduates(Persons)

Ratio of Working People (%)

Ratio of Non-law Graduates (%)


II. The Status of Successful Bar Examination Candidates

1. Pass Rate of New Bar Examination

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Law Graduates (A) (person) 893 1,439 1,618 1,617 1,679 1,689 1,685 1,582 1,397

Examination Pass Rate 48.8% 41.9% 35.0% 29.4% 27.5% 25.9% 26.8% 27.7% 23.1%

Non-law Graduates (B) (perso 116 412 447 426 395 374 359 347 250


　Total (A + B) (person) 1,009 1,851 2,065 2,043 2,074 2,063 2,044 1,929 1,647


[Note] The table was based on data issued by the Ministry of Justice.

■Data 1-2-4 Pass Rate of New Bar Examination (per Law Graduate and Non-law Graduate) ■

■Data 1-2-3 Pass Rate of New Bar Examination ■

[Note] 1 The above graph was made by the JFBA based on materials published by "the Central Education Deliberation

2091

4607

6261

73928163

8765 83877653 8015

1,009

1,851 2,065 2,043 2,074 2,063 2,102 2,049 1,810

48.3

40.2

33.0 27.6 25.4 23.5 25.1 26.8

22.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

（％）（Person）

（Year)

受験者数（人）合格者数（人）合格率（％）The Pass Rate (%)

The Number of Successful Candidates

The Number of Applicants

[Note] 1. The above graph was made by the JFBA, based on materials published by the Central Education DeliberationCouncil Sectional Meeting, Special Committee for Law School in MEXT (the 65th). " Examination pass rate indicates therelative ratio to the number of examinees.2. "Law graduates" refers to those who graduated from law-related faculties of universities, and "Non-law graduates" refers tothose who graduated from faculties other than law-related faculties of universities, both including those who have studied attwo-year and three-year courses at law schools, respectively.


(As of the end of Sep. 2014)

Total

The Numberof People who

CompletedLaw as

Undergraduates

The Numberof People whodid not Study

Law asUndergraduate

s

2,176 1,518 69.8% 69.8% －

4,418 2,188 49.5% 63.4% 39.5%

4,911 2,273 46.3% 65.4% 32.6%

4,994 2,355 47.2% 68.7% 31.9%

4,792 2,208 46.1% 66.4% 32.2%

4,535 1,991 43.9% 60.9% 31.8%

3,937 1,478 37.5% 53.0% 24.8%

3,457 1,067 30.9% 44.2% 16.7%

3,037 895 29.5% 42.2% 13.8%

[Note] 1. Data has been made by the JFBA based on data materials provided by the Ministry ofEducation, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).

The Numberof People

CompletingTheir

Studies atLaw School

(person)

Cumulative Pass RateThe

CumulativeNumber ofSuccessfulCandidates

(person)

The Year when Studying at Law is Completed

■Data 1-2-5 Pass Rate (Cumulative Pass Rate) of Law School Graduates who Have Taken New BarExamination per Year ■

Law School Graduates in 2009 (Qualified for takinga bar exam between 2010 and 2014)









2. Cumulative Pass Rate is a ratio showing how many applicants have passed under the limitation on thenumber of times an applicant may sit for the bar examination (currently limited to three times within aperiod of five years after completion of law school.) The revised Bar Examination Act was enacted inMay 2014, and starting from the bar examination to be conducted in 2015, the limitation for the numberof times an applicant may sit the bar examination was removed, enabling candidates to sit the barexamination an unlimited number of times within the period of five years after having completed lawschool and passed the nationally licensed examination to be qualified to take the bar examination.


III. The Number of Legal Apprentices who Have Completed Legal Training per Chosen Profession

Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female

1987 (1989) 470 57 58 10 51 6 360 40 1 1

1988 (1990) 489 63 81 16 28 3 376 44 4 0

■Data 1-2-6　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 Thosewho Have Completed

Legal TrainingJudges Prosecutors Attorneys Others

1988 (1990) 489 63 81 16 28 3 376 44 4 0

1989 (1991) 506 58 96 20 46 4 359 34 5 0

1990 (1992) 508 70 65 16 50 8 378 45 15 1

1991 (1993) 506 72 98 20 49 8 356 44 3 0

1992 (1994) 594 84 104 18 75 11 406 55 9 0

1993 (1995) 633 123 99 34 86 16 438 70 10 3

1994 (1996) 699 142 99 26 71 12 521 102 8 2

1995 (1997) 720 155 102 26 70 16 543 113 5 0

1996 (1998) 726 144 93 21 73 11 553 110 7 2

1997 (1999) 729 167 97 18 72 16 549 132 11 1

1998 (2000) 742 202 87 22 69 16 579 164 7 0

1999 (2000) 788 196 82 26 74 10 625 158 7 2

2000 (2001) 975 281 112 31 76 20 774 225 13 5

2001 (2002) 988 269 106 30 75 22 799 214 8 3

2002 (2003) 1,005 225 101 29 75 19 822 175 7 2

2003 (2004) 1 178 277 109 35 77 19 983 222 9 12003 (2004) 1,178 277 109 35 77 19 983 222 9 1

2004 (2005) 1,187 279 124 34 96 30 954 213 13 2

2005 (2006) 1,477 360 115 35 87 26 1,254 291 21 8

2006 (2007) 2,376 568 118 43 113 39 2,043 457 102 29

2007 (2008) 2,340 619 99 36 93 32 2,026 527 122 24

2008 (2009) 2,346 635 106 34 78 31 1,978 523 184 47

2009 (2010) 2,144 563 102 32 70 22 1,714 443 258 66

2010 (2011) 2,152 597 102 34 71 24 1,515 418 464 121

2011 (2012) 2,080 479 92 28 72 22 1,370 316 546 113

2012 (2013) 2,034 528 96 38 82 31 1,286 336 570 123

■Data 1-2-7 Changes in Legal Apprentices who Have Completed Legal Training per Chosen Profession (Judges, Prosecutors,

Attorneys)■

2,500(Person) Judges Prosecutors Attorneys Others

New Bar Examination was introduced in 2006

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0

1987

(

198

1988

(

1990)

1989

(

199

1990

(

199

1991

(

199

1992

(

199

1993

(

199

1994

(

1996)

1995

(

1997)

1996

(

1998)

1997

(

1999)

1998

(

2000)

1999

(

2000)

2000

(

2001)

2001

(

2002)

2002

(

2003)

2003

(

2004)

2004

(

2005)

2005

(

2006)

2006

(

2007)

2007

(

2008)

2008

(

2009)

2009

(

2010)

2010

(

2011)

2011

(

2012)

2012

(

2013)

9)

)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )


[Note]1. Data is based on the "Courts Data Book 2014."2 Regarding legal apprentices who started training 1983 and 1998, such apprentices completed their training in the April of thesecond year afterward. (Their training period was two years.) For those who started between 1999 and 2005, they completed theirtraining in October, one and a half years later. (The training period was one year and six months.) For those between 2006 and2008, they completed their training in September or December of the following year. For those who started in 2009 and 2010, theycompleted their training in August or December of the following year. For those who started in 2011 and afterwards, theycompleted their training in December of the following year.3. This number was calculated based on the timing immediately after the completion of legal training.


The graph below is a cross-country comparison of “the number of people per lawyer.” In 2014, there wereapproximately 3,600 people per attorney in Japan, while the number of people per lawyer in the other fourcountries was all below 1,200.

3. Japan: The number of attorneys is as of April 1 of each year (See the table on page 23). The population is as of October 1of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (Seethe table on page 23).

4. U.S.: The number of lawyers is calculated by deleting the number of judges and public prosecutors from the total numberof legal professionals in practice in each state researched by the American Bar Association (See the table on page 23). Thepopulation is based on the research of the U.S. Census Bureau (See the table on page 23).

5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of lawyers (See the table on page 23) is the sum of those of barristersin private practice and solicitors with practicing certificates except for those solicitors serving as part-time judges, publicprosecutors, and the Attorney General. The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics(See the table on page 23).

6. Germany: The number of lawyers is based on the research of the German Federal Bar (See the table on page 24). Thepopulation is based on the research of the German Federal Statistical Office (See the table on page 24).

7. France: The number of lawyers is the sum of lawyers including legal advisers of the past, avoué prés la cour d’appel, andavocat au Conseil d'Etat et a la Cour de cassation based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France (See the table onpage 24). The population is based on the research of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institutnational de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table on page 24).

IV. Comparison of the Total Number of Lawyers, Judges, and Public Prosecutors with those ofForeign Countries

The graph below compares the numbers of lawyers, judges, and public prosecutors of major foreigncountries. It uses the statistics of the numbers of legal professionals of each country obtained by theSupreme Court of Japan (except for the number of attorneys in Japan) and compares the population perjudge, public prosecutor, and legal professionals in each country. Regarding each country's population oflegal professionals, see pages 23 and 24.

1. The Number of People per Lawyer (Cross-country Comparison)

[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 2014 (by the Supreme Courtof Japan)," except for that of attorneys in Japan.

■ Data 1-2-8 The Number of People per Lawyer ■

5,5275,102

4,7424,429 4,201 3,983 3,792 3,632

285 281 280 279 273 272 269 266477 463 451 442 435 438 430 411

577 560 547 535 525 525 509 495

1,363 1,363 1,275 1,235 1,244 1,204 1,165 1,128

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

（人）

（年）

Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France

Year

Population


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 2014, there wereapproximately 43,000 people per judge in Japan, while the number was below approximately 15,500 peopleper judge in the other four countries. There is a large gap between the number in Japan and that in other fourcountries.

6. Germany: The number of judges is the total number of judges who belong to federal and state jurisdictions (includingprobation judges), based on research of the Federal Ministry of Justice (See the table on page 24). The population is based onthe research of the German Federal Statistical Office (See the table on page 24).

7. France: The number of judges is based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France and the Supreme JudicialCouncil (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) (See the table on page 24). The population is based on the research of theNational Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE))(See the table on page 24).

[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 2014 (by the Supreme Courtof Japan)," except for that of judges in Japan.

3. Japan: The number of judges is a fixed number of each fiscal year (excluding judges of summary courts) (See the table onpage 23). The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of InternalAffairs and Communications of Japan (See the table on page 23).

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 (all50 states and Washington D.C.) (See the table on page 23). The population is based on the research of the U.S. CensusBureau (See the table on page 23).

5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of judges is the total number of full-time and part-time judgesresearched by the U.K. Ministry of Justice (See the table on page 23). The population is based on the research of the U.K.Office for National Statistics (See the table on page 23).

Year

Population

■ Data 1-2-9 The Number of People per Judge ■

48,954 47,587 46,265 45,458 44,932 44,842 44,276 43,240

9,349 9,445 9,589 9,680 9,553 9,587 9,816 9,885

14,777 14,765 13,990 14,753 15,074 14,826 15,549 15,511

4,042 4,088 4,083 4,080 4,070 4,005 4,010 3,951

10,530 10,530 10,756 10,668 10,964 11,018 11,186 11,244

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

（人） Japan U.S. U.K. Germany FrancePopulation

Year


3. The Number of People per Public Prosecutor (Cross-country Comparison)

6. Germany: The number of public prosecutors is based on the research of the German Federal Ministry of Justice (See the table onpage 24). The population is based on the research of the German Federal Statistical Office (See the table on page 24).

7. France: The number of public prosecutors is based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France and the Supreme JudicialCouncil (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) (See the table on page 24). The population is based on the research of the NationalInstitute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table onpage 24).

The graph below is a cross-country comparison of “the number of people per public prosecutor.” In 2014,there were approximately 67,000 people per prosecutor in Japan, which is far above the number in the otherfour countries.

[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 professionalsare obtained by the "Court Data Book 2014 (by the Supreme Court of Japan),"except for that of public prosecutors in Japan.

3. Japan: The number of public prosecutors is a fixed number of each fiscal year (excluding assistant prosecutors) (See the table onpage 23). The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairsand Communications of Japan (See the table on page 23).

4. U.S.: The number of federal prosecutors is the sum of the number of federal prosecutors and assistant federal prosecutors researchedby the U.S. Department of Justice (See the table on page 23). The number of state prosecutors is the estimated number of those whobelong to state prosecutor officesand deal with serious crimes (See the table on page 23). The population is based on the research of theU.S. Census Bureau (See the table on page 23).

5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of public prosecutors is the sum of the number of barristers and solicitors servingas public prosecutors researched by the U.K. Crown Prosecution Service. It also includes the Attorney General and the Director ofPublic Prosecutions (See the table on page 23). The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics (Seethe table on page 23).

Year

■ Data 1-2-10 The Number of People per Prosecutor ■

76,64773,474 71,777 70,604 70,515 69,494 69,039 67,820

9,335 9,386 9,396 9,483 9,455 9,762 9,633 9,819

17,522 16,696 16,385 17,082 17,929 19,12822,061 23,599

16,145 16,191 16,172 16,010 15,971 15,584 15,601 15,391

29,207 29,20732,885 32,519 32,677 32,839 34,159 34,479

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

（人）

（年）

Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France

Year

Population


4. The Number of People per Legal Professional (Cross-country Comparison)

[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 2014 (by the Supreme Court ofJapan)," except for that of legal professionals 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 23and 24).

The graph below is a cross-country comparison of “the number of people per legal professional” by each country. InJapan, the number of people per legal professional is more than that in foreign countries.

■ Data 1-2-11 The Number of People per Legal Professional ■

4,6644,336

4,0583,818

3,643 3,4753,325 3,193

268 265 265 263 258 257 255 252450 437 426 418 413 417 411 394

490 478 468 459 452 451 439 428

1,159 1,159 1,102 1,070 1,080 1,051 1,024 996

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

（人）

(年）

Japan U.S. U.K. Germany FrancePopulation

Year


Japan 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Oct. 1, 2006 Oct. 1, 2007 Oct. 1, 2008 Oct. 1, 2009 Oct. 1, 2010 Oct. 1, 2011 Oct. 1, 2012 Oct. 1, 2013127,770,000 127,771,000 127,692,000 127,510,000 128,056,026 127,799,000 127,515,000 127,298,000

Mar. 31, 2007 Mar. 31, 2008 Mar. 31, 2009 Mar. 31, 2010 Mar. 31, 2011 Mar. 31, 2012 Mar. 31, 2013 Mar. 31, 201423,119 25,041 26,930 28,729 30,485 32,088 33,624 35,045

Apr. 2007 Apr. 2008 Apr. 2009 Apr. 2010 Apr. 2011 Apr. 2012 Apr. 2013 Apr. 2014

2,610 2,685 2,760 2,805 2,850 2,850 2,880 2,944

Mar. 31, 2007 Mar. 31, 2008 Mar. 31, 2009 Mar. 31, 2010 Mar. 31, 2011 Mar. 31, 2012 Mar. 31, 2013 Mar. 31, 2014

1,667 1,739 1,779 1,806 1,816 1,839 1,847 1,877

U.S. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Jul. 1, 2005 Jul. 1, 2006 Jul. 1, 2008 Jul. 1, 2009 Jul. 1, 2009 Jul. 1, 2011 Jul. 1, 2012 Jul. 1, 2013296,410,404 299,398,484 304,059,724 307,006,550 307,006,550 311,591,917 313,914,040 316,128,839

Dec. 2005 Dec. 2006 Dec. 2007 Dec. 2008 Jan. 2011 Dec. 2010 Dec. 2011 Dec. 20121,041,262 1,066,536 1,084,396 1,102,106 1,124,077 1,146,668 1,166,269 1,188,537

Sep. 2006 Sep. 2007 Jan. 2009 Jan. 2010 Jan. 2011 Mar. 2012 Mar. 2013 Mar. 20141,812 1,800 1,818 1,826 1,829 1,823 1,823 1,824

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 201029,892 29,900 29,891 29,891 30,309 30,678 30,157 30,157

Mar. 2007 Mar. 2008 Apr. 2009 Mar. 2010 Mar. 2011 Apr. 2012 Mar. 2013 Mar. 20145,230 5,376 5,836 5,852 5,947 5,465 5,812 5,392

2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2007 2007 200726,524 26,524 26,524 26,524 26,524 26,453 26,777 26,803

Judges(Federal)

Judges(States)

Prosecutors(States)

Population

Attorneys

Judges(excl. Judges atSummary Courts）

Public Prosecutors(excl. AssistantProsecutors)

Population

Lawyers

Prosecutors(Federal)

■Data 1-2-12 The Number of Legal Professional for Main Foreign Countries (List of Deadlines for Referenced Data） ■

(Upper Cell: Date, Lower Cell: The Number of Persons)

U.K. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Jun. 2005 Jun. 2006 Jun. 2007 Jun. 2008 Jun. 2009 Jun. 2010 Mar. 27, 2011 Mar. 201253,390,300 53,728,800 54,072,000 54,439,700 54,809,100 55,240,500 56,100,000 56,567,800

Lawers(Barristers) Dec. 2006 Dec. 2007 Dec. 2008 Dec. 2009 Dec. 2010 Dec. 2010 Dec. 2010 Dec. 2011

(Solicitors) Jul. 2006 Jul. 2007 Jul. 2008 Jul. 2009 Jul. 2010 Jul. 2010 Jul. 2011 Jul. 2012

112,025 116,022 119,839 123,289 125,997 125,997 130,474 137,645

JudgesSep. 2009Feb. - Apr.

Feb. & Mar.2011 Apr. 2011

(Full-time judges) Mar. 2006 Apr. 2007 Apr. 2008

(Part-time judges)Mar. & Apr.

2007Mar. & Apr.

2008Mar. 2009

Apr. & Oct.2009

Apr. 2010Oct. 2009

3,613 3,639 3,865 3,690 3,636 3,726 3,608 3,647

Feb. 2007 Feb. 2008 Jan. 2009 Feb. 2010 Mar. 2011 Mar. 2012 Feb. 2013 Dec. 2013

3,047 3,218 3,300 3,187 3,057 2,888 2,543 2,397

Apr. 2011Mar. 2012

Apr. 2012Mar. 2013

Apr. 2012Mar. 2013

Apr. 2013Mar. 2014

Apr. 2013Mar. 2014

[Note]Regarding the number of lawyers in the U.K., statistics were collected at different dates depending on the categories of lawyers.

Prosecutors

Population


Germany 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2010 Dec. 31, 2011 Dec. 31, 201282,438,000 82,314,906 82,217,830 82,002,356 81,802,257 81,751,602 81,843,743 80,523,746

Jan. 1, 2007 Jan. 1, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2013 Jan. 1, 2014142,830 146,906 150,375 153,251 155,679 155,679 160,894 162,695

Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2010 Dec. 31, 2010 Dec. 31, 201220,395 20,138 20,138 20,101 20,101 20,411 20,411 20,382

Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2010 Dec. 31, 2010 Dec. 31, 20125,106 5,084 5,084 5,122 5,122 5,246 5,246 5,232

France 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Jan. 2007 Jan. 2007 Jan. 2009 Jan. 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2012 Jan. 1, 2013 Jan. 1, 201461,538,322 61,538,322 62,448,977 62,793,432 65,026,885 65,350,181 65,585,857 65,820,916

Lawyers(incl. LegalAdvisers)

Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2012 Jan. 1, 2013

(avoué près la Courd'appel)

Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 - -

(avocat au Conseild'Etat et a la Courde cassation)

Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2013

(Trainee Lawyers)Jan. 1, 2006 Jan. 1, 2006 - - - - - -

45,150 45,150 48,983 50,844 52,286 54,273 56,278 58,329

Jan. 2007 Jan. 2007 Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2011 Dec. 31, 2012

5,844 5,844 5,806 5,886 5,931 5,931 5,863 5,854

Jan. 2007 Jan. 2007 Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2011 Dec. 31, 2012

2,107 2,107 1,899 1,931 1,990 1,990 1,920 1,909

Judges

Public Prosecutors

Judges

Population

Public Prosecutors

Population

Lawyers

, , , , , , , ,

[Note]Regarding the number of avoué près la Cour d'appel in France, such number was integrated into the number of lawyers as ofJanuary 1, 2012.


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014% of

Women in2014

Attorneys 21,185 22,021 23,119 25,041 26,930 28,789 30,485 32,088 33,624 35,045

Number of Women 2,648 2,859 3,152 3,599 4,127 4,660 5,115 5,595 5,936 6,336 （18.1%）

Patent Attorneys 6,127 6,695 7,186 7,732 7,789 8,148 8,684 9,145 9,644 10,171

Number of Women 613 713 826 933 949 1,012 1,107 1,201 1,300 1,428 （14.0%）

Those who may represent clientsin specified infringement

litigation1,061 1,479 1,736 1,974 2,221 2,409 2,563 2,735 2,863 2,971

Certified Public Tax 68,642 69,243 70,068 70,664 71,177 71,606 72,039 72,635 73,725 74,501

Number of Women 7,794 7,961 8,242 8,580 8,858 9,097 9,438 9,710 10,039 10,312 （13.8%）

Certified Public Accountants 17,735 18,059 18,520 18,877 19,394 19,766 20,313 20,670 20,979 21,366

Number of Women 2,071 2,199 2,362 2,529 2,706 2,850 3,020 3,171 3,262 3,395 （15.9%）

Judicial Scriveners 8,462 9,242 9,986 10,880 11,674 12,415 13,258 13,898 14,483 15,096

Number of Women 38,449 38,874 38,883 39,203 39,846 40,475 41,584 42,177 43,126 44,057Those who may represent clients

before Summary Courts 3,944 4,086 4,102 4,212 4,403 4,559 4,827 4,977 5,216 5,460 （12.4%）

Administrative Scriveners 15,469 16,213 17,257 17,915 18,943 20,038 21,325 23,119 24,964 26,260

N b f W 1 451 1 610 1 798 1 904 2 102 2 320 2 560 2 853 3 141 3 388 （12 9%）

V. Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions

There are several qualified professions which deal with the law like attorneys: judicial scriveners, certified publictax accountants, patent attorneys, certified public accountants and administrative scriveners, etc. In cross-countrycomparisons of populations, it should be noted that attorneys in some other countries handle the matters which aredealt with by these other legal professions in Japan.The table below shows the populations of the other legal professions.

(Unit: Person)

■ Data 1-2-13 Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions ■

Number of Women 1,451 1,610 1,798 1,904 2,102 2,320 2,560 2,853 3,141 3,388 （12.9%）

Public Consultants on Socialand Labour Insurance 29,075 30,343 31,137 32,332 33,671 34,732 35,801 36,850 37,784 38,445

Number of Women －－－－ 8,420 9,076 9,489 9,987 10,383 10,790 （28.1%）

Land and House Investigators 18,462 18,320 18,146 18,002 17,820 17,617 17,487 17,328 17,269 17,112

Number of Women －－－－－－－－－－Total 215,144 219,768 224,316 229,766 235,570 241,171 247,718 254,012 261,115 266,957

[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 thestatistics are not taken.Judicial Scriveners, Administrative Scriveners and Land and House Investigators: As of April 1 of each year.


1 Tokyo 473

2 Tokyo 336

3 Tokyo 317

4 Tokyo 296

5 Tokyo 292

6 Tokyo 127

7 Tokyo 126

8 Osaka 110

9 Tokyo 106

10 Osaka 91

Chapter 3 Mergers of Law Offices and the Current Situation of Legal ProfessionalCorporations

The table below ranks law offices nationwide by the number of attorneys. Mergers of law offices are progressing mainlyin urban areas. Recently, law offices with more than two attorneys have increased. There are nine offices with more than100 attorneys as of the end of March 2014. Among them, there are two offices with 200 - 300 attorneys, and two officeswith 300 - 400 attorneys, and one office with more than 400 attorneys. The tables below show the changes in the numberof law offices and attorneys classified by size.

Nagashima Ohno Tsunematsu Horitsu Jimusho

Anderson Mori Tomotsune Horitsu Jimusho

Bengoshi Hojin Adire Horitsu Jimusho

City-Yuwa Horitsu Jimusho

Nishimura Asahi Horitsu Jimusho

Mori Hamada Matsumoto Horitsu Jimusho

Baker & McKenzie Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Bengoshi Hojin Oh-Ebashi Horitsu Jimusho

TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho

I. The Number of Attorneys in Law Offices

Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

[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.

(As of the end of March 2014)■ Data 1-3-1 Major Offices (Top 10 Offices) ■

Offices with 21-30

Offices with 31-500.14%


Offices with 101 or more

0 06%

■ Data 1-3-2 Percentage of Law Offices by Size ■

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

7,821 7,926 8,114 8,318 8,608 8,772

1,900 2,024 2,236 2,355 2,528 2,693

1,657 1,820 1,948 2,109 2,222 2,376

518 531 571 602 637 652

140 172 177 191 202 212

32 35 34 43 47 49

19 19 21 21 19 20

4 7 7 6 6 8

7 7 7 8 9 9

12,098 12,541 13,115 13,653 14,278 14,791


Offices with 31 to 50





[Note] As of March in each year.

Total

One-attorney Offices

Offices with two

Offices with 3 to 5

■ Data 1-3-3 Changes in the Number of Law Offices Classified by Size ■

One-attorney Offices59.31%Offices with two

18.21%








0.06%

As of the end of March 2014

■ Data 1-3-2 Percentage of Law Offices by Size ■

(Unit: the number of offices)


Total Women

7,821 7,926 8,114 8,318 8,608 8,772 960

3,800 4,048 4,472 4,710 5,056 5,386 1,079

5,999 6,658 7,125 7,690 8,057 8,593 1,698

3 805 3 886 4 203 4 451 4 676 4 741 1 052

2014

One-attorney Offices

Offices with two

Offices with 3 to 5


2012 20132009 2010 2011

■ Data 1-3-5 Changes in the Number of Attorneys in Each Size of Office ■

One-attorney Offices25.03%

Offices with two15.37%








6.23%

As of the end of March 2014

■ Data 1-3-4 Percentages of Atrtorney by Size of Office ■

(Unit: Person)

3,805 3,886 4,203 4,451 4,676 4,741 1,052

1,982 2,389 2,523 2,625 2,748 2,857 598

774 846 840 1,054 1,173 1,199 227

750 727 823 817 763 782 169

290 459 469 425 406 532 119

1,709 1,850 1,916 1,998 2,137 2,183 434

26,930 28,789 30,485 32,088 33,624 35,045 6,336






Total

[Note] As of March in each year.



77 37 44 1 3

37 2 25 11 2

47 7 26 1 7

38 12 9 117 1

33 19 11 21 10

56 11 10 25 43

82 6 11 6 7

69 4 0 5 10

79 3 5 3 14

90 7 11 19 9

81 128 69 11 22

96 75 2 9 1258 8 6 11

986

2011

Total

2012

Daini Tokyo Gifu Tottori Okinawa2013

Tokyo Aichi

Iwate Yamanashi Shiga Nagasaki

KagoshimaAomori Niigata Hiroshima Kumamoto

Yamaguchi

Fukushima Gunma Hyogo Fukuoka

Dai-ichi Tokyo Mie Okayama Miyazaki

2009

Kushiro Ibaraki Osaka Kochi

2010 Akita Nagano Wakayama Oita

2007

Hakodate Saitama Kanazawa Kagawa

2008 Yamagata Shizuoka Nara Saga

2005

II. Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations

The system of Legal Professional Corporations (LPCs) came into effect on April 1, 2002. Under this system, lawoffices, which have been managed mainly by individual attorneys, are allowed to be juridical persons in order toensure 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 anLPC opens a branch office, the LPC also becomes a member of the bar association in the district where the branchoffice is located.

1. The Number of LPCs

96 LPCs were established from April 2013 to March 2014. As of the end of March 2014, the number of LPCsnationwide was 743 (including corporations in liquidation).The table below classifies LPCs by the year of establishment and bar association).

2002

2006 Sendai Tochigi Kyoto Ehime

Sapporo Yokohama Fukui Shimane

2004 Asahikawa Chiba Toyama Tokushima2003

■Data 1-3-6 Number of LPCs Established in Each Year ■

■Data 1-3-7 Number of LPC Members of Each Bar Association (2013) ■

120

140

■Data 1-3-8 Comparison of the Number of LPC Members of Each Bar Association (2013) ■

(Unit: corporation) (Unit: corporation)

[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 2014,because some LPCs belong to several bar associations.2. The statistics are based on notifications by the end of March 2014.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Sap

poro

Hak

odat

e

Asa

hika

wa

Kus

hiro

Sen

dai

Fuk

ushi

ma

Yam

agat

a

Iwat

e

Aki

ta

Aom

ori

Tok

yo

Dai

-ich

i T

okyo

Dai

ni T

okyo

Yok

oham

a

Sai

tam

a

Chi

ba

Ibar

aki

Toc

higi

Gun

ma

Shi

zuok

a

Yam

anas

hi

Nag

ano

Niig

ata

Aic

hi

Mie

Gif

u

Fuk

ui

Kan

azaw

a

Toy

ama

Osa

ka

Kyo

to

Hyo

go

Nar

a

Shi

ga

Wak

ayam

a

Hir

oshi

ma

Yam

aguc

hi

Oka

yam

a

Tot

tori

Shi

man

e

Kag

awa

Tok

ushi

ma

Koc

hi

Ehi

me

Fuk

uoka

Sag

a

Nag

asak

i

Oit

a

Kum

amot

o

Kag

oshi

ma

Miy

azak

i

Oki

naw

a


2. Size of Legal Professional Corporations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 22

116 150 117 75 72 46 32 19 14 17 7 13 6 5 8 1 3 3 1 2

116 300 351 300 360 276 224 152 126 170 77 156 78 70 120 16 51 54 21 44

11 41 52 58 76 55 41 38 28 36 12 37 16 12 27 3 12 11 2 7

0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

23 24 26 28 29 30 31 34 40 44 46 55 58 68 79 116 128 Total

2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 729

46 24 52 56 58 30 31 34 80 44 46 55 58 68 79 116 128 4,067

8 9 10 7 14 3 5 0 18 4 10 6 7 15 24 23 16 754

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 6 0 19

(Unit: corporation)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 20 21 23 69 Total

310 232 80 40 19 11 10 4 7 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 729

# of Persons

# of LPCs

[Note]1. The statistics are based on notifications submitted by the end of March 2014.2. 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.4. # of GJBs means the number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers). Please refer to the next page.

# of GJBs

# of Persons

# of LPCs

# of Attorneys

# of Women

# of GJBs

The table below classifies the number of attorneys (representative members, members and employed attorneys) whobelong to LPCs.

# of Persons

# of LPCs

# of Attorneys

# of Women

■Data 1-3-10 Classification by Total Number of Member ■

■ Data 1-3-9 Classification by Number of Attorneys of LPCs (Including Employed Attorneys) ■


I. Changes in the Number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-BengoshiThe next graph shows the changes in the numbers of GJB registrations. From 1987, when the GJB system waslaunched, registrations tended to see year-upon-year increases until 2010. Although, registrations have remainedat almost the same level for the past few years, they saw a slight increase in 2014. In April 2014, the number ofregistered GJBs was 386.

The system of gaikokuho-jimu-bengoshi (GJB) was introduced by the Act on Special Measures concerning theHandling of Legal Services by Foreign Lawyers (Act No. 66 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as “GJB Act”). AGJB, a registered foreign lawyer, is a person whose professional duties are providing legal services in a foreignjurisdiction, with a qualification equivalent to the Japanese attorney qualification (a qualification to be a foreignlawyer) and who has obtained approval of the Minister of Justice and registered in the Roll of Registered ForeignLawyers kept by the JFBA.

Chapter 4 Current Situation of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (“Registered ForeignLawyers”)

The GJB Act before the revision (hereinafter referred to as “Old GJB Act” ) prohibited GJBs from employingJapanese attorneys (Old GJB Act Art. 49, para. 1). In addition, joint enterprises and profit sharing between GJBsand 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 continuouscontract 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 legalservices of Japanese and foreign laws increased and correspondingly the necessity to construct closer cooperationand 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 andprofit distributions. Instead, the Revised GJB Act requires GJBs who are to employ or engage in joint enterpriseswith Japanese attorneys to notify the JFBA (Revised GJB Act Art. 49-3). Furthermore, in order to prevent GJBsfrom engaging in conduct beyond the scope of permitted practices, the law puts a certain restriction on theconducts of GJBs and employed attorneys (Revised GJB Act Art. 49 and Art. 49-2).

[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, 1987.

31 47

58

78 79 78 79 77 77 80 87

97

125

150

186 189

213

236 241 252

267

290

344 359 357 360

386

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014(Year)

(Number)■ Data 1-4-1 Changes in the Number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi ■


Daini Tokyo 157Dai-ichi Tokyo 126 U.S. Total 214 (22)Tokyo 71 New York 103(13)Osaka 11 California 47 (1)Aichi-ken 6 Hawaii 17Fukuoka-ken 4 Washington DC 12Yokohama 3 Illinois 9 (2)Gifu-ken 2 Virginia 7Hyogo-ken 2 Florida 3Iwate 1 Massachusetts 3(2)Ibaraki-ken 1 Texas 3Shizuoka-ken 1 Connecticut 2 (1)Okinawa 1 New Jersey 2 (1)

North Carolina 2 (1)Georgia 1

U.S. 136 Louisiana 1 (1)Japan 76 Maryland 1U.K. 49 Washington 1China 32 U.K. 71(6)Australia 30 China 32(11)Canada 18 Australia Total 21 (6)Germany 8 New South Wales 13 (4)France 6 Victoria 4 (1)Brazil 5 Queensland 3 (1)

(Total: 387 (58) / * Numbers in ( ) refer to thenumber of female GJBs)

II. Registration of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers)

(As of April 1, 2014)

[by bar association] (Total: 386) [by home jurisdiction]

[by nationality] (Total: 389)

■ Data 1-4-2 Details of Registration of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers) ■

Brazil 5 Queensland 3 (1)Singapore 4 Western Australia 1India 4 Canada Total 9New Zealand 3 British Columbia 6Republic of Korea 2 Ontario 3Ireland 2 Germany 6Republic of the Philippines 2 France 6Switzerland 2 Hong Kong 6(4)Poland 1 Brazil 5(2)Italy 1 India 3(1)Bulgaria 1 Republic of the Philippines 2(1)Spain 1 New Zealand 2(2)Nepal 1 Switzerland 2Samoa 1 Singapore 2(2)Paraguay 1 Republic of Korea 2Greece 1 Italy 1Sweden 1 Spain 1Belgium 1 Nepal 1

Paraguay 1 (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).


III. Situations regarding Alliances with Foreign Law Joint Enterprises

Freshfields Bruckhaus DeringerGaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer HoritsuJimusho

3 0 3 14 3

Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny &Myers Horitsu Jimusho

Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny &Myers Horitsu Jimusho

1 0 1 7 1

White & Case Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

White & Case Horitsu Jimusho4 (1) 0 2 14 6

Skadden Arps Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

Skadden Arps Horitsu Jimusho1 0 1 5 1

Clifford Chance Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Clifford Chance Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

5 (1) 0 3 (1) 35 1

Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

3 0 2 6 0

Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho Linklaters

Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho Linklaters

1 0 2 22 1

Orrick, Herrington & SutcliffeGaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho

Orrick Tokyo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

2 0 5 12 3

Ashurst Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Ashurst Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho1 0 1 2 2

■ Data 1-4-3 Situations regarding Alliances with Foreign Law Joint Enterprises ■

GJBs(Women)

EmployedAttorneys

EmployedGJBs

A foreign law joint enterprise means an enterprise jointly operated by a GJB and an attorney or a legal professionalcorporation (LPC) under a partnership contract or other continuous contract for the purpose of providing legalservices (Article 2-15 of the GJB Act). The revised GJB Act which came into effect on April 1, 2005, lifted the banon running joint enterprises and sharing profits between GJBs and attorneys/legal professional corporations andinstead 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 asfollows.

Law FirmsGJB OfficesAttorneys(Women)

LPCs

（As of April 1, 2014, in order of date of notification submission)（Unit: person)

Kyodo Jigyo Kyodo Jigyo1 0 1 2 2

Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo･Jones DayHoritsu Jimusho

Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo·Jones DayHoritsu Jimusho

12 (2) 0 4 (1) 34 2

Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho

Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho

1 0 3 2 0

Squire Sanders Miki Yoshida GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo Horitsu Tokyo Jimusho

Squire Sanders Miki Yoshida GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo Horitsu Tokyo Jimusho 4 0 5 14 2

Morrison & Foerster Gaikokuho JimuBengoshi Jimusho

Ito Mitomi Horitsu Jimusho6 (2) 0 4 (2) 11 0

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius GaikokuhoJimu Bengoshi Jimusho

TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho10 (2) 0 3 (1) 4 0

Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho·GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo

Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho·GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo

14 (4) 1 1 76 1

Wakely Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho10 0 1 5 0

Bingham Sakai Mimura Aizawa HoritsuJimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Bingham Sakai Mimura Aizawa HoritsuJimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

25 (8) 0 7 (2) 43 2

Sullivan & Cromwell Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho

Sullivan & Cromwell Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho

2 0 1 0 0

Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho

Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho

1 0 1 3 3

Baker & Mckenzie Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Baker & Mckenzie Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

28 (4) 0 14 (2) 76 5

Nishikawa Sidley Austin HoritsuJimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Nishikawa Sidley Austin HoritsuJimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

2 0 1 10 0

DLA Piper Tokyo Partnership GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho

DLA Piper Tokyo Partnership GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho 2 0 1 0 0

Hogan Lovells Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Hogan Lovells Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

1 0 1 4 5


GJBs(Women)

EmployedAttorneys

EmployedGJBs

Law FirmsGJB OfficesAttorneys(Women)

LPCs

Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

2 0 1 0 0

OL Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Tatsumura Horitsu Jimusho1 0 1 0 0

Simmons & Simmons Gaikokuho JimuBengoshi Jimusho


Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho




1 0 1 2 1

Maritax Nagatani Gaikokuho JimuBengoshi Jimusho

Maritax Horitsu Jimusho1 0 1 4 0

K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho

K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho

7 0 3 9 2

Takahashi & Davis Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Takahashi & Davis Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

1 0 2 6 0

Nihon Saitsu Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

Bengoshi Hojin Akasaka HoritsuJimusho

0 1 1 0 0

Kobe Sejong Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho

Kobe Sejong Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho

3 0 1 0 0

Janssen Foreign Law Joint Enterprisewith Atsumi & Sakai

Atsumi Sakai Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

8 (4) 1 1 75 4



0 1 3 0 0

Okuno Sogo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Okuno Sogo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

1 0 1 33 0

CVML Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho

CVML Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho

1 (1) 0 1 0 0

H & W Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

H & W Horitsu Jimusho1 0 1 0 0

Total 194 （29） 4 87 （9） 533 46[N t ][Note]1. "Attorneys" is the number of attorneys who are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises. The figure within the brackets indicates thenumber 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 numberof 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.


1. By Nationality

U.S. 12 8 24 24 33 14 18 13 15 12 173

Japan 3 9 8 13 13 11 11 14 11 8 101

U.K. 5 6 4 15 21 9 11 10 14 3 98

Australia 2 6 3 12 10 3 3 8 21 12 80

China 1 2 4 4 5 2 7 2 6 3 36

Canada 2 1 4 4 3 3 1 2 3 23

New Zealand 3 3 6 1 2 1 16

Germany 1 4 1 1 1 3 11

Republic of Korea 1 1 2 3 1 2 10

Si 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 10

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 foreignlawyers. (A foreign lawyer means a person whose professional duties are to provide legal services as a practicein 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 theMinistry of Justice (Article 2 (ii) of Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services byForeign 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 indescending order. Foreign lawyers do not include GJBs. (See Page 30 for the information on GJBs.)

Those who have U.S. nationality form the largest number followed by the U.K., Japan, Australia, and China(Top 5).

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

■ Data 1-4-4 (1) The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional Corporations by Nationality■

Total Nationality

2012 20132010 2011

(As of April 1, 2014) (Unit: person)

Singapore 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 10

Philippines 1 1 1 2 1 1 7

India 1 2 3 6

France 1 1 3 5

Ireland 1 1 1 1 4

Taiwan 1 1 1 1 4

Russia 1 1 1 3

Iceland 1 2 3

Finland 1 1 2

Sweden 1 1 2

Indonesia 2 2

Greece 1 1

Malaysia 1 1

Slovakia 1 1

Belgium 1 1

Bulgaria 1 1

Mexico 1 1

Brazil 1 1

Jamaica 1 1

Italy 1 1

Malta 1 1

Total 29 35 53 86 100 45 65 53 81 59 606


U.S. 17 15 35 43 48 26 34 20 28 24 290

U.K. 8 11 6 22 27 14 18 20 32 9 167

Australia 2 6 4 11 10 4 3 7 18 6 71

China 1 2 3 3 5 2 6 2 5 3 32

Germany 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 11

New Zealand 2 2 3 1 1 1 10

Philippines 1 1 1 2 1 1 7

Singapore 1 1 1 4 7

India 1 2 4 7

Hong Kong 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Canada 1 2 1 1 5

Taiwan 1 1 1 3

Bulgaria 3 3

Republic of Korea 1 1 2

Russia 1 1 2

Belgium 1 1

Mexico 1 1

Brazil 1 1

Jamaica 1 1

Indonasia 1 1

Italy 1 1

Ireland 1 1

France 1 1

Total 31 36 52 91 99 49 68 55 93 57 631

[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 thetable on the previous page.3. The total number does not include the numbers in the notifications submitted before 2004.

2012 20132004 2005 2006 2007 2008

2. By Home Jurisdiction

[Note] 1. "Japan" in “Nationality” means the number of those who have Japanese nationality but have been qualified in foreignjurisdictions.2. The above numbers of employed foreign lawyers are based on the date of their employment in the notifications submitted byApril 1, 2014. Those whose employment has been terminated are not reflected in the numbers so that the total number is not equalto the number of those actually employed at the time of April 1, 2014.3. The total number does not include the numbers in the notifications submitted before 2004.

■ Data 1-4-4 (2) The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional Corporations by HomeJurisdiction ■

Total HomeJurisdiction

2009 2010 2011

(As of April 1, 2014) (Unit: person)

Looking at the number of employed foreign lawyers by home jurisdiction, the number of those whose homejurisdiction is in the U.S. is more than that of those who have U.S. nationality mentioned previously. It indicateshow many people have obtained qualifications in the U.S. The next largest number is those whose homejurisdiction is in the U.K. followed by Australia.


Law Firms (Location)Country of

Main OfficeNumber ofLawyers

Countries inwhich FirmHas Offices

LawyersOutside of the

Country ofMain Office

Rank by GrossRevenue

Gross Revenue($)

Baker & McKenzie U.S. 4,087 45 84% 2 2,419,000,000

DLA Piper U.S. 4,036 30 65% 1 2,440,500,000

Clifford Chance U.K. 2,525 25 72% 5 2,015,000,000

Jones Day U.S. 2,363 18 30% 10 1,716,000,000

Allen & Overy U.K. 2,304 29 67% 9 1,885,500,000

Hogan Lovells U.S. 2,280 18 61% 11 1,633,000,000

Linklaters U.K. 2,106 20 61% 8 1,895,000,000

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.K. 2,049 16 67% 7 1,935,500,000

Latham & Watkins U.S. 2,033 14 32% 3 2,226,000,000

White & Case U.S. 1,900 26 66% 13 1,383,500,000

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom U.S. 1,735 13 18% 4 2,210,000,000

K&L Gates U.S. 1,720 15 22% 25 1,060,500,000

Sidley Austin U.S. 1,636 9 17% 12 1,489,500,000

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius U.S. 1,334 9 9% 18 1,230,000,000

Squire, Sanders U.S. 1,257 21 53% 40 774,500,000

Morrison & Foerster U.S. 1,010 6 20% 27 1,000,000,000

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe U.S. 977 8 37% 34 866,000,000

Bingham McCutchen U.S. 900 5 15% 33 872,000,000

Paul Hastings U.S. 899 9 22% 31 908,000,000

Ashurst U.K. 862 13 50% 72 512,000,000

Sullivan & Cromwell U.S. 776 7 19% 20 1,184,000,000

O'Melveny & Myers U.S. 738 8 18% 38 818,500,000

Simmons & Simmons U.K. 648 14 48% 95 397,000,000

The wave of internationalization is coming into the Japanese legal market and world's major law firms have builttheir presence in Japan. The table below shows law firms by the number of lawyers among those of the top 100 (bygross revenue) in the world, of which GJBs are running foreign law joint enterprises with Japanese attorneys.

V. World Law Firms and Their Entry into the Japanese Market

[Note]1. The above ranks and numbers are taken from 'The Global 100', The American Lawyer (October 2013).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 bygross revenue and are assumed as the same law firms that have submitted notifications concerning foreign law joint enterprises to theJFBA as of April 1, 2014.

■Data 1-4-5 The Top 100 (by gross revenue) Law Firms in the World, of which GJBs are Running Foreign LawJoint Enterprises with Japanese Attorneys ■


Part 2 Activities of Attorneys Chapter 1 Criminal Advocacy Activities

Attorneys have wide-ranging duties that are continually expanding. One of the most important activities 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 2-1-1-1 Flow of Procedures in Criminal Cases (from Arrest to Indictment) and the Role of Attorneys ■

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

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. 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 counsel is mandatory. In 2014, in the Legislative Council of the Ministry of Justice, the cases to be covered were expanded to include “cases where a detention warrant has been issued to the suspect.” In the future, it is expected that all cases for detained suspects are to be covered by the court-appointed attorney system for suspects. For cases which will not be covered by such system, suspects can use the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System which has been self-funded by the JFBA and other bar associations.

Occurrence of crime Commence-ment of investigation

Arrest Detention

Indictment

Charges dropped

【Activities toward prevention of detention】

Interview, settlement negotiation, etc.

【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.

Duty attorney can be requested → Request →Appoint as a private defense

counsel

A court-appointed attorney for

suspects is appointed (depending

on the case）.


II. Curent Situations of Duty Attorneys (Toban Bengoshi )

Registrations% of Attorneys

RegisteredCases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase

% of CasesUndertaken

2006 9,664 44% 67,826 7% 12,524 15% 19%

2007 9,829 42% 63,396 -7% 12,438 -1% 21%

2008 10,016 40% 64,708 2% 13,808 11% 22%

2009 10,806 40% 51,462 -20% 14,250 3% 30%

2010 11,402 40% 38,074 -26% 13,050 -8% 37%

2011 12,356 41% 37,952 -26% 14,901 5% 42%

2012 13,843 43% 43,674 15% 18,179 22% 45%

2013 14,447 43% 45,803 5% 20,310 12% 49%

Cases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase

2006 8,480 25% 3,645 23% 136,685 -4%

2007 7,556 -11% 3,382 -7% 127,412 -7%

2008 11,457 52% 4,361 29% 121,811 -4%

2009 6,956 -39% 6,429 47% 121,398 0%

2010 5,318 -24% 7,276 13% 115,804 -5%

2011 6,565 23% 8,013 10% 111,699 -4%

2012 8,503 30% 8,104 1% 113,617 2%

2013 10,059 18% 7,781 -4% 111,476 -2%

Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases Number of Detention Requests

# of Duty Attorney Registrations Duty Attorney Requests Cases Undertaken by Duty Attorneys

Criminal Suspect Defense AidCases

The number of “ Cases Undertaken ” is the number of cases in which attorneys who had interviewed suspects ordefendants as duty attorneys accepted to privately undertake the cases. The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense AidCases” is the number of cases for which the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System granted aid for defense expensesdue to financial difficulties of the suspects. The number of “ Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases ” is the number of thejuvenile cases for which the Juvenile Attendant Aid System granted aid for attendant expenses. Attorneys who weredispatched as duty attorneys undertook most of the cases covered by both systems.

The following table shows the status of the duty attorney system in recent years.

Even though the court appointed attorney system has now been introduced, a court appointed attorney is stillappointed only after the detention order has been issued to the suspect after a maximum of 72-hour detentionfollowing 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 beprovided.

[Note] 1. Statistics related to duty attorneys are based on calendar years (from January 1 to December 31 of each year), except for thenumber of duty attorney registrations and the percentage of duty attorneys registered, which are as of April 1 from 2005 to 2009, andfrom 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, oruncertain cases.3. The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases” and “Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases” in 2006 is the number of cases for whichaid was actually granted by the Japan Legal Aid Association. The number in 2007 is the sum of the cases for which aid was actuallygranted by the JFBA from April to September 2007 (statistics taken as of the end of March 2008) and the number of cases in which aidcommencements were decided by the Japan Legal Support Center from October 2007 to March 2008. The number after 2008 is that ofcompleted 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 "detentionrejected" 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.

■ Data 2-1-1-2 Status of the Duty Attorney System in Recent Years ■


III. Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cases, and Criminal SuspectDefense Aid Cases

The number of requests for duty attorneys nationwide has gradually decreased from the peak seen in 2006, due tothe court-appointed attorney system for suspects launched on October 2, 2006. In 2012, the number of requestsslightly 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 yearillustrates the fact that the duty attorney system still retains its own meaning and importance.

The Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System was operated by the Japan Legal Aid Association from 1990 by therequest of the JFBA. The system provided aid for defense expenses in cases where attorneys were privatelyappointed but it was difficult for the suspects to pay the attorneys' expenses. This system has always sufferedfrom budget shortages so the JFBA established the Emergency Fund for Duty Attorney System in 1995 to supportthe system. This fund was replaced with the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal Defense in June 2009.

The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases” is the number of cases in which suspects without enoughfinancial resource used the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System and were granted aid for defense expensesbefore indictments. In 2013, there were 10,059 cases.

39,690

47,143

54,181

60,02363,106

67,711 67,826

63,39664,708

51,462

38 074 37 952

43,67445,803

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

# of Duty Attorney Requested Cases # of Duty Attorney Appointed Cases# of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid CasesCases

■ Data 2-1-1-3 Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cases, and Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases ■

[Note]1. The number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases and the number of Duty Attorney Appointed Cases are based on calendaryears (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 grantedby the JFBA from April to September 2007 (statistics taken as of the end of March 2008) and the number of cases in whichaid commencements were decided by the Japan Legal Support Center from October 2007 to March 2008. The number after2008 is that of completed cases of each fiscal year at the Japan Legal Support Center. The numbers before 2006 are thenumbers of cases for which aid was actually granted by the Japan Legal Aid Association.

30,271

,38,074 37,952

6,4938,519 9,684 10,269 10,537 10,900 12,237 12,524 12,438 13,808 14,250 13,050

14,90118,179

20,310

3,5644,982 5,901 6,357 6,644 6,764

8,290 8,4807,556

11,457

6,9565,318 6,565

8,50310,059

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year


Section 2 The Status of Defense Attorneys Involvement in the Overall Criminal Cases

Number ofAttorneysContracted

Percentage ofAttorneysContracted

22,801 65.6% 34,743 51,585 2.3

Number ofDefendants withCourt-Appointed

Attorneys(2013)

Number of Defendants perContracted Attorney

The table below shows the number of court-appointed attorneys contracted with the Japan Legal SupportCenter, the number of defendants with court-appointed attorneys, and the number calculated by dividingthe number of defendants by the number of contracted attorneys.

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-appointedattorneys contracted with the Japan Legal Support Center (Contracted attorneys).

[Note]1. The number of attorneys contracted as court-appointed attorneys is from the statistics taken by the Japan Legal Support Center,as of December 1, 2013, and the number of attorneys is as of December 31, 2013. As "Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys" is as of 2013, "Number of Attorneys Contracted as Court-Appointed Attorneys" and "Number of Attorneys"as of December 2013 are used.2. "Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys" is the sum of the statistics of all the district and summary courts basedon the "2013 Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal Part)."

Total

Number of Attorneys Contracted asCourt-Appointed Attorneys （2013.12.1）

Number of Attorneys（2013.12.31）

■ Data 2-1-2-1 Number of Defendants per Attorney Contracted as Court-Appointed Attorney ■


The total number of criminal cases handled at district courts peaked in 2003, 2004 at approximately 80,000, and has graduallybeen decreasing. In these cases, almost 100% of defendants were with defense counsel. When observing the percentage ofdefendants with privately retained counsel and those with court-appointed counsel, one can see that there was not muchdifference between them in the 1980s, but the court-appointed counsel cases increased to 84.3% in 2013. On the other hand, theprivate counsel cases have decreased to the level of 19%.

II. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed andPrivately Retained) at District Courts

III. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed andPrivately Retained) at Summary Courts

The total number of criminal cases (the total number of persons whose trials have been finalized) at summary courts increased

57,883 48,692

58,257

80,223

67,644

52,229

97.3% 97.1% 96.9% 97.9% 98.7% 99.5%

36.3% 34.7%

28.0%24.2% 24.7%

19.3%

62.2% 63.7%

70.2%

75.3%77.3%

84.3%

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Total Number of Cases Defendants with Defense CounselDefendants with Privately Retained Counsel Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel

(Person)(Percentage)

(Year)

(Number of persons whose trials have been finalized)

(%) (%)

(%)

■ Data 2-1-2-2 Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (at District Courts) ■

[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 ofconviction, 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 arecounted.4. The "Percentage" of "Defendants with Counsels" is relative to "the number of persons whose trials have been finalized."

The total number of criminal cases (the total number of persons whose trials have been finalized) at summary courts increasedfrom the year 2000 but is decreasing recently. Defense counsel is retained in almost 100% of the cases, mostly appointed bycourts.

(Year)

(Number of defendantsfinalized)

12,558

10,179 10,696 13,732

10,632

8,109

94.6% 96.9%

97.0% 97.8% 98.3%

98.8%

15.8%16.5%

11.9%8.8% 8.9% 7.5%

79.6%

81.2%85.7% 89.7%

91.3% 93.2%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Total Number of Cases Defendants with Defense CounselDefendants with Privately Retained Counsel Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel(Percentage)

(Number of persons whose trials have been finalized)

(%)

(%)(%)

(Person)

■ Data 2-1-2-3 Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (at Summary Courts) ■


[Note]

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 tothe tendency seen at the district and summary court level.

5,820

4,643

5,670

8,875

7,962

6,108

93.0% 93.3% 93.6% 92.2%

95.1%96.1%

48.6%

43.4%

32.6%

24.0%

26.1%22.5%

45.5%

51.3%

62.6% 69.7% 70.9%75.5%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Total Number of Cases Defendants with Defense CounselDefendants with Privately Retained Counsel Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel(Percentage)

(Year)

(Person)

(Number of defendants finalized) (person)

■ Data 2-1-2-4 Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (High Courts) ■

(%)(%)

(%)

[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 therendering of a judgement of conviction, the making of a decision to close a trial, or the withdrawal of a claim for a formaltrial, 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."


Section 3 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). ■Data 2-1-3-1 The Number of Prosecuted Cases per Offence for Crimes Subject to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials (January 2013 - December 2013) ■

Crime Number of Cases Robbery Causing Injury 337

Homicide 303

Arson of Inhabited Buildings 140

Rape Causing Death or Injury 113

Injury Causing Death 140

Indecent Assault Causing Death or Injury 130

Rape and Armed Robbery 54

Robbery Causing Death or Injury 39

Dispersion of Counterfeit Currency 16

Counterfeiting Currency 19

Gang Rape Causing Death or Injury 15

Dangerous Driving Causing Death 25

Abandonment Causing Death by a Person Responsible for Protection 5

Other Crimes under the Penal Code 6

Violations of the Stimulants Control Act 106

Violations of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Control Act 29

Violations of the Criminal Regulations to Control Explosives 0

Violations of the Act for Controlling the Possession of Firearms or

Swords and Other Such Weapons. 7

Crimes Other than those stimulated in the Penal Code 5

Total Number of Crimes 1,489


[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.


Number ofpersonswhosetrials havebeen

finalized(Persons)

ConvictedConvicted,but partlyacquitted

Acquitted

Transfer-red to thefamilycourt

Others(Note 3)

1,415 1,366 8 12 1 28 30,486 0.05

January 2013 to Decmber 2013

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 andDecember, 2013. Based on the number of attorneys, the number of persons whose trials have beenfinalized per attorney was calculated.

[Note]1. The above number of persons whose trials have been finalized is written in the "Materials relating to theactual practice status of lay judge trials in 2013," created by the Supreme Court of Japan, i.e., the actual numberof persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courts of first instance over ordinary criminalcases.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 thewithdrawal 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 December 1, 2013.

II. Actual Practice of Lay Judge Trials

Number ofattorneys

（2013.12.1）（Persons）

Number ofpersonswhose trialshave beenfinalized perattorney（Persons）

Total

1. The Number of Persons Who Have Been Subjected to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials and HaveBeen Finalized

■ Data 2-1-3-2 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 ■


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 2013 (from January 2013 to December 2013). ■Data 2-1-3-3 Comparison of the Average Period Taken for Court Deliberations and the Average Period of the Pretrial Conference Procedure (by confession and denial) (by before/after the introduction of the Saiban-in (lay judge) system)■ Trials which

have been tried by professional judges only (2006-2008)

Saiban-in trials

Total 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total

Number of persons whose cases have been finalized 3,080 6,060 142 1,506 1,525 1,500 1,387

Average period taken for court deliberations 6.6 8.7 5.0 8.3 8.9 9.3 8.9

Average period (months) of the pretrial conference procedure

2.9 6.3 2.8 5.4 6.4 7.0 6.9

Average period (months) taken for portions other than the pretrial conference procedure

3.7 2.4 2.2 2.9 2.5 2.3 2.0

Confession

Number of persons whose cases have been finalized 1,783 3,500 114 970 885 806 725



2.4 4.9 2.8 4.6 5.0 5.2 5.4


2.9 2.3 2.0 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7

Denial

Number of persons whose cases have been finalized 1,297 2,560 28 536 640 694 662



3.7 8.2 3.1 6.8 8.3 9.1 8.5


4.6 2.6 2.5 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.4

[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. 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. Numbers for 2013 are preliminary figures. 7. 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 2-1-3-4 Number of Persons whose Cases have been Finalized (by period taken for court

deliberations) and the Average Period of Court Deliberations in 2013 (by Confession and Denial) ■

Number of persons whose cases have been finalized (person)

Period taken for court deliberations

The average duration (months)

3 months or less

Over 3 months - 4 months



Over 6 months -

9 months

Over 9 months- 1 year

Over 1 year

Total 1,387 8 114 216 194 409 218 228 8.9

Confession 725 7 100 163 127 204 79 45 7.1

Denial 662 1 14 53 67 205 139 183 10.9

[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 2-1-3-5 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 2013 ■

Number of persons whose cases have been finalized (person)

Period taken for court deliberations

The average duration (days)

2 days

3 days 4 days 5 days

Less than 10

days

Less than 20

days

Less than 30

days

Less than 40

days

40 days

or more

Total 1,387 13 189 259 163 518 184 31 20 10 8.1

Confession 725 13 158 191 101 215 41 3 - 3 5.8

Denial 662 - 31 68 62 303 143 28 20 7 10.6

[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

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

2013," created by the Supreme Court of Japan, as well as the materials provided by the Supreme Court of Japan.


Although the total number of lawsuits tend to be on the increase until recent years, it has been decreasing since2011. Attorneys’ involvement is approximately 83.1% in total in 2013. Observing the data by the purpose of thelawsuit, the percentage of appointment is high in lawsuits concerning labor and intellectual property.

I. Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before District Courts

Chapter 2 Activities in Civil and Other Lawsuits

Section 1 Civil Lawsuits

Activities in relation to civil cases are one of the important practices for attorneys. Such activities range widely toinclude 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 attorneysplay 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.

119,566

138,040

156,683 159,032 192,247

168,230

149,928

83.9%80.0% 79.2% 77.9% 74.9%

83.1%

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Total Number of Cases With Attorneys

(Percentage) (Cases)

■Data 2-2-1-1 Changes in the Rate of Appointed Attorneys' Involvement in the First Instance of Ordinary Civil Lawsuit before District

Courts ■

0

,

0%

10%

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008(Year)

2013


Plaintiff SideDefendant

Side

Personnel Affairs －－－－－－

Money 107,717 90,976 84.5% 48,267 37,845 4,864Payment for Contracted

Construction (1,611) (1,487) (92.3%) (998) (421) (68)

Damages through ConstructionDefects (443) (439) (99.1%) (384) (31) (24)

Damages through MedicalTreatment (779) (754) (96.8%) (631) (50) (73)

Damages through Pollution (69) (66) (95.7%) (52) (5) (9)　　Labor (2,051) (1,961) (95.6%) (1,583) (237) (141)

　Intellectual Property (241) (225) (93.4%) (173) (31) (21)　Other (102,523) (86,044) (83.9%) (44,446) (37,070) (4,528)

Buildings 24,571 17,594 71.6% 3,108 14,268 218Land 8,232 7,382 89.7% 3,542 3,617 223Labor （Except for LawsuitsConcerning Money） 947 932 98.4% 817 63 52

Intellectual Property （Except forLawsuits Concerning Money） 323 310 96.0% 272 27 11

For Injunction against Pollution7 6 85.7% 5 1 －

Other 8,131 7,425 91.3% 4,686 2,261 478Total 149,928 124,625 83.1% 60,697 58,082 5,846

[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, 2004.

One SidePurpose of Lawsuit

TotalNumber

Cases with Attorneys

Percentage ofInvolvement

Total Number Both Sides

■Data 2-2-1-2 Attorneys' Involvement in Lawsuits at District Courts (by Purpose) (2013)■


II. Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before Summary Courts

The number of lawsuits has been increasing since 2000; however, it dropped in 2011. The recentincrease in the number of lawsuits is said to have been influenced by lawsuits relating to excessivepayments of interest (lawsuits related to requests for the return of excessive or usurious interestfiled against money lenders). However, the number of such lawsuits is likely to decline graduallyin the near future.

Regarding attorneys and other representatives ’ involvement (in ordinary civil lawsuits beforesummary courts), the percentage of parties involved without legal representation (denoted by"Without Representatives" in the graph below) is quite high.

157,200

219,060

306,662

337,076

537,626

345,331

15 1%

11.8%8.7%

17.0%20.2%

14.6%

84.9%88.2%

90.5%90.6%

68.7% 69.6%

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CasesPercentage (%)Total Number of Cases With Attorneys

With Judicial Scriveners' Participation Without Representatives

■ Data 2-2-1-3 Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Defense Councils in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits (Summary Courts) ■

[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 2003.4. Summary courts have the jurisdiction over lawsuits claiming an amount of up to 1,400,000 yen raised from 900,000 yensince April 2003.5. “With Attorneys” and "With Judicial Scriveners" on the graph means lawsuits in which attorneys or judicial scrivenerswere appointed by one party or both parties.

15.1%9.5% 10.6%

0

50,000

0%

%

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013Year


III. Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instance Trials (before High Courts)

[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 anappeal of an administrative case.

Though the total number of cases on an annual basis had been on a downward trend since 2000, it has beenincreasing in recent years. The percentage of appointed attorneys has remained stable at approximately 94%.

11,326

13,771

16,00816,661

15,176

17,073

93.9% 93.8% 94.9% 92.8% 93.7% 93.3%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Total Number of Cases With AttorneysPercentageCases

Year

■Data 2-2-1-4 Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instances (High Courts) ■


The number of in-house attorneys in Japan was 1,179 as of the end of June, 2014, while the number of publicofficers with fixed terms was 151 as of June 1, 2014. Only the number of public officers registered with theJFBA as of June 1, 2014 is counted.

1. Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys

Chapter 3 Expansion of Attorneys' Activities

I. Current Situation of In-house Attorneys

The traditional image of attorneys was that they established their offices near courts and mainly acted asrepresentatives or defense counsel in trials and subordinately engaged in negotiations and review of contractsfor individual cases other than trials. Many attorneys still mainly engage in trials but their fields of activityhave been broadening in order to meet the diverse range of legal needs which have emerged from theincreasingly complex social and economic situations of recent times. The JFBA is providing various kinds ofsupport for the activities of individual attorneys but unfortunately is unable to grasp every lawyer's individualsituations. The following information is based on the limited data which the JFBA currently possesses.

As attorneys are gaining work in a more diverse range of fields, the number of attorneys working incompanies, ministries, local governments, and other bodies while utilizing their special knowledge andexperiences as attorneys is increasing. An in-house attorney refers to an attorney who is a staff member oremployee or is engaged as a director, board member or other officer of a government office or public orprivate organization except for legal professional corporations (Art. 50, Basic Rules on the Duties ofPracticing Attorneys).

◆　Forms of In-house Attorneys　◆◇　Corporate In-house Attorney: An attorney who is working as an employee, worker, or officer of acorporation.◇　Public Officer with a Fixed Term: An attorney who is employed by a central or local governmentalorganization for a fixed term in accordance with the related laws.

[Note]1. The number of corporate in-house attorneys was researched by the Japan In-House Lawyers Association (JILA) based on asurvey 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 2014.

123 146188

266354

428

587

771

953

1179

6040 50 61 81 89 86 106 120 151

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

(Number of Attorneys)

(Year)

Corporate In-House Attorneys Public Officers with Fixed Terms

■ Data 2-3-1 Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys ■


<Ministries, etc.>Number ofAttorneys（Women)

< Local Governments > Number ofAttorneys（Women)

Cabinet Office 　5 （2） Miyagi Prefecture 1 （0）Japan Fair Trade Commission 7 （1） Ishinomaki City, Miyagi Prefecture 1 （0）Financial Services Agency 　18 （3） Kesennuma City, Miyagi Prefecture 1 （0）Ministry of Internal Affairs 4 （2） Higashimatsuyama City, Miyagi Prefecture 1 （0）Consumer Affairs Agency 　14 （5） Tomiya-Cho, Miyagi Prefecture 1 （0）Ministry of Justice 6 （0） Fukushima Prefecture 1 （0）

2. Public Officers with Fixed Terms

The "Act on Special Measures of Employment and Remuneration of Officials with Fixed Term of Office in the RegularService" which came into force in November 2000 introduced a system enabling central government ministries andagencies to employ persons with expert knowledge and experience or advanced insights from outside sources for fixedterms by offering them appropriate salary levels.In addition, through the implementation of the Act on Employment of Fixed-Term Local Public Officers Engaged inRegular Services, since July 2002, local governments have also been able to employ persons from outside sources inaccordance 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 staffmembers 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 fromoutside 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, 2014, asconfirmed by the JFBA. (Only the number of attorneys registered with the JFBA as of June 1, 2014 is counted.) Otherthan public officers with fixed terms, there are also attorneys who work for government ministries, agencies or localgovernments as full-time employees.

■ Data 2-3-2 Public Officers with Fixed Terms as of June 1, 2014 ■

y 6 （0） 1 （0）Ministry of Foreign Affairs 4 （1） Soma City, Fukushima Prefecture 1 （0）Ministry of Finance 11 （5） Namie-Cho, Fukushima Prefecture 1 （0）National Tax Agency 12 （5） Yamada-Cho, Iwate Prefecture 1 （0）Agency for Cultural Affairs 1 （0） Hirosaki-City, Iwate Prefecture 1 （0）Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 11 （2） Special local public body for Tokyo 23 wards 1 （1）Agency for Natural Resources and Energy 2 （0） Machida City, Tokyo 1 （1）Japan Patent Office 4 （1） Kunitachi City, Tokyo 1 （1）Small and Medium Enterprise Agency 1 （1） Kokubunji City, Tokyo 1 （1）Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 1 （0） Saitama City, Saitama Prefecture 1 （0）Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism 2 （0） Nagareyama City, Chiba Prefecture 1 （1）Japan Tourism Agency 1 （0） Choshi City, Chiba Prefecture 1 （0）Ministry of the Environment 2 （1） Tochigi City, Tochigi Prefecture 1 （1）Legislative Bureau, House of Representatives 1 （0） Niigata Prefecture 1 （1）

Toyota City, Aichi Prefecture 2 （1）Kasugai City, Aichi Prefecture 1 （0）Nabari City, Mie Prefecture 1 （0）Minamiise-Cho, Mie Prefecture 1 （1）Toyama City, Toyama Prefecture 1 （0）Osaka City, Osaka 3 （0）Matsubara City, Osaka 1 （0）Osakasayama City, Osaka 1 （1）Sakai City, Osaka 1 （0）Ibaraki City, Osaka 1 （1）Neyagawa City, Osaka 1 （0）Akashi City, Hyogo Prefecture 3 （1）Himeji City, Hyogo Prefecture 1 （0）Wakayama Prefecture 1 （0）Wakayama City, Wakayama Prefecture 1 （1）Yamaguchi Prefecture 1 （0）


Fukuoka City, Fukuoka Prefecture 1 （0）Koga City, Fukuoka Prefecture 1 （0）Kitakyushu City, Fukuoka Prefecture 1 （0）Minamisatsuma City, Kagoshima Prefecture 1 （0）

(subtotal) 107 (29) (subtotal) 44 （13）

II. Diet Members and Head of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys

House of Representatives 27House of Councillors 13Heads of Local Governments 8

TOTAL: 151 (42)

[Note] 1. Only the number of attorneys registered with the JFBA as of June 1, 2014 is counted. 2. The number within the brackets refers to the number of female attorneys.

The table below shows the number of diet members and heads of local governments registered as attorneys as ofOctober 1, 2014.

OrganizationNumber ofAttorneys

■ Data 2-3-3 Diet Members and Head of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys as of Oct. 1, 2014 ■


Part 3 Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations Chapter 1 Autonomy of Attorneys

Section 1 Complaints and Dispute ConciliationsI. Complaints against Attorneys

In the event that opposing parties or clients have complaints about attorneys or legal professional corporations, they mayfile their complaints to bar associations. Each bar association has established a “Public Complaint Desk” as a receptionto 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 toDecember of 2013 classified by applicants and contents. They also show the changes in the number of cases received atpublic complaint desks from 2004 to 2013.

581

2162

1143

1831

1005

265

611

37

609

232

1472

0 0

310

44

312

102

637

95 29

509

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Dissatisfaction with Final Result Ways of Handling Delay of HandlingInappropriate Manner or Attitude Fees Handling of Entrusted Money Others

Number of Cases From Clients From Opposing Parties Others

■ Data 3-1-1-1 Details of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks (by Applicant) (2013) ■

i i f i i h

■ Data 3-1-1-2 Details of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks (by Contents) (2013) ■

[Note] 1. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December) .2. The number of attorneys is as of Decmber 31 of each year.

■ Data 3-1-1-3 Changes in the Number of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks ■

Dissatisfaction with Final Result

662 cases (5.5%)

Ways of Handling 3,083 cases (25.7%)

Delay of Handling 1,477 cases (12.3%)

Inappropriate Manner or Attitude

3,940 cases (32.9%)

Fees1,100 cases (9.2%)

Handling of Entrusted Money

294 cases (2.5%)

Others1,430 cases

(11.9%)

Total number of complaints received at Public Complaint Desks : 11,986 cases (2013)

2,203 2,533 2,791 3,224 5,050 6,646 8,112 8,212 8,861 8,6689,427 9,764 10,807 11,129 11,020 11,986

16,767 17,178 18,290 18,897 19,561 20,263 21,174 22,059 23,096

25,118 26,959

28,796 30,429 31,909 33,317 34,743

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Persons)(Cases) 市民窓口受付件数（総数・件）弁護士数（総数・人）

Year

The Number of Attorneys

The Number of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

506 505 512 504 512 619 717 641 633 645

2. Handling of Dispute Conciliation Cases (All Bar Associations)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

494 509 506 480 499 571 693 676 644 607

The Dispute Conciliation System was created for resolving disputes with clients with regard to the duties ofattorneys and the practices of law firms. Under this system, bar associations autonomouslyhear argumentsfrom 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 2004 to 2013.

The graph below shows changes in the number of dispute conciliation cases handled by all bar associationsfrom 2004 to 2013 and also the details of the cases handled.

Total number ofdispute conciliationcases per year

[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 "NotSettled."

II. Dispute Conciliation

1. Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received

Year

Total

[Note] 1. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December). 2. The number of attorneys is as of December 31 each year.

165 160 168 162 164 210 226 227 252 219

228 230 206 207 232223

313 302 265259

90 93 111 93 83124

131 133 11510811 26 21

18 20

14

23 1412

21

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Others

WithdrawalsNot SettledSettled

（Year）

■ Data 3-1-1-5 Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Handled ■

■ Data 3-1-1-4 Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received ■

■ Data 3-1-1-6 Results of Dispute Conciliation Cases ■（Cases）


Section 2 Disciplinary System for Attorneys and its Operation

I. Summary of the Disciplinary System for Attorneys

Before the current Attorney Act (Act No.205 of 1949) was entered into force, the government had been authorized to supervise attorneys. The current Attorney Act has realized the autonomy of attorneys, by which the JFBA, the autonomous organization of attorneys, has been authorized to deal with the registration of attorneys on the roster of attorneys and the JFBA and bar associations have been authorized to 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 may file a lawsuit for revocation of such decision (Act Art. 61). Below is the summary of the disciplinary system under the current Act after the revision in 2003. 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.. 3. 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 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. (Act Art. 58, para. 5 and Art. 60, para. 5.). 4. Filing of an Objection, etc. A Discipline-requesting party may file an objection thereto with the JFBA under the following circumstances (Act Art. 64, para. 1): (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. 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). The chart on the next page shows the present disciplinary system (effective from April 1, 2004). The present disciplinary system’s main features are: (i) the newly established JFBA Board of Discipline Review, (ii) the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee in charge of examining disciplinary enforcement procedures, and (iii) the disciplinary enforcement procedure and the disciplinary actions procedure which are clearly separated.


Request for Disciplinary Action

Anyone may request

Bar Association

Disciplinary Enforcement Committeeof Bar Association

Request Examination

No Examination

Disciplinary Actions Committee of Bar Association

Disciplinary Action

Unjustly Lenient

Appeal for Examination

No Disciplinary

Action Change Dismissal

Rejection Change

Grounds founded for

Objection against

Prolonged

Proceedings beyond

Reasonable Period

Tokyo High Court

Order

JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee

Dismissal

Rejection

Examination

Appropriate

Failed to Proceed within Reasonable Period

Order

JFBA Board of Discipline Review

Dismissal Rejection

No Disciplinary Action

JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee

Dismissal

Rejection

Grounds founded

for Objection

against Prolonged

Proceedings beyond

Reasonable Period

Disciplinary

Action

Dismissal

Rejection

shows the procedural flow of objection filings against the disciplinary procedures which have not been concluded within a reasonable period of time.

Filing of Objection Filing of Objection

JFBA

Lawsuit for Rescission

Application for Discipline Review

■Data 3-1-2-1 The Flow of Disciplinary Procedure for Attorneys

Examination Appropriate

Failed to Proceed within Reasonable

Period


II. Statistics Regarding Disciplinary Actions

The graph below shows the number of newly accepted requests for disciplinary actions by all bar associationsfrom 1997 to 2013. In 2013, 3,347 requests were newly accepted.

1. Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations)

488 715 719

1,030 884 840 1,127 1,268 1,192 1,367

9,585

1,596 1,402 1,849 1,885

3,898

3,347

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Number of Cases)

(Year)

■ Data 3-1-2-2 Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Actions ■

[Note]1. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December).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 8,095requests 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, mainlybecause there were five cases in which more than 100 requests were made per person (coming to a total of 1,899 requests for suchfive cases).5. The number of newly accepted requests in 2013 exceeded more than 3,000 cases following the previous year, mainly becausethere were five cases in which more than 100 requests were made per person (coming to a total of 1,701 requests for such fivecases).

(Year)


Less than 1Year

1 to 2 Years

1997 488 11 19 4 1 3 38 381 9

1998 715 19 16 4 2 2 43 440 4

1999 719 17 20 7 5 3 52 479 11

2000 1,030 17 12 4 7 1 41 690 25

2001 884 34 20 4 4 0 62 778 19

2002 840 28 22 10 3 3 66 674 22Dismissals Terminations

69 232004 1,268 23 19 2 3 2 49 1,023 1 19

2005 1,192 35 18 4 3 2 62 893 18

2006 1,367 31 29 4 2 3 69 1,232 24

2007 9,585 40 23 5 1 1 70 1,929 30

2008 1,596 42 13 2 2 1 60 8,928 37

2009 1,402 40 27 3 5 1 76 1,140 20

2010 1,849 43 24 5 7 1 80 1,164 31

2011 1,885 38 26 9 2 5 80 1,535 21

2012 3,898 54 17 6 2 0 79 2,189 25

2013 3,347 61 26 3 6 2 98 4,432 33

49

40

24

26

38

NewlyAcceptedRequests

Closed Cases

Disbarments Total

23

ExpiredStatute of

Limitations

[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

27 23 2 3 42003 1,127 59

Dismissals andTerminations

822

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 barassociations from 1997 to 2013. In 2013, the number of disciplinary actions taken was 98 cases. The percentage of thetotal number of attorneys involved was 0.28%, as shown on the next page, and this has remained at a similar level forthe past ten years.

Disciplinary Actions

Admonitions

Suspension of Practice Order toWithdrawfrom Bar

Assoc.

YearNo

DisciplinaryActions

■ Data 3-1-2-3 Details of Handling the Requests for Disciplinary Action (All Bar Associations) ■

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, itis 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 barassociations 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 partiallyinappropriate), they are all counted in the corresponding actions.7. "Dismissals and Terminations" has included the category of "Expired Statute of Limitations" since 2003.8. "Dismissals and Terminations" was divided to "Dismissals" and "Terminations" from 2003, and "Dismissals" has been included in "NoDisciplinary Actions" since 2005.

11 19 17 17

34 28 27 23 35 31

40 42 40 43 38 54

61

19 16 20

12

20 22 23

19

18 29 23 13

27 24 26

17

26

4 4

7

4

4 10 2

2

4 4

5

2

3 5 9 6

3

1 2 5

7

4 3 3

3

3 2 1

2

5 7 2 2

6

3 2

3

1

0 3 4

4

1

1

1 1 5 0

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Admonitions Suspension of Practice Less than 1 YearSuspension of Practice 1 to 2 Years Order to Withdraw from Bar AssociationsDisbarments

From the Bottom

2

(Year)

7980

98

38 43

52

41

626659

49

62

■ Data 3-1-2-4 Changes in Numbers of Disciplinary Actions and their Details ■

(Cases)

69 70

60

8076

2

2


3. Percentage of Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations)

(1) Percentages of Cases with Disciplinary Actions out of All Requests for Disciplinary Actions

The graph below shows changes in the percentage of disciplinary actions taken and the percentage ofmembers who have had disciplinary actions imposed upon them in all bar associations from 1997 to 2013.

In 2013, the percentage of cases in which disciplinary actions were taken was 2.9%. The reason for thedrastic changes in the percentage of such cases in which disciplinary actions have been taken is because ofthe increase and decrease in the number of requests for disciplinary actions. (Please refer to page 62regarding the number of requests for disciplinary action. )

[Note]Percentages are calculated based on the number of disciplinary actions taken and the number of requests for disciplinaryactions received by each bar association in each year. This is not a study of whether there were any disciplinary actions takenin each discipline request

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

（Year）

（％）■ Data 3-1-2-5 Percentage of Cases with Disciplinary Actions out of All Requests for Disciplinary Actions ■

7.8%

2.9%

[Note] The basic number of attorneys used to calculate is the number of attorneys at the end of December of each year.

The percentage of members who have had disciplinary actions imposed upon them remains betweenapproximately 0.20% and 0.35% in the last ten years.

(2) Changes in Percentage of Members with Disciplinary Actions

in each discipline request.

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%

0.40%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

0.23%

0.28%

（Year)

（％）

■ Data 3-1-2-6 Changes in Percentage of Members with Disciplinary Actions ■


No DisciplinaryAction

ProlongedDisciplinaryProceedings

beyond aReasonable

Period2011 622 60 6822012 743 35 778

TotalYear

Details of Newly AcceptedFilings of Objections

■ Data 3-1-2-7 Details of Accepted Filings of Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee) ■

III. Operation of the Disciplinary System1. Cases Handled by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA

(1) Bar Associations

In 2013, bar associations accepted 3,347 filings of complaints for discipline.Observing the resolved cases in 2013, the periods from filing of complaints for discipline to resolution by DisciplinaryEnforcement Committees were within 6 months in 49.5% of the cases. Approximately 90% of the cases were within oneyear.In recent years, approximately 10% of the cases on which Disciplinary Enforcement Committees investigated werereferred to Disciplinary Actions Committees for examinations. 177 cases were referred in 2013.

(2) JFBA

In 2013, a total of 1,590 of the objections filed with the JFBA were with regard to investigations conducted by barassociations, and these objections were then referred to the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee for itsexamination.In 2013, the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee resolved 1,492 cases. In 6 of the cases, the committee resolvedthat disciplinary examinations were appropriate and referred the cases to bar associations. 88.3% of the cases reachedresolutions within 6 months.Following are details of accepted filings of objections and resolutions (2011-2013).

2013 1,546 44 1,590

Rejections DismissalsDisqualificationor Termination

by Death

2011 7 494 14 10 22 547 2702012 6 759 39 4 26 834 1962013 6 1,431 26 8 21 1,492 312

[Note] Among the newly accepted filings of objections in 2013, there were two cases in which a large number of objections were made perperson (coming to a total of 865 filings of objections for such two cases)

Order toPromptly

Proceed withDisciplinaryProcedures

Closed Cases

YearUnclosed

CasesTotal

Examination Inappropriate

ExaminationAppropriate

■ Data 3-1-2-8 Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee) ■

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


Rejections Rescissions Modifications Dismissals Withdrawals

Order toPromptly

Proceed withDisciplinaryProcedures

Disqualification or

Terminationby Death

Total

2011 20 3 0 0 0 1 2 26 182012 29 0 0 1 0 3 0 33 162013 23 1 0 3 0 1 0 28 20

Closed Cases

[Note]1. Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures: The JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee found the objection claiming

YearUnclosed

Cases

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 hasbeen approximately 100 a year recently. The number of disciplinary actions has been between 70 and 80 a year. It was98 in 2013.Observing the resolved cases in 2013, approximately 34.8% of the cases reached resolution within six months.Approximately 82% of the cases were resolved within one year. While the number of cases taking over two years toresolve was approximately 30 % in 2012 and 2013, the number of such cases has been very low in recent years.

(2) JFBA

i. ObjectionsAmong the objections filed with the JFBA in 2013, 31 of them concern the cases referred to Disciplinary ActionsCommittees of bar associations for examinations (6 objections against “ no disciplinary action, ” 22 against “ unjustlylenient disciplinary action” and 3 against “prolonged disciplinary proceedings beyond a reasonable period”). These caseswere referred to the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee for examination.In 2013, the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee resolved 28 cases.

■ Data 3-1-2-9 Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee) ■

Rejections

Rescissions ofPrimary

DisciplinaryActions

Modificationsof Primary

DisciplinaryActions

Dismissals,Terminations

etc.Total

2011 20 2 3 3 28 19

2012 25 2 0 2 29 24

2013 30 3 1 1 35 36

Unclosed Cases

. O de o o p y oceed w sc p y ocedu es: e J sc p y c o s Co ee ou d e objec o c gprolonged 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)” 2011: from “no discipline” to “admonition” in three cases, 2013: from “no discipline” to “admonition” in one case3. The “Unclosed Cases” of this table and the table below include cases which were investigated continuously from the previous year.4. Data of this table and the table below are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December).

ii. Appeals

In 2013, 46 appeals were filed with the JFBA. In this year, the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee resolved 35 cases.

Year

Closed Cases

■Data 3-1-2-10 Details of Resolutions on Appeals (JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee) ■


ExaminationsAppropriate

ExaminationsInappropriate(Rejections)

Dismissals WithdrawalsDisqualificationor Termination

by DeathTotal

2011 0 271 2 2 0 275 1182012 3 264 10 0 0 277 1622013 4 281 19 2 0 306 954

UnclosedCases

In 2013, 1,098 cases with applications for discipline review were referred to the JFBA Board of Discipline Review forexamination. In this year, 306 cases reached resolutions. Four of these 306 cases were resolved to be transferred to barassociations for their disciplinary examinations.Following are details of accepting cases with applications for discipline review and resolutions from 2011 to 2013.

[Note]1 “Examinations Appropriate”: The board found that it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the

Closed Cases

Year

[Note]1. “Dismissals”: Because the valid period for filing an appeal has passed, etc. “Terminations etc.”: By withdrawal, disqualification, ordeath.2. Details of “Rescissions of Primary Disciplinary Actions (rescind the disciplinary actions of bar associations)” 2011: from “admonition” to “no discipline” in two cases 2012: from “admonition” to “no discipline” in two cases 2013: from “admonition” to “no discipline” in three cases3. Details of “Modifications of Primary Disciplinary Actions (modify to lighter disciplinary actions)” 2011: from “suspension of practice for six months” to “admonition” in one case, from “suspension of practice for four months” to “twomonths” in one case, and from “suspension of practice for one year” to “eight months” in one case. 2013: from “suspension of practice for one month” to “admonition” in one case,

3. Processing Cases at the JFBA Board of Discipline Review

■ Data 3-1-2-11 Details of Resolutions on Cases with Applications for Discipline Review (JFBA Board of Discipline Review)■

1. Examinations Appropriate : The board found that it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee of theoriginal 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).


IV. 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.


Based on Article 1 of the Attorney Act, “an attorney is entrusted with a mission to protect fundamental humanrights and to realize social justice,” the JFBA has been engaged in activities to support human rights redress forhuman rights violations for more than 60 years since its establishment in 1949, mainly through the JFBA HumanRights Protection Committee cooperating with local bar associations. Such activities to redress human rightsabuses, for which we follow a strict inner procedure until we take redress measures, have garnered praise fromJapanese society for past achievements and have gained the people ’s trust. Our human rights redress does nothave binding power but practically exerts a strong influence on various sectors of society. This chapter explainsthe current status of the JFBA’s activities for human rights redress.

I. Procedures for Human Rights Redress System

The JFBA investigates and researches various issues on human rights. Especially, the JFBA Human RightsProtection Committee investigates facts of human rights infringements in response to request for human rightsredress. Based on the results of the committee's investigation, the committee takes redress measures includingwarnings, 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 rescindtheir rulings, or take measures of censure against relevant administrative agencies, the committee must requestthat the agencies provide an explanation or submit related materials in advance" (Article 9 of the aboveRegulations). Furthermore, in order to take proper and prompt actions for human rights protection, weestablished strict procedures by regulations on the organization of the committee and procedures to handleappeals for human rights relief. The chart on the next page shows the principle procedure flow of the JFBA’shuman rights redress system.

Chapter 2 The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Redress

Section 1 The Operation of the Human Rights Redress System


[Procedures]◇Summary Investigation◇: Determines the necessity of Preliminary Investigation in cases where redresses of humanrights abuses are appealed.

●No Preliminary Investigation: Cases where no action will likely be taken based on the results of summaryinvestigations or the nature of the case.

Appeal

No Transfer Discontinue

Discontinue

Start Preliminary Investigation

Transfer

PreliminaryInvestigation

No Preliminary Investigation

Start Examination

Main

Take No Action Take Action (Legal Measures, Warning, Recommendation,

Requests, etc.)

Summary

■ Data 3-2-1-1 Flow Chart of the JFBA's Human Rights Redress System ■

◇Main Examination◇: Examination of infringement of human rights or the risk of infringement as cases for humanrights redress.

●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 includejudicial 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.

●Start Preliminary Investigation: (1) Cases which supposedly have important influence on society, (2) cases involvingdetails or interested parties that are nationwide or widespread and (3) cases which require investigations into or requeststo government organs.

●Transfer: Cases which are considered appropriate to be referred to bar associations or other institutions forinvestigation 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 ofinfringement 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 ofinfringement 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.


II. The Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category)

The graph and table below are the number of requests of human rights redress to the JFBA from 1997 to 2013,categorized by nature.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of Cases

Year

Others Administrative Organs or Legal SystemRetrial Cases Infringements at Prisons or Detention CentersInfringements by Police

■ Data 3-2-1-2 Changes in the Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category) ■

■ Data 3-2-1-3 Details of the Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category) ■

Fiscal Year

Category1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Infringements byPolice

18 7 13 13 15 24 19 8 17 16 21 22 32 34 30 28 38

Infringements atPrisons or Detention

16 18 28 41 27 68 89 143 267 197 237 269 249 233 220 163 152

Retrial Cases 3 4 6 7 9 12 26 27 26 24 24 22 39 34 48 52 37

Administrative Organsor Legal System

8 20 14 6 14 10 17 20 11 32 6 8 15 19 11 26 28

Others 58 61 61 60 45 73 84 108 86 76 106 85 85 90 82 70 96

Total 103 110 122 127 110 187 235 306 407 345 394 406 420 410 391 339 351

[Note]"Others" includes Infringements by "Medical Facilities," "the Press," "Educational Institutions," "Companies," "Courts," and"Other Civil Servants."

■ Data 3 2 1 3 Details of the Number of Human Rights Redress Cases (by Category) ■(Unit: Case)


Date of the Occurrence of theIncident

Date when theJudgment was

Finalized

Date when the Acquittalwas Rendered

Date when the Support wasDecided or the Committee for

the Case was Set up

Date when theAppeal wasDismissed

Name of the Court

1913(T2). 8.13 1914(T3). 7.31

1961(S36).6.17Committee was set up.

1914(T3). 11.4

1949(S24). 8. 6 1952(S27). 5.31


1953(S28). 2.19

1915(T4). 7.11 1916(T5). 8.4


1916(T5). 11.7

1952(S27).2.25 1952(S27). 12.5


1953(S28). 8.22

*1950(S25). 5.20 1953(S28). 6.13


1953(S28). 9.10Withdrawal of theappeal

1948(S23).12.29 1950(S25). 3.23


1951(S26). 12.25

1950(S25). 2.28 1952(S27). 2.20


1957(S32). 1.22

The following table shows a list of the cases which the JFBA has supported and in which judgments of acquittalhave been finalized.

■ Data 3-2-2-1 Cases Supported by the JFBA where a Judgment of Acquittal has been Finalized ■

Name ofthe Case

Court at whichthe Final and

BindingJudgment was

Rendered

Final and BindingJudgment

Date when the Openingof the Retrial was

Decided

Name of the Court

(In the order of the date on which the acquittal was rendered. As of Sep. 30, 2014)

Yoshida Life imprisonment1961(S36). 4.11

Nagoya High Court1963(S38). 2.28

Nagoya High Court

HirosakiSendai High

Court15-year sentence

1976(S51). 7.13 Proceedings for a retrial

request at the SendaiHigh Court

1977(S52). 2.15Sendai High Court

Nagoya Court ofAppeals

KatoHiroshimaCourt ofAppeals

Life imprisonment1976(S51). 9.18

Hiroshima High Court1977(S52). 7. 7

Hiroshima High Court

YoneyaAomori District

Court10-year sentence

1976(S51).10.30Kokoku appeal

proceedings at the SendaiHigh Court

1978(S53). 7.31Aomori District Court

Saitagawa

TakamatsuDistrict Court,

MarukameBranch

Death penalty

1979(S54). 6. 7Proceedings of the case

were referred back to theTakamatsu District Court

1984(S59). 3.12Takamatsu District

Court

TakiTokyo District

Court

*Lifeimprisonment

5-year sentence,5-year sentence

1980(S55).10.16Kokoku appeal

proceedings at the TokyoHigh Court

1981(S56). 3.27Tokyo District Court

MendaKumamoto

District Court,Yashiro Branch

Death penalty

1979(S54). 9.27Kokoku appeal

proceedings at theFukuoka High Court

1983(S58). 7.15Kumamoto District

Court, Yashiro Branch

Section 2 Current Situations regarding the Retrial Request Cases Supported by the JFBA

I. Current Retrial Request Cases Supported by the JFBA

"Miscarriages of justice" are the worst cases of human rights violation. The JFBA Human Rights ProtectionCommittee makes judgments on whether or not it will treat a case as a violation of human rights, taking thefollowing three points into comprehensive consideration: (1) Whether there is a possibility of a miscarriage of justice in the case.

(2) Whether there is a possibility of being able to obtain new and clear evidence which could support therendering of an acquittal, etc. (3) Whether there is the requisite appropriateness and need for the JFBA to seek redress.If support for a retrial request is determined based on the above three points, a committee on such retrial case is setup in the JFBA Human Rights Protection Committee. The committee for such case will support defense activitiesfor the retrial request by dispatching defense counsel and providing financial support for the necessary expenses,etc.

II. Achievement by the JFBA for its Support on Retrial Request Cases


1955(S30).10.18 1957(S32). 10.29


1960(S35). 11.1

1953(S28).11. 5 1956(S31). 4.18

1959(S34）Committee was set up.

1958(S33). 5.12Appeal to theSupreme Courtwas withdrawn.

1950(S25).10.10 1954(S29). 7. 7


1957(S32). 11.14

1954(S29). 3.10 1958(S33). 5.23


1960(S35). 12.15

*1946(S21). 8.21 1948(S23). 11.9

1990(H2).3.16Support for the case was decided.

1949(S24). 4.28

1990(H2). 5.12 1993(H5). 7.7


2000(H12). 7.17

*1967(S42).8.28 1970(S45). 10.6


1978(S53). 7.3

1997(H9). 3. 8 2000(H12). 12.22


2003(H15). 10.20

TokushimaTokushima

District Court13-year sentence

1980(S55).12.13Tokushima District Court

1985(S60). 7. 9Tokushima District

Court

ShimadaShizuoka

District CourtDeath penalty

1986(S61). 5.29Proceedings of the case

were referred back to theShizuoka District Court

1989(H1). 1.31Shizuoka District Court

Matsuyama

Sendai DistrictCourt,

FurukawaBranch

Death penalty

1979(S54).12. 6Proceedings of the case

were referred back to theSendai District Court

1984(S59). 7.11Sendai District Court

AshikagaUtsunomiya

District CourtLife imprisonment

2009(H21). 6.23Kokoku appeal

proceedings at the TokyoHigh Court

2010(H22). 3.26Utsunomiya District

Court

UmedaKushiro DistrictCourt, Abashiri

BranchLife imprisonment

1982(S57).12.20Kushiro District Court,

Abashiri Branch

1986(S61). 8.27Kushiro District Court

[Note]1. With regard to the Taki Case, the date; "May 20th, 1950 (*1950(S25).5.20)" indicates the date of the incident on which a judgment of notguilty was rendered at the retrial. As regards the finalized sentence of "*life imprisonment" of such Case, part of the finalized sentence (lifeimprisonment) was acquitted at the retrial. (Subsequently, the sentence of life imprisonment was handed down.) 2. In reference to the Enai-mura Case, the date; "August 21st, 1946 (*1946(S21).8.21)" indicates the date on which the incident, i.e. breakingand entering and murder, occurred, for which a judgment of not guilty was rendered at the retrial. The finalized sentence was handed downhaving taken further crimes into account. As for the breaking and entering and the murder, a not-guilty judgment was rendered at the retrial. (Asregards the further crimes, a judgment of guilty with a two-year sentence suspended for three years was handed down.)

3. With reference to the Fukawa Case, the date; "August 28th, 1967 (*1967 (S42).8.28)" indicates the date on which the incident, i.e., burglaryand murder, occurred, for which a judgment of not guilty was rendered at the retrial. The finalized sentence was handed down having takenfurther crimes into account. As for the burglary and murder, a not-guilty judgment was rendered at the retrial. (As regards the further crimes, ajudgment of guilty with a two-year sentence suspended for three years was handed down.)

TokyoMurder Caseof a Female

TEPCOEmployee

Tokyo HighCourt

Life imprisonment2012(H24). 6. 7

Tokyo High Court

Enai-muraTakamatsu High

Court*15-year sentence

1993(H5).11. 1Takamatsu High Court

1994(H6). 3.22Takamatsu High Court

2012(H24). 11. 7Tokyo High Court

Fukawa

Mito DistrictCourt,

TsuchiuraBranch

*Life imprisonment2005(H17). 9.21

Mito District Court,Tsuchiura Branch

2011(H23). 5.24Mito District Court,Tsuchiura Branch


German Federal Bar (BRAK) 2008/6/24

American Bar Association (ABA) 2006/10/24

Paris Bar

2010/6/24

Vietnam Bar Federation

2013/11/25

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 five major categories, namely, 1) international human rights, 2) international exchange, 3) international cooperation, 4) the overseas visiting fellow program and 5) support for recruitment in international organizations.

The Conference of the Presidents of Law

Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA)

International Criminal Bar (ICB)

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

The Conference of the Presidents of Law Associations in Asia (POLA)

All China Lawyers Association (ACLA) 2006/11/30

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE)

Korean Bar Association (KBA) 2004/12/4

Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (BAKC)

2000/4/20

<MOU, etc.>

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)

Japanese

Government

Japan Federation of Bar Associations

Officers

New York University

University of California, Berkeley

University of Illinois

University of Essex,

Human Right Centre at the

University of Essex

National University of Singapore,

Faculty of Law

Various Committees

Office of International Affairs/International Affairs Division

Law Council of Australia 1999/9/2

2009/7/28 (re-signed)

Japan International Cooperation Agency

(JICA)<Accession>

International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC)

<Overseas VisitingFellow Program>

Foreign Embassies in

Japan

<Member/

Council>

Organizations entered into MOUs

International Bar Organizations

Governmental Bodies, etc

<Agreement of Collaboration >

International Bar Organ

Date: Date of Signature

< Three-Bar Meeting>

■ Data 3-3-0 International Activities of the JFBA (Correlation Diagram) ■

International Bar Association (IBA)

International Bar Organizations

Other Major International Bar Organizations

Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) Association Internationale des Jeunes Avocats (International Association of Young Lawyers) (AIJA)

UIA

International Institute of Law Association Chief Executives (IILACE)

International Criminal Court (ICC)


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. 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 provides information in writing relating to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) to the Human Rights Council. The UPR is a 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. For details, please refer to the “International Human Rights Library” section of the JFBA website.

■Data 3-3-1-1 JFBA Report Concerning International Human Rights Documents (Conventions and Covenants) ■

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1979) April 1993 (3rd Periodic Report) / September 1998 (4th Periodic Report) / December 2007 (5th Periodic Report ) / August 2008 (Updated Report on 5th Periodic Report) / January 2010 (Opinion Paper regarding the Japanese Government’s Comments on the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on its 5th Periodic Report) / May 2013 (Report to the Pre-Sessional Working Group of the Committee on Civil and Political Rights for the 6th Periodic Report) / March 2014 (6th Periodic Report) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified in 1979) March 2001 (2nd Periodic Report) / February 2012 (Report to the Pre-Sessional Working Group of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for the 3rd Periodic Report) / January 2013 (3rd Periodic Report)

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (ratified in 1985)

December 1993 (3rd Periodic Report) / November 2001 (4th Periodic Report) / May 2003 (5th Periodic Report) / September 2008 (6th Periodic Report) / May 2009 (Updated Report on 6th Periodic Report) / July 2011 (Report on the Japanese Government’s Follow-up to the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for the 6th Periodic Report) / November 2012 (Report on the Japanese Government’s Additional Report to the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for the 6th Periodic Report)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in 1994)

June 1997 (1st Periodic Report) / May 2003 (2nd Periodic Report) / July 2009 (3rd Periodic Report) / January 2010 (Additional Information to the 3rd Periodic Report)

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (acceded to in1995)

January 2001 (1st and 2nd Periodic Reports) /June 2009 (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th Periodic Reports) / February 2010 (Additional Information to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th Periodic Reports) July 2014 (the 7th, 8th, 9th Periodic Reports) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (acceded to in 1999)

January 2007 (1st Periodic Report) / September 2008 (The JFBA report on Comments by the Japanese government on the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee Against Torture) / May 2013 (2nd Periodic Report)

■Data 3-3-1-2 Activities Related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) ■

February 2007 Prepared a JFBA written statement on the UPR (submitted to the 4th session of the Human Rights Council).

February 2008 Prepared a JFBA report for the Summary of the Human Rights Situation in Japan to be prepared by the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights.

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 16h 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.

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 3-3-2-1 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 Vietnam Bar Federation 2013/11/25

■Data 3-3-2-2 MOUs between Local Bar Associations and Overseas Bar Organizations ■

(As of Sep. 30, 2014) Bar Associations and

Federation of Bar Associations

Overseas Bar Associations to which

MOU is signed

Date of Signature

Bar Associations and Federation of Bar

Associations

Overseas Bar Associations to which

MOU is signed

Date of Signature

Hokkaido Federation of Bar Associations

Bar Chamber of Sakhalin Region (Russia)

2008/11/07

Shizuoka-ken Bar Association

The Zhejiang Provincial Lawyers Association (China)

2012/04/01

Sapporo Bar Association

Uijeongbu Bar Association (Korea)

2008/12/08

Aichi Bar Association

Association of Mongolian Advocates (Mongolia)

2008/09/19

Tokyo Bar Association

Chicago Bar Association (US)

2007/03/26

Osaka Bar Association

Seoul Bar Association (Korea)

1993/10/04

Paris Bar (France) 2010/06/24

International Law Section, the State Bar of California (US)

2012/10/13

Hong Kong Bar Association (China)

2012/02/20

Barcelona Bar Association (Spain)

2014/02/08

The Law Society of Hong Kong (China)

2012/02/20

Nara Bar Association

Australian Capital Territory Law Society (Australia)

1995/06/29

Dai-ichi Tokyo Bar Association

The Law Society of England and Wales (UK)

2003/10/03

Hiroshima Bar Association

Deagu Bar Association (Korea)

1998/05/08

Hawaii State Bar Association (US)

2005/10/20

Okayama Bar Association

Hsin Chu Bar Association (Taiwan)

2014/09/04

Shanghai Bar Association (China)

2006/01/23

Fukuoka Bar Association

Busan Bar Association (Korea)

1990/03/03


International Law Section, the State Bar of California (US)

2007/04/30

Dalian Bar Association (China)

2010/02/27

Section of International Law, American Bar Association (US)

2008/07/09

Saga Bar Associations

Ulsan Bar Association (Korea)

2006/04/21

Chamber of Lawyers Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

2009/07/10 Nagasaki Bar

Association

Tainan Bar Association (Taiwan)

2003/03/25

Daini Tokyo Bar Association

Seoul Bar Association (Korea)

1989/08/11

Daejeon District Bar Association (Korea)

2012/11/24

Queensland Law Society (Australia)

2010/03/23

Oita Bar Association

Jeju Bar Association (Korea)

2010/02/27

Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan)

2010/03/31

Kumamoto Bar Association

Gyeongnam Bar Association (Korea)

2004/03/26

Barreau de Toulouse (France)

2012/06/05

Kagoshima Bar Association

Taichung Bar Association (Taiwan)

2006/03/11

Yokohama Bar Association

Suwon Bar Association (Korea)

2003/12/26

Jeollabukdo District Bar Association (Korea)

2012/02/22

Shanghai Bar Association (China)

2009/04/28

Miyazaki Bar Association

Chungbuk Bar Association (Korea)

2009/06/12

Saitama Bar Association

Incheon Bar Association (Korea)

2005/05/21

Okinawa Bar Association

Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan)

1994/02/25


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. In addition, the JFBA also entered into an agreement of collaboration with the JICA on June 25, 2008. 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 3-3-3-1 JICA Long-Term Experts (Fiscal 2007- 2014.5.31) ■ Term Country Activity

Mar. 2007 – Mar. 2009 Indonesia 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)

Apr. 2007 – Mar. 2009 Vietnam 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)

Sep. 2007 – Sep. 2008 Cambodia 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)

Apr. 2008 – Apr. 2010 China 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)

May 2008 – Jun. 2010 Cambodia Assist the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (to improve the operation of the Lawyers’ Training Center and its training materials)

Mar. 2009 – Mar. 2011 Cambodia 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)

May 2009 – Mar. 2011 Vietnam Assist with judicial reforms related to the interests of lawyers (advice on how to work with counter partners, workshops, etc.)

Mar. 2010 – Mar. 2012 Cambodia Assist in drafting laws associated with the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure

May 2010 – Apr. 2015 Mongolia Mediation System Jul. 2010 – Jul. 2014 Laos The Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure Jul. 2010 – Sep. 2013 Nepal Advisor on legal technical assistance Jan. 2011 – Oct. 2013 China The Civil Procedure Law and laws related to Chinese civil affairs Mar. 2011 – Mar. 2012 Vietnam Enhancing the capacity of lawyers / Assisting in drafting laws Mar. 2011 – Mar. 2013 Cambodia Development of human resources / Assisting in drafting laws and regulations/

Conducting practical operations of civil law Nov. 2012 – Mar. 2014 Vietnam Enhancing the capacity of lawyers / Assisting in drafting laws Mar. 2013 – Mar. 2015 Cambodia The Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure/ Conducting practical

operations of civil law/ Development of human resources Sep. 2013 – Sep. 2015 Nepal Enhancing court capacity (Management of cases / Mediation) Sep. 2013 – Sep. 2015 Nepal Advisor on legal technical assistance Mar. 2014 – Mar. 2015 Vietnam Assisting in drafting laws / Enhancing the capacity of lawyers


■Data 3-3-3-2 JICA Long-Term Experts (Total by Country)■ (As of May 31, 2014)

Vietnam: 9

Laos: 2

Mongolia: 3

Cambodia: 8

Indonesia: 2

Nepal: 3

China: 2


1996-2000

Oct. 2000

2001-2002

2002-2005

2007-2014

The JFBA was entrusted and conducted a JICA partner enterprise project to provide assistance for the BAKC.(Assistance for the Lawyers’ Training Center and provision of continuous legal education and gender trainingprograms for lawyers).

The JFBA was entrusted and conducted a JICA project to provide legal technical assistance to the BAKC, suchas assistance for the Lawyer ’ s Training Center and provision of continuous legal education programs forlawyers. From 2008-2010, the JFBA sent members to Cambodia as JICA long-term experts. In addition, from1999 to date, the JFBA has sent a total of eight JICA long-term experts for JICA's project (which provides legaltechnical assistance). Also, the JFBA has recommended committee members to supporting committees in Japanon the drafting of the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure of Cambodia. Further, the JFBA sentcommissioners to a civil education improvement project for the training of judges and prosecutors in Cambodia.The JFBA also sent its members as instructors for training programs for Cambodian lawyers in Japan, organizedby JICA and the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice.

VietnamCooperating in the “ Japanese Cooperation to Support the Formulation of Key Government Policies on the Legal System”conducted by the JICA, the JFBA members have been participating in a JICA supporting group in Japan and a total of eight

The JFBA applied a project of legal and judicial cooperation for the Bar Association of the Kingdom ofCambodia (BAKC) for a JICA partner enterprise and conducted the project. (Training seminars for lawyers andproposals for a legal aid system)

II. Past and Current JFBA Assistance Projects for Bar Associations in Developing Countries (by Country)

CambodiaThe JFBA’s legal technical assistance in Cambodia has the longest history in its assistance activities. Specific activitiesconducted are as follows:

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

The JFBA conducted a seminar for Cambodian lawyers.

■ Data 3-3-3-3 Past and Current JFBA Assistance Projects for Bar Associations in Developing Countries ■

MongoliaThe JFBA has sent a total of two members to Mongolia as JICA long-term experts; one as a JICA advisor to Mongolia since2004 and the other for a project to strengthen the functions of the Association of Mongolian Advocates (AMA) from 2006 to2008. Specifically, they assisted in enhancing the Conciliation Center of the AMA including training programs in Japan. Inaddition, a number of members have been sent as short-term experts to seminars conducted in Mongolia. A JFBA memberhas been sent to Mongolia as a JICA long-term expert since May 2010, and a total of three JFBA members have worked asJICA long-term experts until now. In addition, entrusted by the JICA, the JFBA has been conducting a training programregarding the mediation system for legal professionals in Mongolia once a year, by way of inviting such professionals toJapan.

JFBA members have been sent to Vietnam as JICA long-term experts in the past ten years. In addition, many JFBA membersparticipated in JICA seminars in Vietnam and training programs in Japan as instructors.Projects in Vietnam are divided into two main categories, one focusing on legislation such as the Civil Code and the otherfocusing on training legal professionals. In May 2009, with the help of the JFBA, the first integrated national bar associationin Vietnam was established. Since 2009, entrusted by the JICA, the JFBA has been inviting members, etc. of the VietnamBar Federation and conducting training programs regarding the organizational operations of the JFBA and the enhancement ofthe capacity of attorneys.

LaosThe JFBA conducted research on judicial issues in Laos in May 2000. Based on the results, the JFBA is providing assistanceas follows:The JFBA cooperated in a JICA legal technical assistance project and enhancement of fostering legal professional project forLaos, and three JFBA members, one as a short-term expert and two as long-term experts, were sent to Laos. Another JFBAmember has also been working in Laos since July 2010 as a long-term expert. In addition, the JFBA sent its members asinstructors in response to a request from the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice for its seminars in Laos.However, the number of lawyers in Laos is still around 100. Since 2012, with a grant from the Toshiba InternationalFoundation, a public interest incorporated foundation, the JFBA has been conducting support activities, such as holdingconferences, conducting training programs for the enhancement of access to justice and fostering legal professionals.


The JFBA has been cooperating in a JICA international legal technical assistance project for Nepal, and in addition to the factthat two members have been sent to Nepal as advisors on legal technical assistance since July 2010, a JFBA member has alsobeen working in Nepal since September 2013 as a JICA long-term expert for the JICA project on enhancing the capacity ofthe court system in Nepal.

Nepal

IndonesiaA JFBA member has been working in Indonesia since 2007 for a JICA project to assist in enhancing settlement and mediationsystems in Indonesia. He is drafting rules concerning settlement and mediation while collaborating with local counterpartsincluding the Supreme Court as well as providing training for mediators. A JFBA member was sent to the JICA IndonesiaOffice as a planning designer from 2003 to 2004.

ChinaThe JFBA has sent a total of two members to China as JICA long-term experts. The JFBA also sent commissioners in aproject aimed at cooperating to bring about improvements to China’s Code of Civil Procedure and arbitration system, whichwas conducted from 2007 to 2010. Further, a number of JFBA members have worked as JICA short-term experts in theproject for formulating business and corporate laws, which was conducted from 2004 to 2009. Currently, the JFBA is sendingone of its members as a commissioner to a study group reviewing China’s Code of Civil Procedure and laws related to thecivil law.


Year Univ. Bar Assoc.Year ofAdm. to

BarStudy Theme

NYU Kyoto 2002Child abuse

UCB Tokyo 2004Roles of attorneys in assisting crime victims

2009

Section 4 Overseas Visiting Fellow Program and Support for Working in International Organizations

The JFBA entered an agreement with New York University School of Law (NYU) (1997) and the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley (UCB) (1999) that they accept JFBA members recommended by the JFBA as their visitingfellows and has been sending its members who are engaged in public interest activities. In addition, a similaragreement was made in 2007 between the JFBA and the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign College ofLaw (UIUC), and also in 2011 between the JFBA and the School of Law at the University of Essex. (Among the fouruniversities stated above, it is possible to study as an LLM student only at the University of Essex.) Further, anagreement was made with the National University of Singapore (NUS) in 2014 to take in attorneys recommended bythe JFBA as students in the LL.M. (Master of International Business Law) program at such institution's laws school.

As of 2014, a total of 44 members were sent overseas through this program.As visiting fellows, they interacted with professors and students of the law schools they attended. In addition, theyprovided information about legal issues and the roles of attorneys in Japan. They also gave presentations on their ownstudy themes. After they returned to Japan, their experiences and knowledge have been contributing to the JFBAthrough their activities in JFBA committees. The table below lists information of the members sent as visiting fellowsfrom 2009 through 2014.

I. JFBA Overseas Visiting Fellow Program

For program details, please refer to the JFBA website(http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/activity/international/studyabroad.html).

II. Past Overseas Visiting Fellows

■ Data 3-3-4 Past Overseas Visiting Fellows through the Overseas Visiting Fellow Program

UIUC Kagoshima 2002Access to justice through legal clinics and non-profit legal organizations

NYU Tokyo 2000Comparative research of in-house counsels in the U.S. and Japan today

UCB Daini Tokyo 2008Treatment and rehabilitation countermeasures for juvenile crime in theUnited States

UIUC Tokyo 2000Environmental laws, global warming prevention systems and lawsuitsrelated to this field

NYU Daini Tokyo 1999

Legal practices to protect consumers from illicit activities on the Internet,particularly focusing on the legal frameworks of:(i) Class action systems in the United States for consumers suffering fromfraudulent online transactions in which the damage in each individual caseis small but the effect nationwide is extensive.(ii) Measures to obtain personal information to identify anonymous onlineoffenders in cases of fraud, defamation and/or invasion of privacy.(including the relationships between “privacy of communications”)

UCB Osaka 2002The rights of sick and injured children in medical institutions

UIUC Daini Tokyo 2009

(1) Development of laws in order to enforce the Hague Convention on theCivil Aspects of International Child Abduction in the U.S.(2) The American system of Law-Related Education (LRE)

NYU Tokyo 2002Possible criminal defense activities for preventing the miscarriage of justiceat each stage of the investigation and the trial

2011

2010


Year Univ. Bar Assoc.Year ofAdm. to

BarStudy Theme

UCB Tokyo 2002The method of carrying out organized crime group eradication in the U.S.Examination of the Witness Protection Program

UIUC Akita 2000Comparative study of bankruptcy law of the United States and Japanfocusing on their functions to rehabilitate individual debtors

Essex(LLM）

Shiga 2005Protection of fundamental human rights in developing countries throughinternational development assistance

Essex(Visitingfellow)

Daini Tokyo 2000

Legal, judicial, and administrative systems established by Europeancountries to ensure the effectiveness of the rights of the child guaranteed bythe United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child and theeffectiveness of such systems

NYU Okinawa 2005Military law, especially procedural law on military trialsLegal regulation on military activities and operation of military bases

UCB Tokyo 2007

To investigate and analyze the U.S. immigration system, specifically inregard to legalization of undocumented migrants in the U.S., and tocomparatively analyze such system with the operation of the specialpermission to stay system in Japan

UIUC Chiba 2008

To study and research parent-child interactions, such as exchange andvisitation during and after divorce proceedings and other themes relevant tothis issue


Tokyo 2006

Protection of foreign nationals’ human rights in criminal trials andimmigration procedures.

NYU Tokyo 2005How victims of defective products can ascertain the causes of accidents andpursue the liability of manufacturers

To study the state of biodiversity conservation in the United States. Focus

2012

2013

UCB Tokyo 1978

y ywill be put on researching the effectiveness and legal framework ofbiodiversity offset, while considering possible application in Japan.

UCB Daini Tokyo 2005Research on the Employment and Labor Law System for Gender Equality inthe United States

UIUC Tokyo 1999International protection of consumer rights

Essex(LLM)

Tokyo 2008The Right to Fair Trial for Prisoners under International Human RightsLaw: Study on Legal Aid at Penal Institutions


Tokyo 2008

Analyzing legal social work in the UK and making proposals for theestablishment of an Office of the Public Guardian and reforming the AdultGuardianship system in Japan

2014


Section 5 Support Working in International Organizations

I. Support for JFBA Members Interested in Working in International Organizations

The JFBA set up the “ International Legal Technical Assistance Roster System ” in 1999 in order to provide andpromote sufficient and sustainable international legal technical assistance. The JFBA appropriately providesinformation regarding international legal technical assistance, as well as recruitment information collected by theJFBA, to lawyers who have registered in the System. Through the System, the JFBA is encouraging attorneys whowould like to participate in the provision of such assistance to interact with each other and share information.

The table below lists the number of attorneys who registered under the International Legal Technical AssistanceRoster System in each year.

■ Data 3-3-5 Changes in the Number of Attorneys on the International Legal Technical Assistance Roster ■

5370

8391

101110

123136

147163

177196

233

257

282

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

（Person）

(Year)

II. Other Support

In order to provide information for JFBA members and law school students who are interested in working ininternational organizations, the JFBA organizes events such as seminars concerning international organizations andoperates the “International Organizations Career Support” page on its website.

Furthermore, in order to produce legal professionals who work in international organizations, the JFBA requested fourinternational organizations (the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Representation in Japan, the InternationalOrganization for Migration Japan, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Economic Affairs Bureau ofthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to accept judicial apprentices during their practical training programs at the LegalTraining and Research Institute of the Supreme Court. In response to our request, these organizations have started toaccept judicial apprentices since 2009. Since 2010, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Office in Japan hasalso started to accept them. Further, an internship scheme at the ILO office and the International Committee of theRed Cross (ICRC) office was introduced in 2010, 2012, respectively, targeting the JFBA members.

In addition, for those who are interested in working in international organizations, in 2008, the JFBA launched the“Attorney Roster System for Working in International Organizations,” in collaboration with the Ministry of ForeignAffairs. In such System, in registering his/her career details, etc. in the Recruitment Center for InternationalOrganizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, such registered attorneys who wish to work in internationalorganizations will receive information from the JFBA regarding posts in international organizations introduced to theMinistry of Foreign Affairs.


Part 4 Comprehensive Legal Support and Judiciary-Related Budget Chapter 1 Japan Legal Support Center (Ho-terasu)

Section 1 Outline of the Japan Legal Support Center (Ho-terasu)

I. Ho-terasu

The “Japan Legal Support Center” (known as “Ho-terasu” in Japanese), a corporate body, was established in April 10, 2006 as an incorporated administrative agency, in accordance with the Comprehensive Legal Support Act, with the aim of expanding legal services for the public all over Japan; namely, improving the ease of use of the system for resolving disputes at court and by other means, and having legal services provided by attorneys, regardless of whether the cases are civil or criminal in nature.

Ho-terasu launched its services on October 2, 2006. Its headquarters is located in Tokyo, and local offices are located in the prefectural capitals of each prefecture (in the case of Hokkaido, local offices are also located in Hakodate, Kushiro and Asahikawa, in addition to Sapporo, the prefectural capital). Further, regional offices have also been set up in districts where there are shortages of attorneys, in order to provide various services to the public (In total, there were 110 Ho-terasu offices as of September 1, 2014)

II. Scope of Operations of Ho-terasu

The following operations are conducted at Ho-terasu

■ Data 4-1-1 Contents of Ho-terasu Operations ■

[1] Providing information

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

[2] Civil legal aid Offering support to citizens with limited financial resources by means of loans for attorneys’ fees and judicial scriveners’ fees, and through the provision of free legal counseling.

[3] Operations associated with the public criminal defense system

(a) In the case of criminal trials (the accused, and suspects for a certain scope of criminal cases), informing the name of an attorney who is qualified to be a court-appointed defense attorney, and ensuring the provision of such court-appointed defense attorney upon request by the courts in each area, for citizens who are unable to hire a defense counsel due to their limited financial resources. b) Informing the name of an attorney who is qualified to be a publicly-funded attorney attendant and ensuring the provision of such publicly-funded attorney attendant upon request by the family courts in each area for juveniles who are in custody and who have been accused of committing certain serious cases, as well as when the court finds it appropriate. (c) Upon request by victims of crime who are planning to participate in a court trial, informing the name of an attorney who is qualified to be a court-appointed attorney in such court and ensuring the provision of such attorney.

[4] Operations to address shortage of accessibility to justice in local regions

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

[5] Assistance to victims of crime

Providing information in relation to the system for helping victims of crime to recover and to reduce the damage and suffering thereof, as well as introducing attorneys or support institutions familiar with support for victims of crime to citizens who have become victims of crime, as well as their family members.


[6] Conducting entrusted operations consigned by other organizations

Defending criminal suspects whose crimes are outside of the scope of cases covered by the court-appointed attorney system for suspects and assisting publicly-funded attorney attendants for juveniles. Providing assistance in human rights related matters targeting people not covered by the civil legal aid system, and further, conducting entrusted operations consigned by the JFBA and the Support Foundation for Japanese Orphans in China (a public interest incorporated foundation).

[7] Providing assistance in relation to disaster-related laws

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

III. Entrusted Support Operations

Ho-terasu conducts operations entrusted by the national government, local governments and NPOs, etc. within a scope which does not affect Ho-terasu’s original business operations (Article 30-2, Comprehensive Legal Support Act).

1. Support Operations Entrusted by the JFBA Since October 1, 2007, Ho-terasu has been conducting operations entrusted by the JFBA. These operations, conducted by the Japan Legal Aid Association, a judicial foundation, as a voluntary business (i.e. a business operated with no subsidies from the state), provide assistance for covering attorneys’ fees, etc. from the viewpoint of providing human rights redress targeting those not covered by the civil legal aid system, Ho-terasu, or the court-appointed attorney system prescribed in the Comprehensive Legal Support Act.

Among the support operations entrusted by the JFBA, other than the provision of aid for the defense of criminal suspects and for publicly-funded attorney attendants in juvenile cases, the financial resources of the assistance business mainly consist of (i) donations from those involved in criminal proceedings in order to show a sense of redemption, and (ii) membership dues from JFBA member attorneys.


◇White Paper on Attorneys◇

◆◇ 2014 ◇◆