White Paper on Attorneys◇

◇White Paper on Attorneys◇

2012

by Japan Federation of Bar Associations

Contents

Feature 1 JFBA’s Assistance for Disaster Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake 1 I. JFBA’s Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident 1 II. Statistical Results of Free Legal Consultations in Regard to the Great East Japan Earthquake 2 1. Contents of Legal Consultations in the Five Affected Prefectures 2 ◆How to Read Graphs◆ 3 (i) Relation between the Number of Legal Consultations and Their Contents 3 (ii) How to Read the Data 4 2. Changes in the Number of Legal Consultations on the Nuclear Power Plant Accident and Their Issues 8 III. Assistance for Disaster Victims 11 1. Disaster related ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) 11 2. PR Activities 11 IV. JFBA’s Response to Double Loan Payment Issues 12 1. Double Loan Payment Issues of Individuals 12 2. Double Loan Payment Issues of Business Operators 16 V. Response to the Nuclear Power Plant Accident 18 1. Efforts for Compensation for Damage from the Nuclear Power Plant Accident 18 (1) Response to the Establishment of Compensation Standards by the Dispute Reconciliation Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation 18 (2) Establishment of the Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution Center and the JFBA’s Cooperation in the Operation of the Center 18 2. Efforts toward Providing Assistance for Victims 20 3. Response to Other Issues Caused by the Nuclear Power Plant Accident 20

Feature 2 Judicial System Reform from a Statistical Point of View 21 Chapter 1 Judicial System Reform from a Statistical Point of View – Outline – 21 I. Introduction 21 II. Outline of the Judicial System Reforms 21 1. The Gaining Momentum of the Judicial Reforms 21 2. The Justice System Reform Council 21 3. Social Agreement on the Reforms and Responsibilities of Related Institutions 22 III. Systems Established in line with the Judicial System Reforms 22 1. Enhancement of Access to Justice 22 2. Enhancement and Acceleration of the Processes of Civil Lawsuits 22 3. Reform of Criminal Justice System 23

4. Instituting the Foundations of Public Participation 23 5. Ideal Model for the Legal Profession Supporting the Judicial System 23 IV. Future of the Judicial System Reforms 23

Chapter 2 Statistical Data in Relation to Judicial System Reforms 24 I. Enhancement of Access to Justice 24 1. Realization of Comprehensive Legal Support 24 2. Solutions for Regional Shortages and Uneven Distribution of Attorneys 28 II. Enhancement and Speeding up of Civil Lawsuits – The Number of Cases and Average Deliberation Time 31 III. Ideal Model for the Legal Profession Supporting the Judicial System 33 1. The Number of Legal Professionals and the Nurturing of Legal Professionals 33 2. Reform of the Judge System 41

Part 1 Current Situation of Attorneys and Other Legal Professions 45 Chapter 1 Population of Attorneys 45 I. Changes in the Number of Attorneys －1950 to 2012－ 45 II. Constitution According to Age 46 III. Comparison of the Total Number of Lawyers, Judges, and Public Prosecutors with those of Foreign Countries 47 1. The Number of People per Lawyer (Cross-country Comparison) 47 2. The Number of People per Judge (Cross-country Comparison) 48 3. The Number of People per Public Prosecutor (Cross-country Comparison) 49 4. The Number of People per Legal Professional (Cross-country Comparison) 50 Chapter 2 Populations of Other Legal Professions 53 I. Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions 53 Chapter 3 Mergers of Law Offices and the Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations 54 I. The Number of Attorneys in Law Offices 54 II. Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations 55 1. The Number of LPCs 55 2. Size of Legal Professional Corporations 56 Chapter 4 Current Situation of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi ("Registered Foreign Lawyers") 57 I. Changes in the Number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (1988-2012) 57 II. Registration of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers) 58 III. Foreign Law Joint Enterprises 59 IV. The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional Corporations 61 1. By Nationality 61 2. By Home Jurisdiction 62

V. World Law Firms and Their Entry into the Japanese Market 63

Part 2 Activities of Attorneys 64 Chapter 1 Criminal Advocacy Activities 64 Section 1 Duty Attorney System and Court-Appointed Attorney Systems 64 I. Outline of Duty Attorney System and Court-Appointed Attorney Systems 64 II. Current Situations of Duty Attorneys (Toban Bengoshi) 65 III. Changes in the Number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases, Appointed Cass and Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases 66 Section 2 The Status of Defense Attorneys Involvement in the Overall Criminal Cases 67 I. Court-Appointed Attorney System, Court-Appointed Attorney Contracts, and the Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys 67 II. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at District Courts 68 III. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at Summary Courts 68 IV. Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at High Courts 69 Section 3 Defense Activities in Juvenile Cases 70 I. The Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the Proportion of Presence of Attendants 70 II. Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) with Appointed Attendants (by type) 71 Section 4 The Lay Judge System 72 I. Cases Determined by Lay Judges 72 II. Actual Practice of Lay Judge Trials 74 1. The Number of Persons Whose Trials Have Been Tried by Judges Including Lay Judges and Have Been Finalized 74 2. The Number of Persons Whose Trials Have Been Finalized per the Actual Period Taken for Court Deliberations 75 Chapter 2 Representation in Civil and Other Lawsuits 77 Section 1 Civil Lawsuits 77 I. Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before District Courts 77 II. Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instances (before High Courts) 78 III. Percentage of Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before Summary Courts 79 Chapter 3 Expansion of Attorneys’ Activities 80 I. Current Situation of In-house Attorneys 80 1. Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys 80

2. Public Officers with Fixed Terms 81 3. Diet Member and Head of Local Governments Registered as Attorneys 81

Part 3 Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations 82 Chapter 1 Autonomy of Attorneys 82 Section 1 Complaints and Dispute Conciliations 82 I. Complaints against Attorneys 82 II. Dispute Conciliation 83 1. Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received 83 2. Handling of Dispute Conciliation Cases (All Bar Associations) – 2002 to 2011 – 83 Section 2 Disciplinary System for Attorneys 84 I. Summary of the Disciplinary System for Attorneys 84 1. Request for Discipline 84 2. Investigation by Disciplinary Enforcement Committee 84 3. Examination by Disciplinary Actions Committee 84 4. Filing of an Objection, etc. 85 5. Public Notice by the Official Gazette, etc. 85 II. Operation of the Disciplinary System 86 1. Cases Handled by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA 86 (1) Bar Associations 86 (2) JFBA 86 2. Processing Cases at Disciplinary Actions Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA 87 (1) Bar Associations 87 (2) JFBA 87 i. Objections 87 ii. Appeals 87 3. Processing Cases at the JFBA Board of Discipline Review 88 Section 3 Disciplinary Actions and Disciplinary Procedure 89 I. Statistics Regarding Disciplinary Actions 89 1. Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) –1995 to 2011- 89 2. Number of Requests for Disciplinary Action and Details of Handling the Requests (All Bar Associations) 90 3. Percentage of Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) 91 (1) Percentage of Cases with Disciplinary Actions out of All Requests for Disciplinary Actions 91 (2) Changes in Percentage of Members with Disciplinary Actions 91 II. The Flow and Current Situation of Disciplinary Procedure 92 1. The Disciplinary System 92

Chapter 2 The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Relief 94 I. Appeal System Procedures for Human Rights Relief 94 II. The Number of Human Rights Relief Cases (by Category) 96 Chapter 3 International Activities of the JFBA 97 Section 1 International Human Rights Activities 98 I. Activities at the United Nations (UN) 98 II. Activities Related to the UN and UN Human Rights Bodies 98 Section 2 International Exchange Activities 99 I. Membership of International Organizations 99 II. MOUs with Overseas Bar Organizations 99 Section 3 International Cooperation 100 I. JICA Long-Term Experts 100 II. Past and Current JFBA Assistance Projects for Bar Associations in Developing Countries (by Country) 102 Section 4 Overseas Visiting Fellow Program and Support for Working in International Organizations 104 I. JFBA Overseas Visiting Fellow Program 104 II. Support for JFBA Members Interested in Working in International Organizations 106 II. Other Support 106

Feature 1 JFBA’s Assistance for Disaster Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake I. JFBA’s Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident

More than one year and seven months have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake struck Japan and the subsequent accident occurred at the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant. However, there are still 320,000 evacuees according to an announcement of the Reconstruction Agency on October 10, 2012, and recovery and reconstruction from the disaster have not progressed as much as expected. In addition, we are concerned that people are gradually losing interest in this unprecedented disaster.

The JFBA set up an Emergency Headquarters immediately after the earthquake and the nuclear power plant accident, and has been providing, in cooperation with bar associations, regional federations of bar associations and the Japan Legal Support Center, free legal-counseling services for the disaster victims through telephone as well as visiting evacuation centers, local governments, and other places in the affected areas. The JFBA has also been exerting its efforts to support the disaster victims by making recommendations on various legislation, modifications to existing laws, and necessary policies in order to resolve various post-disaster problems.

As a principle, the JFBA believes that the disaster victims are the core of recovery and reconstruction of the affected areas and such recovery and reconstruction plans should be carried out aiming at “reconstruction of people,” that is, recovery of their fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Japan. According to this principle, the JFBA has been working to relieve people affected by the earthquake and the nuclear power plant accident and recover and reconstruct the affected areas by doing the following: providing legal support for the disaster victims such as free legal consultations at evacuation centers, etc., and making recommendations for solving double loan issues; making recommendations for the realization of appropriate compensation to those affected by the nuclear power plant accident, and calling for legislation to support the nuclear victims under the responsibility of the state in reconstructing their lives for which compensation is not enough; and providing support for reconstruction of towns and communities in the affected areas.

As an unprecedented achievement, these JFBA’s activities have successfully pushed the government and lawmakers in the short time to enact concrete laws and improve the operation of existing laws. However, it is also true that the current status of victim relief and the progress of recovery and reconstruction are still far from complete.

1 Without allowing our memories of this tragedy to fade away, the JFBA is expected to bring together the wisdom of all attorneys and continuously make its utmost efforts to relieve victims of the earthquake and the nuclear power plant accident and recover and reconstruct the affected areas by deeply understanding the real situation of these victims and affected areas.

II. Statistical Results of Free Legal Consultations in Regard to the Great East Japan Earthquake 1. Contents of Legal Consultations in the Five Affected Prefectures The graphs on p.5-7 (from Data 1-2-3 to Data 1-2-7) show analytical results of free legal consultations provided in the five affected prefectures (Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki and Chiba prefectures according to the addresses of disaster victims at the time of the earthquake) through telephone or face-to-face meetings during the period from mid-March 2011 to late May 2012, limited to the cases on which the JFBA could collect information. (For more detailed analytical results by municipality (city, town, and village), age, month, etc., please refer to the “Analytical Results of Great East Japan Earthquake Free Legal Consultations (5th Analysis),” (http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/activity/human/shinsai/proposal.html#bunseki).)

In these analytical results, legal consultations are categorized into 24 categories including the “Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc.” which was added to categories used at the time of the data collection. Please note that each case is categorized into three categories at the maximum depending on its issues and the total percentage of all categories is not 100%. (Please refer to the below “How to Read Graphs”.)

In Iwate Prefecture, large proportions can be seen in the categories of “Will/Inheritance” in relation to missing persons and inheritance and “Disaster Laws and Regulations” which includes cases seeking information on administrative benefits and other support systems. It is considered that severe damage of its coastal area by the tsunami was reflected in the analytical results. (pp. 5 Data 1-2-3).

In Miyagi Prefecture, the category of “Real Property Lease (Leased House)” constitutes the greatest proportion of all consultations provided in the prefecture. The reason behind this would be severe damage of its coastal area by the tsunami as well as disputes arising from damage caused by the earthquake in its urban area. However, it is necessary to separately verify tendencies of issues subject to consultation in the coastal area and in the inland area. (pp. 5 Data 1-2-4)

In Fukushima Prefecture, legal consultations in relation to the “Nuclear Power Plant Incident, etc.” make up an overwhelming proportion of the issues subject to consultation. One of the reasons behind this would be that many disputes in relation to contracts are also related to the nuclear power plant accident. (pp. 6 Data 1-2-5)

In Ibaraki Prefecture, telephone legal consultations provided by the Ibaraki Bar Association accounted for the vast majority of the data. A large number of cases are in relation to the “Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and Disputes between Neighbors” (e.g. liability for damage to neighboring houses caused by roof tiles falling due to the earthquake). It is considered that damage in its urban area by the earthquake was reflected in the analytical results. (pp. 6 Data 1-2-6)

In Chiba Prefecture, issues in relation to the “Real Property Ownership” make up the largest proportion of all consultations. A possible reason for this is the damage caused by the ground liquefaction. In addition, it should be noted that the “Disaster Laws and Regulations” and the “Will/Inheritance” also constitute large proportions due to the damage of its coastal area by the tsunami. (pp. 7 Data 1-2-7)

As mentioned above, characteristics of issues subject to legal consultations vary greatly depending on the areas involved. An evaluation of these analytical results supports the necessity to implement measures in response to the specific situation each area has been facing.

◆How to Read Graphs◆ (i) Relation between the Number of Legal Consultations and Their Contents One legal counseling case can be categorized into a maximum of three categories depending on its issues. In other words, if different issues are contained in one case, it is categorized into two or three categories in the same manner as a multiple-response basis questionnaire method. This method is adopted since an actual legal consultation is not always composed of one issue. Please note that due to the above mentioned method, the total percentage of all categories is not 100%. Legal consultations of which issues were not reported or unknown are basically excluded from the data used for this analysis.

3 (ii) How to Read the Data The table of Data 1-2-1 clarifies differences of issues subject to consultation depending on the five affected prefectures. More specifically, 24 cross-tabulations such as Data 1-2-2 were integrated into the table of Data 1-2-1. Therefore, the total percentage of the column of Iwate is not 100%. The total percentage of the row of “ Real Property Ownership (incl. Loss of Ownership)” is not 100% either. We adopted this aggregate analysis method since each counseling case, as mentioned above, can be categorized into a maximum of three categories.

The graphs of Data 1-2-3 to Data 1-2-7 (pp. 5-7) present Data 1-2-1 by prefecture in graphical form.

■Data 1-2-1 Counseling Issues by Prefecture (Five Affected Prefectures ■ （Unit: %） Iwate Miyagi Fukushima Ibaraki Chiba Number of Legal Consultations (N) 4,925 17,736 12,294 1,277 515 1 Real Property Ownership～ (incl. Loss of Ownership) 5.0 5.5 2.0 6.6 23.3 Omitted Categories 2-23 24 Non-Disaster Issues 6.1 6.9 4.5 2.6 3.7

■Data 1-2-2 Proportion by Category by Prefecture (Five Affected Prefectures) ■ [1 Real Property Ownership (incl. Loss of Ownership)] （Unit:%） Number of Legal Iwate Miyagi Fukushima Ibaraki Chiba Consultations (N) 4, 925 17, 736 12, 294 1, 277 515 Applicable 5.0 5.5 2.0 6.6 23.3 Not Applicable 95.0 94.5 98.0 93.4 76.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ～ Categories 2-23 were omitted. The figures in bold were used for the figures in Data [24 Non-Disaster Issues] （Unit:%） 1-2-1 Number of Legal Iwate Miyagi Fukushima Ibaraki Chiba Consultations (N) 4,925 17,736 12,294 1,277 515 Applicable 6.1 6.9 4.5 2.6 3.7 Not Applicable 93.9 93.1 95.5 97.4 96.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

4 ■Data 1-2-3 Issues of Free Legal Consultations (Iwate-wide)■ （％）

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

1 Ownership of Real Property (incl. Loss of Ownership) 5.0 2 Ownership of Vehicles, Ships, etc. (incl. Loss of Ownership) 1.7 3 Current Assets (e.g. Deposits, Shares, etc.) 0.8 4 Real Property Lease (Leased Land) 2.4 5 Real Property Lease (Leased Houses) 5.0 6 Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and… 1.9 7 Land boundaries 0.3 8 Debt Collection (Loans, Accounts Receivable, Contracts for … 1.2 9 Loan or Lease of Houses, Vehicles, Ships, etc. 11.3 10 Payment of Other Loans 5.3 11 Insurance 6.3 12 Disaster Laws and Regulations 24.5 13 Taxes 2.1 14 New Loans 0.6 15 Divorce/Relatives 5.0 16 Wills/Inheritance 25.6 17 Consumer Damage 0.3 18 Labor Issues 3.2 19 Foreign Nationals 0.0 20 Risk-Bearing, Commercial or Corporate Issues 3.0 21 Criminal Issues 0.1 22 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc. 0.1 23 Others 7.2 24 Non-Disaster Issues 6.1

[Note] 1. The data is based on the number of free legal consultations provided in affected areas (from mid Marh to late-May, 2012) 2. The common denominator used to calculate the percentage of each category was 4,925.

■ Data 1-2-4 Issues of Free Legal Consultations (Miyagi-wide) ■ （％） 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

1 Ownership of Real Property (incl. Loss of Ownership) 5.5 2 Ownership of Vehicles, Ships, etc. (incl. Loss of Ownership) 2.0 3 Current Assets (e.g. Deposits, Shares, etc.) 0.6 4 Real Property Lease (Leased Land) 0.9 5 Real Property Lease (Leased Houses) 20.8 6 Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and Disputes … 9.1 7 Land boundaries 0.5 8 Debt Collection (Loans, Accounts Receivable, Contracts for … 0.8 9 Loan or Lease of Houses, Vehicles, Ships, etc. 8.0 10 Payment of Other Loans 4.1 11 Insurance 5.1 12 Disaster Laws and Regulations 15.8 13 Taxes 1.6 14 New Loans 1.1 15 Divorce/Relatives 3.5 16 Wills/Inheritance 12.5 17 Consumer Damage 0.9 18 Labor Issues 4.2 19 Foreign Nationals 0.1 20 Risk-Bearing, Commercial or Corporate Issues 2.6 21 Criminal Issues 0.2 22 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc. 0.6 23 Others 7.6 24 Non-Disaster Issues 6.9 [Note] 1. The data is based on the number of free legal consultations provided in affected areas (from mid Marh to late-May, 2012) 2. The common denominator used to calculate the percentage of each category was 17,736.

5 ■Data 1-2-5 Issues of Free Legal Consultations (Fukushima-wide) ■ （％） 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

1 Ownership of Real Property (incl. Loss of Ownership) 2.0 2 Ownership of Vehicles, Ships, etc. (incl. Loss of Ownership) 0.6 3 Current Assets (e.g. Deposits, Shares, etc.) 0.1 4 Real Property Lease (Leased Land) 1.9 5 Real Property Lease (Leased Houses) 7.5 6 Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and Disputes … 6.3 7 Land boundaries 0.2 8 Debt Collection (Loans, Accounts Receivable, Contracts for … 0.5 9 Loan or Lease of Houses, Vehicles, Ships, etc. 7.0 10 Payment of Other Loans 2.7 11 Insurance 1.7 12 Disaster Laws and Regulations 8.4 13 Taxes 1.2 14 New Loans 0.3 15 Divorce/Relatives 2.9 16 Wills/Inheritance 4.0 17 Consumer Damage 0.4 18 Labor Issues 4.3 19 Foreign Nationals 0.1 20 Risk-Bearing, Commercial or Corporate Issues 1.7 21 Criminal Issues 0.3 22 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc. 55.1 23 Others 7.8 24 Non-Disaster Issues 4.5

■Data 1-2-6 Issues of Free Legal Consultations (Ibaraki-wide) ■ （％） 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

1 Ownership of Real Property (incl. Loss of Ownership) 6.6 2 Ownership of Vehicles, Ships, etc. (incl. Loss of Ownership) 0.9 3 Current Assets (e.g. Deposits, Shares, etc.) 0.2 4 Real Property Lease (Leased Land) 3.4 5 Real Property Lease (Leased Houses) 11.5 6 Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and… 43.5 7 Land boundaries 1.3 8 Debt Collection (Loans, Accounts Receivable, Contracts for … 0.2 9 Loan or Lease of Houses, Vehicles, Ships, etc. 1.6 10 Payment of Other Loans 1.9 11 Insurance 2.7 12 Disaster Laws and Regulations 6.7 13 Taxes 1.1 14 New Loans 0.9 15 Divorce/Relatives 0.4 16 Wills/Inheritance 2.0 17 Consumer Damage 4.0 18 Labor Issues 1.9 19 Foreign Nationals 0.1 20 Risk-Bearing, Commercial or Corporate Issues 2.2 21 Criminal Issues 0.5 22 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc. 3.8 23 Others 7.9 24 Non-Disaster Issues 2.6

6 ■ Data 1-2-7 Issues of Free Legal Consultations (Chiba-wide) ■ （％） 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

1 Ownership of Real Property (incl. Loss of Ownership) 23.3 2 Ownership of Vehicles, Ships, etc. (incl. Loss of Ownership) 0.4 3 Current Assets (e.g. Deposits, Shares, etc.) 0.2 4 Real Property Lease (Leased Land) 3.5 5 Real Property Lease (Leased Houses) 12.8 6 Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and Disputes … 13.4 7 Land boundaries 7.8 8 Debt Collection (Loans, Accounts Receivable, Contracts for … 0.2 9 Loan or Lease of Houses, Vehicles, Ships, etc. 5.0 10 Payment of Other Loans 1.2 11 Insurance 9.3 12 Disaster Laws and Regulations 15.7 13 Taxes 3.1 14 New Loans 0.6 15 Divorce/Relatives 0.6 16 Wills/Inheritance 7.8 17 Consumer Damage 1.6 18 Labor Issues 1.4 19 Foreign Nationals 0.0 20 Risk-Bearing, Commercial or Corporate Issues 4.7 21 Criminal Issues 0.2 22 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc. 6.8 23 Others 9.1 24 Non-Disaster Issues 3.7

7 2. Changes in the Number of Legal Consultations on the Nuclear Power Plant Accident and Their Issues The data shown below present changes in the proportion of free legal consultations provided in Fukushima Prefecture in relation to the nuclear power plant accident by evacuation zone category, limited to the cases reported to the JFBA. More specifically, cities, towns and villages located in the no-entry zone (Minamisouma-shi, Tamura- shi, Naraha-machi, Kawauchi-mura, Namie-machi, Katsurao-mura, Tomioka-machi, Ookuma-machi and Futaba- machi), the planned evacuation zone (Minamisouma-shi, Namie-machi, Katsurao-mura, Kawamata-machi and Iitate-mura) or the emergency evacuation preparation zone (Minamisouma-shi, Tamura-shi, Naraha-machi, Kawauchi-mura and Hirono-machi) were categorized into the “A. Cities, Towns and Villages within One or More Zones ” and other cities, towns and villages in Fukushima Prefecture were included in “ B. Cities, Towns and Villages out of Any Zones.” Please note that on September 30, 2011, the designation of the emergency evacuation preparation zone was cancelled, and among cities, etc. located in the no-entry zone, Kawauchi-mura, Tamura-shi and Minamisouma-shi were excluded from the no-entry zone on March 30, 2012. (However, they were included in the “A. Cities, Towns and Villages within One or More Zones”.) In the “A. Cities, Towns and Villages within One or More Zones”, the proportion of legal consultations in relation to the nuclear power plant accident temporarily decreased in May 2011, but steadily increased in all zones through 2011. Especially, the proportion of such issues noticeably increased in the “B. Cities, Towns and Villages out of Any Zones”.

■ Data 1-2-8 Changes in Percentage of Legal Consultations in Relation to “22. Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc.” by Evacuation Zone Category (Fukushima-wide) ■ （％）

100.0 85.8 90.0 77.8 79.1 83.378.7 80.0 75.5 75.2 75.0 69.4 70.2 78.6 76.2 72.2 70.0 65.6 70.4 60.2 72.7 73.1 58.0 70.0 69.4 69.8 63.6 60.0 54.3 65.3 64.9 55.9 58.5 50.0 58.1 57.7 51.0 53.9 53.4 48.7 40.0 36.3 42.6 A Cities, Towns and Villages within One or More 30.0 36.0 33.7 33.6 Zones C Fukushima-wide 20.0 14.8 22.4 10.0 15.3 B Cities, Towns and Villages outside of any Zones 10.6 8.2 0.0 3.9 Mar., Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan., Feb. Mar. Apr. May 2011 2012 （Month of Consultation）

8 ■Data 1-2-9 Number of Legal Consultations (Fukushima) by Month (values used as common denominators for the percentages in the above line graphs)■ （Unit：Case）

Mar., Jan., Month of Consultation Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 2011 2012

A Cities, Towns and Villages within One or 102 835 864 633 585 454 546 643 465 317 305 310 210 192 161 More Zones B Cities, Towns and Villages outside of 207 843 639 373 286 259 273 204 161 173 160 183 285 171 130 any Zones

C Fukushima-wide 331 1,794 1,642 1,097 931 814 984 1,007 735 575 535 565 558 409 316

[Note] 1. The percentages of the legal consultations shown in Data 1-2-8 were calculated as follows: the number of legal consultations applicable to “22 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc.,” which was one of the items used in Data 1-2-3 to Data 1- 2-7 in the number of legal consultations (in each of the five affected prefectures) by month, were divided by the total number of legal consultations per month (Data 1-2-9.)

2. As there were some responses which did not stipulate answers about the names of cities, towns or villages, the total of “A (Cities, Towns and Villages within One or More Zones)” + “B (Cities, Towns and Villages outside of any Zones)” does not equal “C (Fukushima-wide)”.

3. “ A. Cities, Towns and Villages within One or More Zones ” includes Minamisouma-shi, Tamura-shi, Naraha-machi, Kawauchi-mura, Namie-machi, Katsurao-machi, Tomioka-machi, Ookuma-machi, Futaba-machi, Kawamata-machi, Iitate-mura and Hirono-machi. The designation of the emergency evacuation preparation zone (Minamisouma-shi, Tamura-shi, Naraha- machi, Kawauchi-mura and Hirono-machi) was cancelled on September 30, 2011, and on March 30, 2012, Kawauchi-mura, Tamura-shi and Minamisouma-shi were excluded from the no-entry zone. However, these cities, etc. were included in “ A. Cities, Towns and Villages within One or More Zones” in the data.

9 The graph below shows the detailed classification of consultations categorized into the “ Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc.” in Fukushima Prefecture. (Each consultation was classified into only one category for this detailed classification.) (The figures were based on the data collected by the JFBA concerning free legal consultations provided through telephone or face-to-face meetings during the period from mid-March to mid-December 2011. Legal consultations provided during briefing sessions, etc. were excluded from the data.) This detailed classification was conducted by attorneys in charge of the analysis of consultations by reviewing issues of consultations in the category of “Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc.” and extracting key words from each case, which characterized the case. Consultations regarding compensation for damage caused by the nuclear power plant incident form the largest proportion of consultations in the “ Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc.,” accounting for approximately 70% of consultations in the category. There are considerable proportions of legal consultations in relation to contracts other than lease contracts, living as evacuees, and lease contracts (from both lessees and lessors).

■ Data 1-2-10 Detailed Classification of Legal Consultations Concerning Nuclear Power Plant Accident (Fukushima-wide)■

(N=4,454)

Entrance into Education 0.4% Business Evaculation/No-Entry Continuation/Asset Zones 0.6% Management 0.5% Stolen Property/Custodial Respyponsibility 0.8% Various Procedures 1.1% Other 3.2%

Damage by Rumors 0.7%

Government's Policies and Proposals 1.1%

Radioactivitiy 2.2%

From Lessors 1.5%

From Lessees 2.8% Compensation for Damage 71.3% Living as Evacuees 6.3%

Contracts 7.5%

[Note] 1. The subjects of this analysis were those who had addresses in Fukushima at the time of the earthquake. 2. “N” means the number of legal consultations.

10 III Assistance for Disaster Victims

1. Disaster related ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution)

The Disaster related ADR handled by the Sendai Bar Association was established on April 20, 2011, with the aim of settling disputes related to the Disaster by attorneys acting as mediators with a high degree of mobility, speed and expertise. The graph below shows the ADR cases applied for and settled by the Sendai Bar Association from the launch of the ADR, in April 2011 until July 2012.

■ Data 1-3 Disaster related ADR Cases Handled by the Sendai Bar Association （Cases) （April 2011 - July 2012）■ 90 83 80 80 Number of Requests for Disaster related ADR 70 Number of Settlements of Disaster related ADR 60 50 41 40 31 28 26 30 23 20 21 16 20 13 14 15 10 12 10 7 162418241221101367129453 0 Apr., 2011May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.Jan., 2012Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun Jul

2. PR Activities (1) Opened a disaster recovery support page within the (3) Published a full-page advertisement in newspapers JFBA website (March 23, 2011) concerning the compensation claim document provided by the Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc. (TEPCO), together with three bar associations in Tokyo (Fukushima Minyu News/Fukushima Minpo News on September 25, 2011)

（2) Started a Disaster Recovery Support twitter feed (June 22, 2011)

http://twitter.com/JFBAsaigai

11 IV. JFBA’s Response to Double Loan Payment Issues (The so-called “Double Loan” problem means the problem encountered by the victims of disaster who already had housing loans or other debts for their businesses but were obliged to make new loans because the assets which were mortgaged for the loans had been destroyed or could not be used any longer because of the disaster.)

1. Double Loan Payment Issues of Individuals It is necessary to relieve disaster victims of unreasonable debts including double loan payments, in order to facilitate their reconstruction of communities and give them a fresh start in life. With a concern that these issues would be a great problem in the affected areas, the JFBA brought them to the attention of the public immediately after the earthquake. The JFBA adopted its “First Emergency Recommendations on the Great East Japan Earthquake” on April 14, 2011, urging that the disaster victims be relieved of unreasonable debts and help them to avoid the burden of double loan payments. On April 19, 2011, JFBA President Utsunomiya visited Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano and handed him these recommendations, requesting that measures be taken to resolve the double loan payment issues. The JFBA also adopted the “Recommendations on Relief from Unreasonable Debt including Double Loans as a Result of the Great East Japan Earthquake” on April 22, 2011, followed by the “Draft Framework of a Bill on Emergency Measures for Supporting Reconstruction in Relation to the Great East Japan Earthquake (First Draft)” on May 19, 2011.

Since then, the JFBA had lobbied the government and lawmakers in line with these recommendations, and as a result, the “Study Group on the Individual Debtor Guidelines for Out-of-Court Workouts” established and published guidelines on July 15, 2011, followed by the launch of the Management Committee of Individual Debtor Guidelines for Out-of-Court Workouts (the “Management Committee”) which began to receive applications from individuals on the same day.

It was expected that debt workouts based on the guidelines would greatly contribute to the reconstruction of the lives of many disaster victims since individual debtors, with the support of attorneys and other registered specialists, would be able to enjoy reduction of or exemption from debts while avoiding disadvantages such as registration of their credit information with credit institutions and requests of payments to their guarantors. It is regrettable, however, that not many disaster victims are currently using this system. As of July 27, 2012, only 43 debt cases have been settled under this system. The main reasons why not very many people are using this system are as follows: this system has not been well-known by the disaster victims and people around them; and financial institutions which are creditors do not recommend that the victims use the system, only allowing the rescheduling of payments.

Aiming to make this system well-known to the public, the JFBA started to call it the “Disaster Loan Reduction System” in order to present the objectives of this system in an understandable way and has been conducting public relations campaigns through various media, including the production and distribution of flyers. The Financial Services Agency (FSA) which is authorized to supervise and instruct financial institutions issued a Notice of Director-General of the Supervisory Bureau (Notice No. 1894) which requested that financial institutions explain this system to disaster victims, mentioning that “Financial institutions should collect more detailed information on the situation of each individual debtor, explain to them the merit and effects of use of the guidelines, and proactively recommend that the guidelines be used depending on their situation.” Especially, collective relocation of people in some of the affected areas for the purpose of disaster prevention will begin in the future and issues such as cancellation of a mortgage can be smoothly settled in many cases only under the “Disaster Loan Reduction System.” Therefore, after one year since the implementation of this system, the institutions involved should take necessary measures to promote the use of this system again.

The graph on the next page shows the number of debt-workout cases handled by the Management Committee.

13 ■Data 1-4-1 Inquiries Received by the Management Committee (as of July 27, 2012) ■ Total Number of Inquiries Number of Inquiries (Inquiries incl. those generally in relation to the system) Number of Inquiries Total (Cases) （ 700 Cases4,000 613 3,441 600 3,350 3,500 3,111 2,994 2,837 3,000 500 2,535 2,500 2,222 400 2,008 1,751 2,000 300 1,424 1,500 1,152 200 1,000 613 101 74 68 100 52 64 500 44 32 37 16 13 27 0 0 9/5-9/9 3/5-3/9 4/2-4/6 5/1・5/2 6/4-6/8 7/2-7/6 8/29-9/2 1/30-2/3 2/6-2/10 2/27-3/2 4/9-4/13 5/7-5/11 5/28-6/1 7/9-7/13 9/12-9/16 9/20-9/22 9/26-9/30 10/3-10/7 12/5-12/9 1/10-1/13 1/16-1/20 1/23-1/27 2/13-2/17 2/20-2/24 3/12-3/16 3/19-3/23 3/26-3/30 4/16-4/20 4/23-4/27 5/14-5/18 5/21-5/25 6/11-6/15 6/18-6/22 6/25-6/29 7/17-7/20 7/23-7/27 10/31-11/4 11/7-11/11 11/28-12/2 10/11-10/14 10/17-10/21 10/24-10/28 11/14-11/18 11/21-11/25 12/12-12/16 12/19-12/22 12/26-12/30 2012/1/2-1/6 2011/8/22-8/26

■Data 1-4-2 Debt-Workout Applications made to the Management Committee (as of July 27, 2012) ■ Total Number of Applications for Commencement of Debt-Workout

Number of Cases under Preparation for Debt-Workout Settlement (incl. cases for which registered specialists have been （Cases) introduced and which are now under preparation for such applications) 700 654 619 625 630 600 556

500 451 399 400 363

286 288 303 300 258 220 200 168 180 139 109 116 91 100 60 41 7 6 16 0 3/5-3/9 4/2-4/6 5/1・5/2 6/4-6/8 7/2-7/6 9/5-9/9 1/30-2/3 2/6-2/10 2/27-3/2 4/9-4/13 5/7-5/11 5/28-6/1 7/9-7/13 8/29-9/2 12/5-12/9 1/10-1/13 1/16-1/20 1/23-1/27 2/13-2/17 2/20-2/24 3/12-3/16 3/19-3/23 3/26-3/30 4/16-4/20 4/23-4/27 5/14-5/18 5/21-5/25 6/11-6/15 6/18-6/22 6/25-6/29 7/17-7/20 7/23-7/27 9/12-9/16 9/20-9/22 9/26-9/30 10/3-10/7 10/31-11/4 11/7-11/11 11/28-12/2 12/12-12/16 12/19-12/22 12/26-12/30 10/11-10/14 10/17-10/21 10/24-10/28 11/14-11/18 11/21-11/25 2012/1/2-1/6 2011/8/22-8/26

14 ■Data 1-4-3 Debt-Workout Settlements of under the Management Committee (as of July 27, 2012) (Cases) ■ Ibaraki 50 Fukushima 43 45 Miyagi 39 1 40 36 The Number of Debt-Workouts Settled 36 1 7 Iwate 33 35 117 Aomori 55 30 27 5 Tokyo 26 25 22 22 4 4 21 26 20 3 44 22 22 23 17 22 3 15 16 17 10 13 13 13 10 2 10 6 5 6 333555 2 222 3333333333 0 2 2 2011/8/22 ～5/18 ～5/25 ～6/1 ～6/8 ～6/15 ～6/22 ～6/29 ～7/6 ～7/13 ～7/20 ～7/27 ～2012/5/11

15 2. Double Loan Payment Issues of Business Operators In its recommendations, the JFBA has been proposing measures to resolve double loan payment issues of business operators as well as those of individual debtors. In the “Draft Framework of a Bill on Emergency Measures for Supporting Reconstruction in Relation to the Great East Japan Earthquake (First Draft)” mentioned above, the JFBA requested legislation to take concrete measures including the establishment of an institution to purchase debts and lobbied lawmakers, etc. Such activities resulted in the enactment of the Act on Corporation for Revitalizing Earthquake Affected Business on November 21, 2011, and according to this act, the Corporation for Revitalizing Earthquake Affected Business was established on February 22, 2012, which commenced its operation on March 5, 2012.

On May 16, 2012, two months after the commencement of its operation, the first decision to provide support for an affected business operator was given. In addition, the Reconstruction Agency, the FSA, and the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency released a document on July 17, entitled the “Promotion of Support for Earthquake Affected Business Operators by the Corporation for Revitalizing Earthquake Affected Business” in order to provide prompt and appropriate support for many affected business operators by shortening the decision-making time and other means. This system has been well utilized and 10 decisions were made by July 31, 2012. The Corporation has already received more than 500 requests for consultations and applications for support, among which 62 cases are under final arrangement for making a decision to provide support.

Furthermore, in each prefecture affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake, an “Industry Reconstruction Corporation,” which is financed by the Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, Japan, and financial institutions and the prefectural government in the respective prefecture, has been established in order to provide support in purchasing credits against business operators in the prefecture. An “Industrial Recovery Consultation Center” has also been established in each prefecture, which receives requests for consultations from affected business operators. Both organizations are engaged in activities to support the affected business operators.

This system should be proactively utilized in order to secure jobs, revitalize regional economies and maintain communities in the affected areas and prevent the outflow of people from the communities. The JFBA should also offer its cooperation on the operation of this system as much as possible in the future.

16 ■ Data 1-4-4 The Number of Cases Handled by the Corporation for Revitalizing Earthquake Affected Businesses ■

(As of July 27, 2012) Descriptions Cases Total Number of Consultations and Requests Received 502 (1) Inquiries, etc. on support systems, being completed by 188 explanation or advice, etc. (2) Pending cases in the consultation stage for offering 168 support Break (3) Cases under concrete consultation with the business down 74 operator and financial institutions (4) Cases in the final stage of decision-making for support 62 after the process mentioned in (3). (5) Cases for which a decision was made to offer support 10

[Note] The above figures are based on the information released by the Corporation for Revitalizing Earthquake Affected Businesses, which is released together with each decision.

■Data 1-4-5 Consultations Received by “Industrial Recovery Consultation Centers” in Affected Prefectures (the Number of Business Operators and Consultations)■ （As of July 27, 2012) （Unit: Case）

Iwate Miyagi Fukushima Aomori Ibaraki Chiba Total (Starting Date of Consultations) （2011/10/7）（2011/11/16）（2011/11/30）（2011/12/19）（2011/11/7）（2012/3/5）

Number of Consultations 312 517 227 45 90 122 1,313 Completed Cases 223 391 172 38 65 84 973 Completed by advice, explanation, 167 284 160 31 47 56 745 etc.

Referred to the Corporation for Revitalizing Earthquake affected 15 77 5 1 0 2 100 Businesses

Transferred to the ordinary 332151327 revitalization procedures Agreements on financial assistance 38 27 5 5 13 13 101 by financial institutions, etc Decisions on purchase of credits （13）（9）（1）－（0）（1）（24） Pending 89 126 55 7 25 38 340 Continued Consultations (Note 2) 51 98 45 7 23 35 259 Consideration being given to 38 28 10 0 2 3 81 purchase of credits (Note 2)

[Note] 1. The figures are based on the data of “Consultations by Industrial Recovery Consultation Centers” provided by the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency and such figures are the total numbers since the establishment of the centers. Please note that Aomori Prefecture has not established an organization which purchases credits. 2. Continued Consultations: Possibility of the development of a business plan is under consideration in order to determine the possibility of rehabilitation of the business / Consideration being given to Purchase of Credits: in order to purchase credits or reschedule payment plans, business plans, real property related matters and arrangements between creditors are still under consideration or are in progress.

17 V. Response to the Nuclear Power Plant Accident 1. Efforts for Compensation for Damage from the Nuclear Power Plant Accident (1) Response to the Establishment of Compensation Standards by the Dispute Reconciliation Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation The JFBA has been presenting its opinions concerning guidelines being established by the Dispute Reconciliation Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation (the “Dispute Reconciliation Committee”). The JFBA has released a total of 15 opinion papers and president’s statements and had a certain influence over the related matters including the scope, standards and termination of compensation by presenting detailed opinions in line with the actual situation of damage at the time. For instance, an interim guideline compiled on August 5, 2011, incorporated some of the JFBA’s opinions that “A matter out of the scope of compensation set by the interim guideline is not immediately excluded from the subject of compensation. It would be approved as damage in reasonable consequence of the nuclear power plant accident depending on individual and concrete circumstances.” In addition, a supplement to the interim guideline was compiled on December 6, 2011, approving certain compensation to those who voluntarily evacuated or did not evacuate, though the coverage of this guideline was still insufficient. Furthermore, the second supplement to the interim guideline released on March 16, 2012, set the scope of damage to be compensated based on the review of designation of evacuation zones by the government, on which the JFBA compiled its opinions and pointed out problems. Since then, standards of compensation have been established behind closed doors by the authorities concerned including the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation, TEPCO, and other organizations. On July 19, 2012, the JFBA released a president’s statement on this issue and pointed out problems with the procedures for establishing compensation standards. Despite this statement, the “Viewpoints on Compensation Standards in Relation to the Review of Designed Evacuation Zones” was released under the name of the METI on July 20, 2012. According to the viewpoints, TEPCO published the Standards of Compensation on July 24. However, we are concerned that the amounts of compensation calculated based on the standards will not be enough for many victims to recover damage and rebuild their lives. Therefore, further measures should be taken to relieve the victims by providing appropriate compensation in the future.

(2) Establishment of the Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution Center and the JFBA’s Cooperation in the Operation of the Center From early on, the JFBA has been bringing up the necessity of an ADR institution specialized in disputes over compensation for damage from the nuclear power plant accident and lobbying the government. On June 24, 2011, the JFBA presented the “Establishment of an ADR institution for Nuclear Damage Compensation (Draft Framework)” to the government, making concrete proposals on

18 the establishment of the “Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution Center” and grant of an arbitration award function to the center.

The Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution Center was established under the Dispute Reconciliation Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation and began to receive applications for settlement on September 1, 2011. The JFBA has been offering full cooperation in the operation of the center and more than 200 attorneys are involved in its operation as mediators, research officials, etc. It is expected that the number of attorneys involved in the operation of the center will greatly increase in the future.

Furthermore, the government approved a special business plan submitted by TEPCO and the Nuclear Damage Compensation Facilitation Corporation on November 4, 2011, in which “Respect of Mediation Proposals” was listed as one of “Five Promises.” On February 13, 2012, a request of modifications to the plan was approved, followed by the approval of a comprehensive special business plan on May 9, 2012, in the end. Though each modification to the plan added detailed descriptions concerning the respect of mediation proposals, in the actual cases applied to the center, TEPCO often refused to accept proposals for settlement presented by mediators or unnecessarily prolonged proceedings, contradicting the “Obligation to Respect Mediation Proposals.” In protesting TEPCO’s attitude, the JFBA has been publishing president’s statements and comments, when it finds necessary, in order to make TEPCO aware of its obligation.

19 ■Data 1-5 Changes in the Number of Cases Filed and Cases Already Processed at the Nuclear Damage Compensation Dispute Resolution Center (ADR Center) ■ （Cases）4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Sep. Jan. Oct. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. 2011 2012 The Cumulative Number of 38 118 261 521 769 1,124 1,590 2,037 2,517 2,926 3,398 Applications Filed for Settlement The Cumulative Number of Cases 0 1 2 6 14 37 86 177 304 464 679 Settled The Number of Applications Filed for 38 80 143 260 248 355 466 447 480 409 472 Settlement per Month

2. Efforts toward Providing Assistance for Victims Taking into account that it would be very difficult to support victims with only the compensation provided, since December 2011, the JFBA has been involved in developing plans aimed at providing support for disaster victims, independent from the framework of the compensation system. Having been actively engaged in hearings with each of the major political parties, the JFBA compiled its “Opinion Paper Concerning the Establishment of Special Legislation to Provide Backup for Disaster Victims of the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, and for the Recovery and Regeneration of Fukushima Prefecture ” on February 16, 2012, taking into consideration the points that such accident occurred under the state ’ s nuclear energy policy, and thus, the primary responsibility for providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of such accident should lie with the state, and the state should enact a comprehensive package of legislation designed to provide the requisite assistance. Thereafter, with the JFBA working together with members of the Diet and holding several meetings with Diet members at the Members’ Office Building of the House of Councilors, “the Act on the Protection and Support for the Children and other Victims of the TEPCO Disaster” was enacted on June 21, 2012, and such act contains the outlines set forth in the above-mentioned Opinion Paper issued on February 16, 2012.

3. Response to Other Issues Caused by the Nuclear Power Plant Accident The JFBA issued a number of Opinion Papers discussing, from different perspectives, issues related to the radioactive substances released in the wake of the nuclear power plant accidents, namely, low-level exposure, radioactive materials accumulated in foodstuffs, radioactive waste and so on, as well as problems surrounding the public administration of nuclear safety, which drew much attention from the public after the accident. There have been some JFBA Opinion Papers, which garnered a certain amount of public attention and may have had some indirect impact on the development of governmental policies.

Feature 2 Judicial System Reform from a Statistical Point of View Chapter 1 Judicial System Reform from a Statistical Point of View - Outline -

I. Introduction More than ten years have passed since the Justice System Reform Council under the Cabinet submitted its recommendations (hereinafter called the “Recommendations”) in June 2001. Since that time until now, 25 laws related to judicial system reform (hereinafter called the “Reforms”) including the “Act on Promotion of Judicial System Reform” have been enacted, and newly set up systems based on such laws have already been implemented. However, each such system is still at the initial stage and it cannot be said that the Reforms themselves have yet reached the final stage of completing their purpose. Although the principles of the Reforms were presented in the Recommendations, in reality, there are some systems for which reforms have not yet even commenced, and other areas which have still not achieved streamlining. In addition, there are some areas, such as the lay-judge (saiban-in) system, which are scheduled to be reviewed after their implementation. Furthermore, problems have already been pointed out with regard to some of the systems which have been launched, despite the fact that they are following the principles of the Reforms.

As we have currently reached the milestone wherein ten years or so have passed since the submission of the Recommendations, we would like to review and look back on the Reforms here, using objective data materials.

II. Outline of the Judicial System Reforms 1. The Gaining Momentum of the Judicial Reforms In order to break away from the traditional justice system, the functionality of which had been declining up to the end of the 1980s, the JFBA adopted its "Declarations on Judicial Reform" in May 1990, and made its position clear that the JFBA would work on justice system reforms together with the public. In the 1990s, attorneys and bar associations themselves carried out activities for reform, through their practices, with an eye toward system reform in the future, namely, movements related to the duty attorney system and legal counseling centers, in cooperation with the public. Further, in line with the changes in the status of society, several fields across society, such as financial circles (the business community), started to expect a justice system and legal professions which meet the needs of society at large.

2. The Justice System Reform Council In response to such activities of attorneys and bar associations, and the mounting mood for judicial reform from users and all other quarters, the Japanese government set up the Justice System Reform Council under the Cabinet (hereinafter referred to as the “JRC”) in July 1999. The JRC initiated reviews of related issues aiming towards justice system reform in an attempt to realize a more accessible and user-friendly system serving to protect the rights of the public.

In determining the basic principles of the Reforms, the JRC clarified the roles to be played by (and to be expected from) the justice system, the public, and the legal professions; The justice system has been put into a position as one of the “pillars” which support a “communal space,” together with the other pillars such as the legislative process and public administration (i.e. the government), and has been required to enhance and strengthen the roles and functions of the justice system. The public has been put in a position not as a person tried in court, but as the subject of the rights and rules of the legal system (i.e. governance), and in that respect, the guarantee of the

right to a fair trial and the foundation of the public participation in justice were stated. The legal profession has been put in a position of providing legal support to the public in exercising their rights and ruling power, and the legal profession has been expected to improve its quality and quantity, and to broadly and actively play their roles in various fields throughout society.

After many discussions over a two year period, the JRC compiled the Recommendations which included a broad range of recommendations aiming towards justice system reform and improvement of the foundations of the system, standing with the following pillars: 1) Construction of a justice system meeting the expectations of the public 2) The ideal model for the legal profession supporting the judicial system 3) The establishment of judicial foundations reaching out to the public

3. Social Agreement on the Reforms and Responsibilities of Related Institutions The JRC is made up of not only legal professionals but also members of a wide array of industries, and agendas and minutes of the discussions were disclosed to the public. Further, debate progressed amid a growing level of participation from the public, namely, holding of public hearings in various regions across Japan, calling for public opinions, and so on. Through such debate, it can be said that the first social consensus on the framework of enhancement and fortification of judicial roles and functions was recognized. Furthermore, such debate has urged the state to take more responsibility to promote the Reforms, including fiscal measures for the Reforms, and has also urged attorneys and bar associations to expand their base of support among the public, as those who are supporting and are affected by the Reforms.

III. Systems Established in line with the Judicial System Reforms After the Recommendations were submitted, the Office for Promotion of Justice System Reform was set up in the Cabinet in accordance with the “Act on Promotion of Judicial System Reform” enacted in November 2001, and systems in various fields were designed and substantiated, and enacted into law sequentially. The main systems are outlined as follows:

1. Enhancement of Access to Justice - Establishment of the Japan Legal Support Center - Reducing the cost of litigation fees

2. Enhancement and Acceleration of the Processes of Civil Lawsuits - Enhancement and speeding up of the processes of civil lawsuits - Transfer of litigation on personal status to the family court - Raising the upper limit of demands for cases handled by Summary Courts - Extending the scope of standing to sue in administrative cases - Amendment of acts on other professionals with similar (but limited) qualifications to those of attorneys, e.g. enabling judicial scriveners to have the right to legally represent clients at Summary Courts - Establishment of the Intellectual Property High Court

- Enactment of the Act on Promotion of Use of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) - Enactment of the Arbitration Act - Introduction of a labor tribunal system

3. Reform of Criminal Justice System - Introduction of a court-appointed attorney system for suspects - Introduction of measures to improve and facilitate criminal trials such as the enhancement of the pretrial conference procedure and the disclosure of evidence

4. Instituting the Foundations of Public Participation - Introduction of the lay judge (Saiban-in) system - Amendment of the Act on the Committee for Inquest of Prosecutions

5. Ideal Model for the Legal Profession Supporting the Judicial System - Introduction of law schools - Implementation of the new national bar examination and increase in the number of bar examination candidates who pass such exam - Review of the period for judicial apprenticeship - Enhancement of alternative qualification scheme and streamlining procedures for the Disciplinary System for attorneys - Elimination of the prohibition on employment of lawyers by registered foreign lawyers (Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi (GJB)) - Enactment of the Act on Treatment of Work Experience for Assistant Judges and Public Prosecutors Temporarily Practicing as Attorneys - Establishment of an advisory committee for the appointment of judges - Review of the personal evaluation system for judges - Setting up of the District Court Committee and Family Court Committee - Introduction of a part time judge system

IV. Future of the Judicial System Reforms As described above, the Reforms have only just started; however, as the lay judge (Saiban-in) system, which was the last of a series of laws established related to the Reforms, was started (in 2009), it seemed as though the work needed in relation to the series of reforms had already been settled. Possible reasons for such mood may have stemmed from the state’s financial problems in conducting reforms or the difficulties facing the legal profession including problems ensuing from the recent rapid increase in the number of legal professionals. However, considering the situation surrounding today’s judiciary and legal professions, now is the time for us to question whether we should take a position of steadily seeking to make further progress in judicial reform so as to enhance and strengthen the role and functions of the judiciary.

In order to review and discuss the future of the Reforms, it was thought to be beneficial to look back on the Reforms by recognizing facts objectively, using statistical data and so on. Feature 2 has been compiled using basic materials that will be useful for developing and deepening related discussions in the future.

Chapter 2 Statistical Data in Relation to Judicial System Reforms

As explained in Chapter 1, the Reforms are under way, but they are not yet at the stage to allow for a summing up as to what has been achieved. Various systems which have been set up as a result of the Reforms have already been put into operation, and situations surrounding the justice system have clearly been changed compared to those before the launch of the Reforms.

In Chapter 2, with a variety of objective data, we would like to analyze situations surrounding the Reforms, focusing on important issues pointed out during the discussions on the Reforms, and how legal practices of attorneys have changed following on from major newly-established systems and the Reforms, comparing these in three kinds of time frame; i) the period when the need for the Reforms was called for, around 1990, ii) the years around 2000 when discussions were actively conducted at the JRC, and iii) around the current year 2011.

I. Enhancement of Access to Justice The Reforms are aimed at realizing a justice system which is more familiar for and accessible, speedy and reliable for its users. In order to achieve this, first, the necessity of improving the way of access to justice itself was discussed, and a study group to review “access to justice” was set up in the Office for Promotion of Justice System Reform, which was set up with the purpose of substantiating the issues suggested in the Recommendations.

In this section, we would like to examine the situations before and after the Reforms from two perspectives; i) the realization of a scheme of comprehensive legal support aiming to enhance access to justice from a point of view of legal support such as civil legal aid, and ii) resolving issues of regional shortages and uneven distribution of attorneys.

1. Realization of Comprehensive Legal Support Regarding the provision of civil legal aid in order to enhance access to justice from a financial perspective, it is stated in the Recommendations that "civil legal aid should be further enhanced giving comprehensive and systematic consideration regarding the range of cases and people to which such aid can be applied for or provided with, and how the cost of the user should be." At the study group for access to justice, consideration was given to not only civil legal aid but also to other issues, namely the access points (consultation services) or shortage of access to justice. As a result, a framework for the justice network, including the following concepts, was approved as a basic direction to follow; i) fundamentally solving problems causing obstruction to access to justice so that the public can find easy access to justice, and ii) constructing an overall system from which users can receive necessary legal services so that the public can easily use the judicial system.

The Comprehensive Legal Support Act was enacted in May 2004, taking the above debate into consideration, and the fundamental principle of such act was to achieve a society in which the public can receive necessary information and services for dispute settlement by way of the law nationwide, regardless of whether the issue is involving civil affairs or criminal matters. With the establishment of the Japan Legal Support Center (Hoterasu) in accordance with the Act in April 2006, the structure of the system for providing comprehensive legal support has been successfully set up.

24 ■Data 2-1-1-1 The Number of Attorneys Registered for Legal ■Data 2-1-1-2 The Number of Attorneys Who Contracted to Consultation ■ （The Japan Legal Aid Association） Provide Civil Legal Aid Services ■ (The Japan Legal Support Center) 2000（as if March 31, 2001） 2011（as of March 31, 2012） District Court The Number of The Number of The Number of Attorneys The Number of Attorneys Registered Attorneys Registered Who Contracted to Attorneys Registered The Registration Rate The Contract Rate Jurisdictions to Provide Legal in Bar Associations Provide Legal Aid in Bar Associations Consultation (person) (person) Services (person) (person) Sapporo 163 319 51.1% 529 634 83.4% Hakodate 16 24 66.7% 37 44 84.1% Asahikawa 24 26 92.3% 57 63 90.5% Kushiro 21 23 91.3% 54 64 84.4% Miyagi 98 216 45.4% 309 376 82.2% Fukushima 76 86 88.4% 137 154 89.0% Yamagata 44 52 84.6% 74 82 90.2% Iwate 34 41 82.9% 80 95 84.2% Akita 40 48 83.3% 65 70 92.9% Aomori 35 40 87.5% 83 97 85.6% Tokyo 1,437 8,580 16.7% 4,185 15,076 27.8% Kanagawa 128 719 17.8% 869 1,293 67.2% Saitama 121 303 39.9% 424 637 66.6% Chiba 200 273 73.3% 416 581 71.6% Ibaraki 63 95 66.3% 168 209 80.4% Tochigi 68 95 71.6% 127 171 74.3% Gunma 87 126 69.0% 183 236 77.5% Shizuoka 103 218 47.2% 296 380 77.9% Yamanashi 47 53 88.7% 86 102 84.3% Nagano 89 110 80.9% 169 197 85.8% Niigata 93 126 73.8% 203 232 87.5% Aichi 246 840 29.3% 896 1,543 58.1% Mie 30 72 41.7% 117 151 77.5% Gifu 69 86 80. 2% 106 155 68. 4% Fukui 39 40 97.5% 79 90 87.8% Ishikawa 61 81 75.3% 122 140 87.1% Toyama 19 50 38.0% 75 94 79.8% Osaka 693 2,556 27.1% 2,533 3,854 65.7% Kyoto 164 331 49.5% 477 585 81.5% Hyogo 266 410 64.9% 560 713 78.5% Nara 60 80 75.0% 120 139 86.3% Shiga 37 46 80.4% 106 124 85.5% Wakayama 54 67 80.6% 107 124 86.3% Hiroshima 118 271 43.5% 366 478 76.6% Yamaguchi 43 70 61.4% 111 133 83.5% Okayama 82 172 47.7% 261 313 83.4% Tottori 16 24 66.7% 51 60 85.0% Shimane 19 22 86.4% 53 63 84.1% Kagawa 55 83 66.3% 91 138 65.9% Tokushima 39 53 73.6% 73 84 86.9% Kochi 32 51 62.7% 63 87 72.4% Ehime 66 88 75.0% 95 146 65.1% Fukuoka 262 589 44.5% 713 987 72.2% Saga 28 39 71.8% 78 86 90.7% Nagasaki 55 67 82.1% 125 146 85.6% Oita 45 66 68.2% 111 130 85.4% Kumamoto 66 109 60.6% 174 222 78.4% Kagoshima 44 79 55.7% 123 166 74.1% Miyazaki 40 50 80.0% 99 111 89.2% Okinawa 73 178 41.0% 134 233 57.5% Total 5,808 18,243 31.8% 16,570 32,088 51.6% The contract rate (for the number of attorneys who contracted to provide [Reference] Average of the 50 district court jurisdictions: The registration rate: 64.9% legal aid services)： 78.9% Note: (1.) The figures of the above data for 2000 and 2011 are based on data provided by the Japan Legal Aid Association (JLAA) (which was dissolved in 2007) and the Japan Legal Support Center, respectively. (2.) In accordance with the enactment of the Civil Legal Aid Act in October 2000, a system for attorneys to register to perform legal counseling was started with the purpose to enable easy access to civil legal aid and promote the use of civil legal aid and enable legal consultation at the offices of registered lawyers. When the JLAA was operating, there was no form of contract for attorneys to register to “provide legal consultation services.” (3.) The figures of the Total for the “registration rate (for 2000)” and the “contract rate (for 2011)” were calculated as follows: Total (50 district court jurisdictions) for the number of "attorneys registered to provide legal consultation" and that of “attorneys who contracted to provide legal aid services” is divided by the number of all attorneys in 2000 and 2011, respectively. (4.) The average of the 50 district court jurisdictions in 2000 and 2011 shown as “Reference” was calculated as follows: The total of the rate in each jurisdiction was divided by 50 (the number of 50 district court jurisdictions), for 2000 and 2011, respectively.

25 ■Data 2-1-1-3 Change in the Number of Civil Legal Aid Cases Conducted■

Cases Support for legal consultation Support for representation Support for document preparation 300,000 280,389 The Japan Legal 250,000 The Civil Legal Aid Support Center Act was enacted in (Hoterasu) was 200,000 October 2000 established in 2006

150,000 103,751 100,000 88,513 56,318 50,000 35,505 20,098 6,164 4,072 3,639 0 163 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

[Note] 1. Only after the implementation of the Civil Legal Aid Act in October 2000, were different types of support, such as “support for legal consultation” and “support for document preparation” created. Therefore, in the case of 1990, only data of “support for representation” is provided. 2. Data for the years 1990 and 2000 to 2005 are based on The Japan Legal Aid Association (JLAA). 3. As for 2006, data is based on the actual number of cases conducted between April to September 2006 by the JLAA, and also the number of cases (legal services provided) between October 2006 and March 2007 at the Japan Legal Support Center. After 2007, the data is calculated by the number of cases (legal services provided) by the Japan Legal Support Center. As for support for representation, and support for document preparation, data has been calculated as the number of cases which have actually been taken on and started.

■Data 2-1-1-4 Percentage of Areas in “Support for Representation” in Civil Legal Aid Support ■

Breakdown for 1990 The actual number of cases for support for representation ⑥Others 1990 4072 cases 15.3% 2000 20,098 cases 2011 103,751 cases ①Money cases 16.6% ②Real estate [Note] 1. Since the breakdown items differ per year, some consideration ⑤Consumer cases 7.4% should be given when making a comparison of the pie chart for 1990, 2000 finances 15.0% and 2011. (The names of breakdown items have not been changed as those when the data was collected in 1990, 2000 and 2011.) ③Family cases 2. Data for 1990 and 2000 were based on the actual number of cases 40.2% conducted by the JLAA. ④ Traffic Data for 2011 was based on the number of cases which have been taken on Accidents 5.5% and started.

Breakdown for 2000 Breakdown for 2011 ⑧Public ⑨Others 0.7% administration ①Money cases ⑧Others 0.7% ⑦ 0.7% 10.1% Execution, public sale ①Money cases 10.8% 1.0% ⑦Compulsory ② Real estate ②Real estate cases 2.0% execution 0.6% cases 1.8%

③Family affairs cases ③Family affairs cases ⑥Bankruptcy ⑥Multiple debts cases 21.1% 23.8% 61.6% ④Labor cases 57.9% 1.1%

⑤ ④Labor cases 2.6% ⑤ Maintenance cases Maintenance ※ "Bankruptcy" includes voluntary liquidation cases 2.3% 1.2% 26 ■Data 2-1-1-5 Change in the Amount of the Government Budget for the Japan Legal Support Center ■ （Unit: Million Yen） 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Subsidy for operational fee 10,213 10,395 10,407 15,542 16,554 16,402 Expenses for services for ensuring court- 10,093 9,083 15,796 15,548 14,793 15,445 appointed attorneys Total 20,306 19,478 26,203 31,090 31,347 31,847 ※ (Note) Data for 2012 includes the extra budget in relation to the Great East Japan Earthquake

（Million yen） Subsidy for Operational Fee Expenses for Services for Ensuring Court-Appointed Attorneys 18,000 The second stage of the court-appointed 16,000 attorney system for suspects, i.e. the 14,000 expansion of applicable cases under the system, was launched in May 2009. 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 （Year）

〔Reference〕（Unit: Million Yen） 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 General spending in the Government Budget 46,978,383 47,284,501 51,730,976 53,454,231 53,565,978 50,962,808 Expenses for other matters in general spending 5,194,540 4,906,955 5,064,181 5,196,824 5,053,948 5,422,503 [Note] Data is based on the materials provided by the Japan Legal Support Center

■Data 2-1-1-6 Change in the Actual Subsidy (government subsidy) when the JLAA was in Oeration ■ （Unit: Yen） 1958 1965 1975 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 State subsidy, 10,000,000 50,000,000 102,000,000 83,348,000 115,606,000 138,495,000 161,494,000 194,616,000 etc.

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 State subsidy, 224,995,000 586,643,000 607,298,000 442,004,000 479,696,000 939,243,000 2,159,491,000 2,849,961,000 etc.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 State subsidy, 3,303,452,000 3,498,174,000 4,000,164,000 4,503,502,000 2,380,606,671 etc.

[Note] 1. Figures are based on the “2006 Business Report by the JLAA.” 2. The state subsidy was funded from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Transport (later, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism). However, due to the reduced number of traffic accident cases, an applicable case to be subsidized from the Ministry of Transport, the subsidy from that Ministry stopped in 1976, and a subsidy was provided as “rewards” between 1982 and 2005. 3. The amount of 26,402,000 yen within the state subsidy set for 1999 is a subsidy set for legal consultation for victims of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. 4. The state subsidy in the above table excludes the aid money for support activities concerning acquiring Japanese nationality for Japanese wartime orphans left behind in China ( 3,450,500 yen was commissioned in 2002), provided from the Ministry of Health & Welfare (later, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare) since 2005.

27 2. Solutions for Regional Shortages and Uneven Distribution of Attorneys

In regard to the issue of regional shortages and uneven distribution of attorneys, it has been pointed out back in August 1964 in the Report by Temporary Investigation Committee on Reform of the Judicial System that “There are many places where there are no law offices, not only in the jurisdiction of summary courts, but also in the jurisdiction of district court branches. Under such circumstances, the enhancement of the level of judicial services for the general public could be impeded in rural areas, and the smooth and just operation of trials could even be hindered. It is urgently necessary, therefore, to correct the uneven distribution of attorneys, and consider what measures should be taken to redress the situation.”

Since then, the JFBA has taken measures to resolve the regional shortage and uneven distribution of attorneys, and presented the “Zero/One Attorney Map” at the 8th Symposium on the Provision of the Attorney Practice held in Takamatsu City in November 1993. This map shows the areas where there are no attorneys or just one attorney in the jurisdiction of district court branches. The number of zero-attorney legal districts at that time was 50, and the number of one-attorney legal districts was 24.

The JFBA adopted the “Declaration on the Establishment of Legal Aid Services System in Areas with a Shortage of Attorneys,” in the 47th General Meeting held in Nagoya City in May, 1996, and expressed its determination to be fully committed to resolve the regional shortage and uneven distribution of attorneys. In September 1999, after receiving a 100-million-yen judicial reform grant (donation) from the Tokyo Bar Association together with a balance of 30 million yen brought forward from a special fund for the 50th Anniversary Celebration of the JFBA, the JFBA set up a fund called the JFBA Himawari Fund. Furthermore, the JFBA has collected special membership dues from all members to supplement the fund.

At the 51st General Meeting held in Kagoshima City in May 2000, the JFBA adopted the “Resolution on Expanding Nationwide Legal Services,” and promoted the legal consultation centers and Himawari (Fund) law offices (bar funded law offices) across the country based on the “Action Plan for the Expansion of Legal Services across the Country” formulated in May 2001. Since the establishment of the “Iwami Himawari law office,” the first of such law offices, in Hamada City, Shimane Prefecture, in June 2000, a total of 112 Himawari (Fund) law offices have been established across Japan. Legal consultation centers have been established nationwide in 307 places as of 1st October, 2012.

After the launch of the Japan Legal Support Center (JLSC) (Hoterarsu) in April 2006, these efforts, together with the establishment of JLSC local law offices, which support areas with a shortage of attorneys, have successfully eliminated almost all zero/one attorney legal areas (in terms of district court branches); reducing the number of one-lawyer legal areas to two as of 1st October, 2012.

Built on the results of these above measures, the JFBA formulated an action plan (New Action Plan) for the next 10 years in March 2011 to further enhance judicial services provided by attorneys. According to the New Action Plan, the JFBA continues its efforts to eliminate zero/one attorney legal districts, as well as to resolve zero-attorney legal districts in the jurisdiction of summary courts and municipalities with a population of over 30,000 where there are greater potential needs for judicial services. In addition, it aims to reduce the number of zero-female-attorney legal districts in the jurisdiction of district court branches and to eliminate such areas in the end, in order to meet the legal needs of women.

28 ■Data 2-1-2-1 The Zero/One Attorney Map (A map showing legal districts where there is only one or no attorney) ■ “Zero-attorney areas” and “one-attorney areas” refer to jurisdictions (areas) of branches of district and family courts where there is no or only one registered attorney.

[Map of Japan showing areas with one or no attorney (as of July 1, 1993)]

Area with no attorneys: 50 Area with only one attorney: 24

[Map of Japan showing areas with one or no attorney (as of October 1, 2012)]

Area with no attorneys: 0 Area with only one attorney: 2

29 ■Data 2-1-2-2 Comparison of Population per Attorney - In the order of the largest population per attorney - ■ 1990 2011 Population per Population per Ranking Population per The number Ranking Population per The number of Prefecture prefecture Prefecture prefecture attorney attorney attorneys （Unit:1,000 people) of attorneys （Unit:1,000 people) 1 Iwate 42,939 1417 33 1 Iwate 16,425 1314 80 2 Aomori 40,081 1483 37 2 Ibaraki 15,818 2958 187 3 Shiga 38,188 1222 32 3 Akita 15,809 1075 68 4 Shimane 37,190 781 21 4 Aomori 15,489 1363 88 5 Ibaraki 36,474 2845 78 5 Yamagata 14,696 1161 79 6 Mie 35,157 1793 51 6 Gifu 14,382 2071 144 7 Saitama 33,015 6405 194 7 Mie 13,482 1847 137 8 Saga 31,357 878 28 8 Fukushima 13,007 1990 153 9 Fukushima 29,634 2104 71 9 Tochigi 12,821 2000 156 10 Kagoshima 29,475 1798 61 10 Shiga 12,739 1414 111 11 Chiba 29,084 5555 191 11 Toyama 12,651 1088 86 12 Gifu 27,932 2067 74 12 Saitama 12,490 7207 577 13 Miyazaki 27,833 1169 42 13 Shimane 12,068 712 59 14 Yamagata 27,348 1258 46 14 Kagoshima 11,799 1699 144 15 Yamaguchi 27,121 1573 58 15 Nagano 11,641 2142 184 16 Akita 26,106 1227 47 16 Miyazaki 11,541 1131 98 17 Nara 25,943 1375 53 17 Chiba 11,529 6214 539 18 Fukui 25,750 824 32 18 Yamaguchi 10,924 1442 132 19 Nagasaki 24,422 1563 64 19 Niigata 10,885 2362 217 20 Tottori 23,692 616 26 20 Shizuoka 10,711 3749 350 21 Tochigi 23,313 1935 83 21 Tottori 10,446 585 56 22 Nagano 22,469 2157 96 22 Tokushima 10,400 780 75 23 Niigata 22,098 2475 112 23 Nagasaki 10,343 1417 137 24 Toyama 21,961 1120 51 24 Saga 10,329 847 82 25 Ehime 20,473 1515 74 25 Nara 10,265 1396 136 26 Tokushima 20,293 832 41 26 Ehime 10,092 1423 141 27 Oita 20,279 1237 61 27 Kochi 9,595 758 79 28 Shizuoka 19,951 3671 184 28 Oita 9,528 1191 125 29 Kumamoto 19,785 1840 93 29 Ishikawa 9,328 1166 125 30 Wakayama 18,842 1074 57 30 Gunma 9,264 2001 216 31 Hokkaido 18,384 5644 307 31 Yamanashi 9,215 857 93 32 Yamanashi 18,149 853 47 32 Fukui 9,125 803 88 33 Gunma 18,037 1966 109 33 Kumamoto 8,844 1813 205 34 Ishikawa 16,643 1165 70 34 Hyogo 8,270 5582 675 35 Hyogo 16,631 5405 325 35 Wakayama 8,156 995 122 36 Kanagawa 15,678 7980 509 36 Kagawa 7,459 992 133 37 Kochi 14,732 825 56 37 Kanagawa 7,449 9058 1,216 38 Okayama 14,702 1926 131 38 Hokkaido 7,374 5486 744 39 Miyagi 13,883 2249 162 39 Okayama 6,470 1941 300 40 Kagawa 13,461 1023 76 40 Miyagi 6,464 2327 360 41 Hiroshima 12,955 2850 220 41 Hiroshima 6,344 2855 450 42 Fukuoka 10,860 4811 443 42 Okinawa 6,172 1401 227 43 Aichi 10,706 6691 625 43 Fukuoka 5,473 5079 928 44 Kyoto 10,125 2602 257 44 Aichi 5,136 7416 1,444 45 Okinawa 7,146 1222 171 45 Kyoto 4,929 2632 534 46 Osaka 4,629 8735 1887 46 Osaka 2,381 8861 3,721 47 Tokyo 1,878 11856 6314 47 Tokyo 909 13196 14517 Total 8,957 123,611 13,800Total 4,188 127799 30,518 [Note] 1. Population numbers are as of Oct. 1 of 1990 and 2011, and the numbers of attorneys are as of April 1, 1990 and 2011, and obtained from the "National Census (1990)" and "Population Estimates (2011)" of the National Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2. "Total" of population per attorney: the number of the entire Japanese population is divided by the entire number of attorneys in Japan. 3. As the number of the entire Japanese population is rounded up, the figures in "Total" and the total of breakdown of each prefecture are not necessarily the same.

30 II. Enhancement and Speeding up of Civil Lawsuits – The Number of Cases and Average Deliberation Time

The graph below shows changes in the number of newly received first instance cases of ordinary civil cases at the district court and summary court level and also the changes seen in the amount of conciliation of civil affairs at the summary court level, which has seen significant changes in volume. Attorneys are frequently involved in both of such type of cases. As for the first instance cases of ordinary civil cases, the numbers at both the district court and summary court level had been steadily increasing until 2009, however, since then, the number has been decreasing. On the other hand, the number of conciliations of civil affairs at the summary court level has been declining since its peak in 2003, due to a sharp drop in the number of specific conciliation cases; from 530,000 cases in 2003 to approx. 10,000 cases in 2011.

■Data■資料2-2-3 2-2-1 Transition 民事第一審通常訴訟新受事件数の推移（地方裁判所・簡易裁判所）■ in the Number of Newly Received First Instance Cases of Ordinary Civil Cases (District Courts / Summary Courts) ■

(District Courts) Ordinary Civil Litigation Cases(District Courts) Ordinary(Summary Civil Courts)Litigation Ordinary Cases Civil Litigation Cases （件） (Summary Courts) Ordinary Civil Litigation Cases Cases (Summary Courts) Conciliations 700,000 2004年4月 700,000 Since April 2004, summary courts have had 簡裁事物管轄140万円 600,000 jurisdiction over the subject matter of 600,000 litigation not exceeding人訴移管 1,400,000 （注2） yen.

500,000 522,639 500,000 522,639 400,000 355,386 400,000 315,577 355,386 315,577 300,000 244,865 321,383 297,261 196,367 300,000 244,865 321,383 200,000 297,261 196,367 144,479 156,850 132,727 200,000 106,871 100,000 144,479 106,87196,635 128,870 156,850 100,000 63,009 0 59,12096,635 128,870 132,727 63,0092011 0 59,1201990 1995 2000 2005 2010 （年） 1990 1995 2000 2005 20102011 （Year）

[Note] 1. The figures were obtained from the “Annual Report of Judicial Statistics (Civil/Administrative Cases)” – “the number of civil cases – types of cases and newly received, disposed, and pending cases at all district courts in Japan, and per district court, and all summary courts and per all summary courts in the jurisdiction of district courts.” 2. In this section, “the first instance cases of ordinary civil cases” refers to “ordinary litigation cases” and “litigation cases related to personal status.” 3. (Reference) The limit of the value of the subject matter of litigation was raised to 1,400,000 yen from April 1, 2004, and summary courts have jurisdiction over the first instance for claims where the value of the subject matter of litigation does not exceed 1,400,000 yen. Furthermore, the family court has had jurisdiction over the first instance for litigation cases related to personal status since April 2004.

31 As indicated below, the average deliberation time taken for the first instance of ordinary civil cases has been gradually shortening year by year.

■Data 2-2-2 Average Deliberation Time for the First Instance of Ordinary Civil Cases (District Courts)■

（Month） All 14.0 12.9

12.0 10.1 10.0

8.0 7.5 6.0 All ： 8.8 All ：8.4

4.0

2.0

0.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 （Year)

[Note] Data is based on materials provided by the Supreme Court of Japan.

32 III. Ideal Model for the Legal Profession Supporting the Judicial System 1. The Number of Legal Professionals and the Nurturing of Legal Professionals

The Program for Promoting Justice System Reform which was adopted by the Cabinet council meeting in March 2002 included the directive of "aiming to increase the number of those who pass the bar examination to about 3,000 a year by around 2010," reviewing the judicial system from the perspective of i) enhancement of the number of legal professionals playing key roles in the judicial system, and ii) the quality of reform of the system for nurturing legal professionals.

Regarding the transition in the number of those who pass the bar examination, in the past there was generally a shift of between 400 and 500 per year, and this number increased to slightly more than 700 by 1995. Such number has increased to approx. 1,000 since 1999, after the discussions conducted between the legal professions; judges, prosecutors and lawyers, also taking into account the recommendations proposed by the Council for reform of the system for nurturing legal professionals (issued on Nov. 13, 1995).

In terms of quality, it was recommended that unlike the conventional bar examination; the system with which the result was decided at just "one point," it was recommended that nurturing legal professionals with high quality during the whole "processes," namely, at law schools, bar examinations and legal apprentice training, which are inter-relating. Taking this into consideration, a new system for nurturing legal professionals was established centering on law schools, and the number of those who passed the bar examination has surpassed 2000 since 2007. With such background, the number of attorneys jumped to 32,088 in 2012, from that of 13,800 in 1990.

■Data 2-3-1-1 Changes in the Number of Attorneys （1950 - 2012）■ （Person） 35,000 The Number of Attorneys (as of March 32,088 30,000 31, 2012): 32,088 （Female: 5,595） 25,000

The Number of Attorneys 20,000

15,000

10,000 5,827 （5,595） 5,000

（6） The Number of Female Attorneys 0 2012 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year [Note] 1. The figures above were those as of March 31 per year. 2. The number of attorneys here only refers to regular JFBA members（Please refer to Page 45 for categories of JFBA memership)

33 ■Data 2-3-1-2 The Number of Legal Apprentices who Have Completed Legal Training per Chosen Profesion■ The Number of Those Year of Entrance to who Have Completed Judges Prosecutors Attorneys Others (Completion of) Legal Legal Training Training Institute Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female 1983 (1985) 447 44 52 7 49 2 343 34 3 1 1984 (1986) 450 44 70 8 34 4 342 32 4 0 1985 (1987) 448 52 62 10 37 6 347 36 2 0 1986 (1988) 482 45 73 8 41 4 367 32 1 1 1987 (1989) 470 57 58 10 51 6 360 40 1 1 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 2003003 ( 2004 00 ) 1,78,178 27777 10909 35 77 199 983 222 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 [Note] 1. Data is based on the "Courts Data Book 2012" 2 Regarding legal apprentices who started training 1983 and 1998, such apprentices completed their training in the April of the second year afterward. (Their training period was two years.) For those who started between 1999 and 2005, they completed their training in October, one and a half years later. (The training period was one year and six months.) For those between 2006 and 2008, they completed their training in September or December of the following year. For those who started in 2009 and onwards, they completed their training in August or December of the following year. 3. This number was calculated based on the timing immediately after the completion of legal training. ■Data 2-3-1-3 Changes in the Number of Legal Professionals in Japan ■ （Person） 35,000 32,088 2,850 (Judges As of April 2012) 28,789 30,000 1,839 (Prosecutors As of March 31, 2012) Attorneys 25,000 32,088 (Attorneys As of March 31, 2012) 21,185

20,000 18,243 13,800 15,000 8,478 10,000 Judges Public Prosecutors 5,827 5,000 2,213 2,850 1,533 1,838 2,017 2,460 2,805 1,627 1,806 0 930 1,132 1,173 1,375 1,839 1950 1970 1990 2000 2005 2010 2012 Year [Note] 1. The number of judges (except for judges at summary courts) indicates the fixed number for each year between 1950 and 1990. After 1991, the number refers to that as of April of each year. 2. The number of public prosecutors (except for assistant public prosecutors) indicates the fixed number for each year between 1950 and 1990. After 1991, the number refers to that as of the end of March of each year. 3. The number of attorneys here only refers to regular JFBA members at the end of March each year. (The categories of JFBA memberships are shown on Page 45.)

34 The table below shows a cross-country comparison of the number of legal professionals. When comparing the number of people per attorney across five countries, the figure in Japan is far greater than that in other countries. However, due to the rapid increase in the number of attorneys in Japan in recent years, the number of people per attorney in Japan has sharply dropped. ■Data 2-3-1-4 Cross-Country Comparison of the Number of Legal Professionals ■ （Unit：Person） Number of Legal Judges Public Prosecutors Lawyers Year Professionals (Please Population Number of Number of refer to Number of Number of Number of Number of People per Number of People per Number of Legal People per Public People per Note） Legal Judges Public Lawyers Professionals Judge Prosecutors Lawyer Professional Prosecutor 1990 245,809,000 725,574 339 29,460 8,344 25,120 9,785 670,994 366 U.S. 2000 274,114,000 990,240 277 30,781 8,905 31,340 8,746 928,119 295 2012 311,591,917 1,211,087 257 32,501 9,587 31,918 9,762 1,146,668 272 1990 50,393,000 62,159 811 1,378 36,570 1,988 25,349 58,793 857 U.K 2000 52,428,000 91,381 574 3,555 14,748 2,109 24,859 85,717 612 2012 55,240,500 132,611 417 3,726 14,826 2,888 19,128 125,997 438 1990 61,242,000 75,493 811 17,627 3,474 3,759 16,292 54,107 1,132 Germany 2000 82,037,000 129,977 631 20,920 3,921 4,998 16,414 104,059 788 2012 81,751,602 181,336 451 20,411 4,005 5,246 15,584 155,679 525 1990 56,184,000 23,791 2,362 4,486 12,524 1,529 36,746 17,776 3,161 France 2000 58,518,748 37,281 1,570 4,875 12,004 1,566 37,368 30,840 1,897 2012 65,350,181 62,194 1,051 5,931 11,018 1,990 32,839 54,273 1,204 1990 123,255,000 17,363 7,099 2,017 61,108 1,173 105,077 14,173 8,696 Japan 2000 126,686,000 21,265 5,957 2,213 57,246 1,345 94,190 17,707 7,155 2012 127, 799, 000 36, 824 3, 471 2, 880 44, 375 1, 810 70, 607 32, 134 3, 977

（Person） ■Data 2-3-1-5 Cross-Country Comparison of the Number of People per Lawyer ■ 10,000 8,696 9,000 8,000 1990 2000 2012 7,155 7,000 6,000 5,000 3,977 4,000 3,161 3,000 1,897 2,000 1,132 857 788 1,204 1,000 366 295 272 612 438 525 0 U.S. U.K. Germany France Japan

[Note] 1. The statistics in the graph above show the population divided by the number of legal professionals in each country. 2. The statistics on the number of legal professionals in Japan , except for those involving lawyers, are obtained from the "Court Data Book 2012" (the Supreme Court of Japan). 3. Japan: The number of judges and prosecutors is the maximum number budgeted for each fiscal year. The number of lawyers is as of April 1 each year. The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Bureau of Statistics of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

4. U.S.: The number of judges is the fixed total number of judges in federal courts and the total of the number of judges across all states (all 50 states and Washington D.C.). As for the federal courts, the numbers were fixed in 1990, December 1999, and in March 2012. As regards the states, the numbers are from March 1990, 1998 and 2009. The number of prosecutors; the number of federal prosecutors is for 1990, March 2000 and April 2012 (reseached by the U.S. Department of Justice), and the number of state prosecutors is for 1976, the estimated number for 1996, and for 2007. The number of lawyers is calculated by deleting the number of judges and public prosecutors from the total number of legal professionals in practice in each state as researched by the American Bar Association, and the dates are March 1990, March 1999, and at the end of December 2010. The population is based on the research of the U.S. Census Bureau and is for 1988, November 1999, and July 2011.

35 5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of judges, except for Justices of the Peace (unpaid), is for March 1990, January 2000, and April 2011. The number of prosecutors is the sum of the fixed number of prosecutors in February 1990 through the prosecutorial system introduced in 1985 (Crown Prosecution Services), and the number of barristers and solicitors serving as public prosecutors in March 2000 and as of March 2012, and it also includes the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The number of lawyers is the sum of all barristers in private practice and solicitors with practicing certificates, except for those solicitors serving as part-time judges, public prosecutors, and the Attorney General, and the dates are 1990, 2000, and July and December 2010. The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics, and is for 1988, June 1998 and June 2010.

6. Germany: The numbers of judges and prosecutors are as of January 1989 and December 1998, and also the end of December 2010, based on research conducted by the Federal Ministry of Justice. The number of lawyers is based on the research of the German Federal Bar, and the dates are January 1989, 2000 and 2011. The population is based on the research of the German Federal Statistical Office conducted at the end of December of 1987, 1998 and 2010.

7. France: The number of judges and prosecutors is for the 1990s, January 2000, and also on January 1, 2011, based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France. The number of lawyers is the sum of the number of lawyers for January 1987, and 1999 and number of lawyers including past legal advisers, avoué prés la cour d’appel, and avocat au Conseil d'Etat et a la Cour de cassation based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France, on January 1, 2011. The population is for October 1989, March 1999, and also on January 1, 2012, based on the research of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)).

36 ■ Data 2-3-1-6 Flow-chart for Nurturing of Legal Professionals ■

Old System for Nurturing Legal Professionals

- Judges - Law faculty - Public of universities Selected through Examinations "One Point" prosecutors -Other faculties of Former bar Legal training （） - Attorneys universities examination * -Other professions, etc. (*) - Those who started legal training in 1998: 2 years of legal training - Those who started legal training from April 1999 until April 2005: 1 year and 6 months of legal training - Those who started legal training from April 2006 through April 2011: 1 year and 4 months of legal training （For those who have passed the former bar examination, etc. ）

Moving towards nurturing legal professionals with a focus on processes centered on law schools

New System for Nurturing Legal Professionals

Theoretical and practical Examination taking the education for nuturing legal education programs of law Training centered professionals schools into account on actual practice - Judges - Law faculty of universities - Public prosecutors -Other - Two -year course for those who completed law as New bar Legal faculties of undergraduates: 2 years examination apprentice - Attorneys universities - Three-year course for those (From 2006 training course who have not studied law as onwards) (1 year) -Other undergraduates: 3 years professions, etc. Nationally licenced Nuturing through "Processes" examination to be qualified to take bar examination (from 2011 onwards) [Note] There is a system for qualifying those with certain qualifications to become an attorney: After passing the bar examination, those who have served for a certain period as i) a member of the Diet, ii) having a post at the legal department of a corporation and handling legal-related issues, or iii) a civil servant performing legal work, may be qualified as an attorney The purpose of the examination is to judge whether under the condition of such person having completed a or not a person has; i) the necessary knowledge training course for attorney services (Training for the equal to those who have completed law school, ii) granting of qualifications to persons qualified to become advanced expertise, and iii) the basic education attorneys) designated by the Minister of Justice. After necessary for actual legal practice. completing such traning course, such person shall be certified by the Minister of Justice (Article 5 of the Attorney Act ).

37 ■Data2-3-1-7 Changes in the Number of Applicants for Law Schools■

Applicants（person） Ratio of Applicants （Person）（Competitive Ratio） 80,000 13.0 14.0

12.0

60,000 72,800 10.0 7.8 7.2 6.9 6.8 8.0 40,000 41,756 5.2 4.9 6.0 40,341 45,207 5.1 39,555 4.1 29,714 4.0 20,000 24,014 22,927 18,446 2.0

0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 （Year）

■Data 2-3-1-8 Enrollment of People with Work Experience and Non-law Graduates for Law Schools ■ 社会人入学者（人）Enrollment after Work Experience 非法学部出身者（人）Non-law Graduates (person) (person) (Person) 社会人割合（％）Ratio of Working People (%) 非法学部出身者割合（％）Ratio of Non-law Graduates (%) （％） 3,000 100.0 2,792 90.0 80.0 2,091 1,988 1,925 70.0 2,000 1,834 1,660 1,634 1,609 60.0 48.4 1,490 1,410 1,298 50.0 37.7 1,224 40.0 33.3 32.1 993 1,000 29.8 868 763 26.8 748 689 30.0 34.5 24.1 591 29.9 21.1 21.9 28.3 26.1 25.3 20.0 26.1 21.1 20.7 18.8 10.0 0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (Year)

[Note] 1. The above graph was made by the JFBA, based on materials published by the “Central Education Deliberation Council Sectional Meeting, Special Committee for Law School in MEXT (the 47th and 49th).” 2. The number of applicants refers to the total number of applicants across Japan taking an admission test for law school conducted individually at each law school after conducting an aptitude test. For example, in the case that an applicant has applied to both “A” law school and “B” law school, it would be calculated as one applicant to each “A” and “B” law schools, meaning “two” in the total. 3. The ratio of applicants: The number of applicants for law schools (total for all of Japan) is divided by the maximum number of admissions (total for all of Japan).

38 ■Data 2-3-1-9 Ratio of Law Graduates and Non-law Graduates in the Number of Successful Bar Examination Candidates (Old-style Bar Examination) ■ Ratio of Successful Bar Examination Candidates for Law Graduates （％） Ratio of Successful Bar Examination Candidates for Non-law Graduates 100.0 93.2 91.5 88.9 90.0 82.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 18.0 20.0 11.1 6.8 8.5 10.0 0.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 (Year)

[Note] 1. Information based on the “Academic background” section written on the application document for the bar examination. In such section, regardless of educational background, if an applicant has an academic background of any of the following: (i) graduated; (ii) currently studying; or (iii) left a four-year university, the applicant is to write the name of such university and faculty that they last attended. 2. “Law graduates” refers to successful bar examination candidates having studied at law-related faculties and with an academic background described in 1. “Non-law graduates” refers to successful bar examination candidates with a background other than the above “law graduate.” 3. “Non-law graduates” includes a) applicants with an academic background of a four-year university, having studied at faculties other than law; b) applicants who have been exempted a first examination of the bar exam because of having an educational background of other than a four-year university; and c) applicants who have passed a first examination, or applicants who have been exempted a first examination and also have not studied at universities.

■Data 2-3-1-10 Ratio of Law Graduates and Non-law Graduates in the Number of Successful Bar Examination Candidates (New-style Bar Examination) ■ （％） Ratio of Successful Law Graduates Ratio of Successful Non-law Graduates 100.0 88.5 90.0 82.4 77.7 78.4 79.1 81.0 81.9 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 22.3 21.6 20.9 19.0 18.1 17.6 20.0 11.5 10.0 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (Year)

[Note] 1. Information based on the “Having/Not having studied law at law-related faculties of universities” section of “Eligibility for admission to an examination” written on the application document for the bar examination. 2. “Law graduates” refers to those who graduated from law-related faculties of universities, and “Non-law graduates” refers to those who graduated from faculties other than law-related faculties of universities, both including those who have studied at two-year and three- year courses at law schools, respectively. 3. The statistics here in this page are based on “the 78th National Bar Examination Commission Meeting (Oct. 12, 2011) of the Ministry of Justice, except for those for 2012, which were based on research data by the Ministry of Justice.

39 ■Data 2-3-1-11 Pass Rate of New Bar Examination (per Law Graduate and Non-law Graduate)■

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Law Graduates (A) (person) 893 1,439 1,618 1,617 1,679 1,689 1,685 Examination Pass Rate 48.8% 41.9% 35.0% 29.4% 27.5% 25.9% 26.8% Non-law Graduates (B) (person) 116 412 447 426 395 374 359 Examination Pass Rate 44.6% 35.2% 27.3% 22.6% 19.2% 16.7% 17.7% Total (A + B) (person) 1,009 1,851 2,065 2,043 2,074 2,063 2,044 Examination Pass Rate 48.3% 40.2% 33.0% 27.6% 25.4% 23.5% 24.6% [Note] The table was made by the JFBA based on data issued by the Ministry of Justice.

■Data 2-3-1-12 Pass Rate of New Bar Examination ■ The Number of Applicants (person) (Person) The Number of Successful Bar Candidates (person) (%) The Pass Rate (%) 10,000 60.0 8,765 48.3 8,163 8,387 50.0 8,000 7,392 40.2 6,261 40.0 6,000 33.0 4,607 27.6 25.1 30.0 25.4 23.5 4,000 20.0 2,091 2,102 1,851 2,065 2,043 2,074 2,063 2,000 1,009 10.0

0 000.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (Year)

[Note] The data is based on the “Central Education Deliberation Council Sectional Meeting, Special Committee for Law School (the 47th),” except for those for 2012, which were based on materials issued by the Ministry of Justice.

■Data 2-3-1-13 Status of Pass Rate (Cumulative Pass Rate) of Law School Graduates who Have Taken New Bar Examination per Year ■ (As of Sept. 2012) The Number of The People Cumulative Completing Number of The Year when Studying at Law is Completed The Number of The Number of Their Studies Successful People who People who did not at Law School Candidates Completed Law as Study Law as (person) (person) Undergraduates Undergraduates Law School Graduates in 2005 (Qualified for taking 2,176 1,518 69.8% 69.8% － a bar exam between 2006 and 2010) Law School Graduates in 2006 (Qualified for taking 4,418 2,188 49.5% 63.4% 39.5% a bar exam between 2007 and 2011) Law School Graduates in 2007 (Qualified for taking 4,911 2,273 46.3% 65.4% 32.6% a bar exam between 2008 and 2012) Law School Graduates in 2008 (Qualified for taking 4,994 2,300 46.1% 68.0% 30.5% a bar exam between 2009 and 2013) Law School Graduates in 2009 (Qualified for taking 4,792 2,121 44.3% 64.7% 30.3% a bar exam between 2010 and 2014) Law School Graduates in 2010 (Qualified for taking 4,535 1,722 38.0% 54.0% 26.5% a bar exam between 2011 and 2015) Law School Graduates in 2011 (Qualified for taking 3,937 1,027 26.1% 39.2% 15.3% a bar exam between 2012 and 2016) [Note] 1. Data has been made by the JFBA based on data materials provided by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). 2. Cumulative Pass Rate is a ratio showing how many applicants have passed under the limitation on the number of times an applicant may sit for the bar examination (currently limited to three times within a period of five years after completion of law school.)

40 2. Reform of the Judge System

The Recommendations of the Justice System Reform Council released in June 2001 set targets which included “diversification of and broadening access to the selection pool for judges,” “reexamination of the procedures for appointing judges,” and “reexamination of the personnel system for judges.”

Most judges and public prosecutors in Japan began their careers as assistant judges or public prosecutors immediately after completion of their legal training. However, such a situation may lead to institutional fatigue. It is expected that if persons with extensive experience as attorneys are appointed as judges and public prosecutors, they would have a positive impact on these professions. This is called “appointment of attorneys as judges.” Although there had been such a system before, in order to promote the system further, the JFBA and the Supreme Court have discussed the issue at length and compiled the outcomes of the discussions, and a new system to appoint attorneys as judges has been launched. In addition, after further discussions between the JFBA and the Supreme Court, a part-time judges system will be set up enabling attorneys to serve as a part-time judge at conciliations for civil and family affairs cases.

It was suggested in the Recommendations that in order to secure judges with abundant and diversified knowledge and experience, a system (mechanism) be established to ensure that assistant judges would be able to gain diversified experience as legal professionals (namely attorneys or public prosecutors in principle), other than the practice of judges. It was also required for public prosecutors to have a similar system, which collectively led to the enactment of the Act on Treatment of Work Experience for Assistant Judges and Public Prosecutors Temporarily Practicing as Attorneys.

With regards to the procedures for appointing judges, a body, the Advisory Committee for the Nominations of Lower Court Judges, was established to reflect the public view on the nomination processes. The Advisory Committee was established because there had been a series of refusals to reappoint judges and to appoint new assistant judges possibly for reasons of thought and creed since the 1970s. The appointment procedures were not transparent at that time and have since been reexamined.

Further, with respect to the personnel system for judges, it was suggested that an appropriate mechanism for the personnel evaluation of judges be established to ensure transparency and objectivity. This led to the enactment of regulations to achieve such objectives.

In addition, there were proposals to eliminate the special assistant judge system (in which assistant judges can serve as independent judges) and create measures enabling the public to participate in the management of the courts, such as creating District Court Committees and reorganizing the Family Court Committees.

■ Data 2-3-2-1 Actual Performance of the System Allowing Assistant Judges and Public Prosecutors to Gain Experience as Practicing Attorneys Since its Introduction ■

（Unit：Person）

Bar 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Association 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year 6th year 7th year 8th year

Assistant judge 1 3 0 3 1 0 3 3 14 Tokyo Prosecutor 1 0 2 2 3 1 4 0 13

Dai-ichi Assistant judge 5 2 5 4 4 5 2 2 29

Tokyo Prosecutor 1 3 1 2 1 1 0 2 11

Assistant judge 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 10 Daini Tokyo Prosecutor 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 3 8

Assistant judge 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 17 Osaka Prosecutor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 9

Fukuoka-ken Assistant judge － 1 －－－－－－ 1

Aichi-ken Prosecutor －－－ 1 1 1 1 1 5

Total 13 15 14 15 14 14 14 18 117

42 ■Data 2-3-2-2 The Number of Attorneys Appointed As Judges (Full-time Judges) (per Federation of

Bar Associations ■ (Unit:(unit: person)

Federation Chugoku Year Kanto Kinki Chubu Kyushu Tohoku Hokkaido Shikoku Total Appointed Region

1992 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

1993 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

1994 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

1995 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

1996 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5

1997 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5

1998 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

1999 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

2000 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

2001 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

2002 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

2003 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 10

2004 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 8

2005 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

2006 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 5

2007 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

2008 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4

2009 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

2010 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

2011 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 5

2012 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 Total 58 35 5 3 5 0 0 0 106

[Note] The statistics are as of October 1, 2012

43 ■Data 2-3-2-3 The Number of Attorneys Appointed As Judges (Part-time Judges) (Per District Court)■ （Unit：Person) Jan. 2004 Oct. 2004 Oct. 2005 Oct. 2006 Oct. 2007 Oct. 2008 Oct. 2009 Oct. 2010 Oct. 2011 Oct. 2012 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Cumul District The Number The Number The Number The Number The Number The Number The Number The Number The Number The Number ative Court of Attorneys of Attorneys of Attorneys of Attorneys of Attorneys of Attorneys of Attorneys of Attorneys of Attorneys of Attorneys Appointed as Appointed as Appointed as Appointed as Appointed as Appointed as Appointed as Appointed as Appointed as Appointed as Total Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges Civil 7108105984912 Tokyo Family 114 Affairs 5215 81415 Yokoham Civil 22 11 16 a Family Affairs 213 22 Kawasaki Civil 2 Branch 11 Civil 11 2 Saitama Family 11 Affairs 211 21 Civil 21121 Chiba Family 10 Affairs 111 Civil 4436352625 Osaka Family 62 Affairs 321514 222 Sakai Civil 3 Branch 111 Civil 211221 Kyoto Family 14 Affairs 11 111 Civil 2211221 Kobe Family 14 Affairs 11 1 Civil 324635 Nagoya Family 40 Affairs 33123212 Hiroshim Civil 211 1111 10 a Family Affairs 11 Civil 222323 Fukuoka Family 20 Affairs 111 111 Kokura Civil 2 Branch 11 Civil 2111111 Sendai Family 10 Affairs 11 Civil 212232 Sapporo Family 19 Affairs 11 11 111 Takamats Civil 111 11 5 Total 30 28 32 58 17 50 22 49 22 44 352

[Note] The number of attorneys actually working as part-time judges are less than the above numbers because there were some who have retired in the middle of their two-year term, because of the appointment as full-time judges, etc.

44 Part 1 Current Situation of Attorneys and Other Legal Professions Chapter 1 Population of Attorneys I. Changes in the Number of Attorneys －1950 to 2012－

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) is a juridical person established in September 1949 based on the Attorney Act enacted in the same year. It consists of its members which include attorneys, legal professional corporations, and local bar associations (hereinafter referred to as bar associations). The population of attorneys was approximately 5,800 when the JFBA was established and has grown to 32,088 at the end of March 2012. Please note that "attorneys" in this White Paper means JFBA regular members. (cf. "Categories of JFBA Membership" at the bottom of this page)

Number Number Number Number Women Women Women Women Year of Year of Year of Year of Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorney 1950 5,827 0.1% 1966 7,343 1.4% 1982 11,888 4.0% 1998 16,305 7.9% 1951 5,804 0.1% 1967 7,645 1.7% 1983 12,132 4.2% 1999 16,731 8.4% 1952 5,822 0.2% 1968 7,918 1.9% 1984 12,377 4.5% 2000 17,126 8.9% 1953 5,836 0.2% 1969 8,198 2.0% 1985 12,604 4.7% 2001 18,243 10.1% 1954 5,837 0.2% 1970 8,478 2.1% 1986 12,830 4.8% 2002 18,838 11.0% 1955 5,899 0.2% 1971 8,797 2.2% 1987 13,074 5.0% 2003 19,508 11.7% 1956 5,967 0.2% 1972 9,106 2.5% 1988 13,288 5.2% 2004 20,224 12.1% 1957 6 6,009 009 03% 0.3%1973 9 9,541 541 27% 2.7%1989 13 13,541 541 53% 5.3%2005 21 21,185 185 12 12.5% 5% 1958 6,100 0.4% 1974 9,830 2.8% 1990 13,800 5.6% 2006 22,021 13.0% 1959 6,217 0.5% 1975 10,115 3.0% 1991 14,080 5.8% 2007 23,119 13.6% 1960 6,321 0.7% 1976 10,421 3.2% 1992 14,329 5.9% 2008 25,041 14.4% 1961 6,439 0.7% 1977 10,689 3.2% 1993 14,596 6.1% 2009 26,930 15.3% 1962 6,604 0.8% 1978 10,977 3.3% 1994 14,809 6.3% 2010 28,789 16.2% 1963 6,732 0.9% 1979 11,206 3.4% 1995 15,108 6.6% 2011 30,485 16.8% 1964 6,849 1.0% 1980 11,441 3.7% 1996 15,456 6.9% 2012 32,088 17.4% 1965 7,082 1.2% 1981 11,624 3.8% 1997 15,866 7.4%

[Note] [Categories of JFBA Membership] *Regular Members: those who have been qualified in accordance with Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Attorney Act and have been registered in the roster of attorneys held by the JFBA *Foreign Special Members: those who have been qualified as lawyers in foreign jurisdictions and, after obtaining approval of the Minister of Justice of Japan, have been registered with the JFBA as Registered Foreign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-jimu-bengoshi ) *Quasi Members: foreign lawyers who were approved by the Supreme Court of Japan pursuant to Article 7 of the Attorney Act before its major revision in 1955 and Article 65 of the Act on Special Measures Incidental to Reversion of Okinawa to engage in practice as stipulated in Article 3 of the Attorney Act. *Special Members in Okinawa: those who had been qualified pursuant to the laws and regulations of Okinawa before the reversion of Okinawa in 1972, and after the reversion, were permitted to engage in practice as stipulated in Article 3 of the Attorney Act with the title of “Okinawa Bengoshi (attorney)” within Okinawa Prefecture. *Local Bar Associations *Legal Professional Corporations

45 II. Constitution According to Age

The following graph shows the age distribution of attorneys, divided into male and female. The number of male attorneys was 26,493 and the number of female attorneys was 5,595 as of the end of March, 2012. As can be seen in the graph, the greatest number of attorneys for both male and female are those in their 30s.

（as of the end of March 2012） 80 or older 1,108 35 （1,143） 70 - 79 Female: 5,595 Male: 26,493 2,544 130 （2,674） 60 - 69 4,102 291 （4,393） 50 - 59 3,603 452 （4,055） 40 - 49 4,178 1,080 7,915 （5,258） 30 - 39 2,489 （10,404） 20 - 29 3,043 1,118 （4,161）

8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 (Age) (person)

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

46 III. Comparison of the Total Number of Lawyers, Judges, and Public Prosecutors with those of Foreign Countries

The graph below compares the numbers of lawyers, judges, and public prosecutors of major foreign countries. It uses the statistics of the numbers of legal professionals of each country obtained by the Supreme Court of Japan (except for the number of attorneys in Japan) and compares the population per judge, public prosecutor, and legal professionals in each country. Regarding each country's population of legal professionals, see pages 51 and 52. 1. The Number of People per Lawyer (Cross-country Comparison) The graph below is a cross-country comparison of “the number of people per lawyer.” In 2012, there were approximately 3,900 people per attorney in Japan, while the number of people per lawyer in the other four countries was all below 1,200.

Population Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France 9,000

8,000

7,000 6,022 5,792 6,000 5,518 5,098 4,737 5,000 4,423 4,196 3,977 4,000

3,000

2,000 1,488 1,402 1,363 1,363 1,275 1,235 1,244 1,204 1,000 623 597 577 560 547 535 525 525 528 510 477 463 451 442 435 438 0 292 289 285 281 280 279 273 272 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year

[Note] 1. The statistics of the graph above are the population divided by the number of lawyers in each country. 2. The statistics of the populations of legal professionals are obtained by the Supreme Court of Japan, except for that of attorneys in Japan.

3. Japan: The number of attorneys is as of April 1 of each year (See the table on page 51). The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (See the table on page 51). 4. U.S.: The number of lawyers is calculated by deleting the number of judges and public prosecutors from the total number of legal professionals in practice in each state researched by the American Bar Association (See the table on page 51). The population is based on the research of the U.S. Census Bureau (See the table on page 51).

5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of lawyers (See the table on page 51) is the sum of those of barristers in private practice and solicitors with practicing certificates except for those solicitors serving as part-time judges, public prosecutors, and the Attorney General. The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics (See the table on page 51). 6. Germany: The number of lawyers is based on the research of the German Federal Bar (See the table on page 52). The population is based on the research of the German Federal Statistical Office (See the table on page 52).

7. France: The number of lawyers is the sum of lawyers including legal advisers of the past, avoué prés la cour d’appel, and avocat au Conseil d'Etat et a la Cour de cassation based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France (See the table on page 52). The population is based on the research of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table on page 52).

47 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 2012, there were approximately 44,000 people per judge in Japan, while the number was below approximately 15,000 people per judge in the other four countries. There is a large gap between the number in Japan and that in other four countries.

Population Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France 60,000

51,905 50,397 48,954 50,000 47,587 46,265 45,458 44,932 44,375

40,000

30,000

20,000 15,037 15,074 13,897 14,777 14,765 13,990 14,753 14,826

11,387 10,782 10,530 10,530 10,756 10,668 10,964 11,018 10,000 9,388 9,388 9,349 9,445 9,589 9,680 9,553 9,587

3,949 4,045 4,042 4,088 4,083 4,080 4,070 4,005 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year

[Note] 1. The statistics of the graph above are calculated by dividing the population by the number of judges in each country.

2. The statistics of the populations of legal professionals are obtained by the Supreme Court of Japan, except for that of attorneys in Japan.

3. Japan: The number of judges is a fixed number of each fiscal year (excluding judges of summary courts) (See the table on page 51). The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (See the table on page 51).

4. U.S.: The number of judges is the fixed total number of judges at federal courts and the number of judges in the states (all 50 states and Washington D.C.) (See the table on page 51). The population is based on the research of the U.S. Census Bureau (See the table on page 51).

5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of judges is the total number of full-time and part-time judges researched by the U.K. Ministry of Justice (See the table on page 51). The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics (See the table on page 51).

6. Germany: The number of judges is the total number of judges who belong to federal and state jurisdictions (including probation judges), based on research of the Federal Ministry of Justice (See the table on page 52). The population is based on the research of the German Federal Statistical Office (See the table on page 52).

7. France: The number of judges is based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France and the Supreme Judicial Council (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) (See the table on page 52). The population is based on the research of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table on page 52).

48 3. The Number of People per Public Prosecutor (Cross-country Comparison) The graph below is a cross-country comparison of “the number of people per public prosecutor.” In 2012, there were approximately70,000 people per prosecutor in Japan, which is far above the number in the other four countries.

Population Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France 100,000

90,000 82,485 80,300 78,195 76,099 80,000 74,110 72,121 71,500 70,607 70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000 32,236 32,885 32,519 32,677 32,839 29,474 29,207 29,207 30,000

18,662 18,292 17,522 17,929 19,128 20,000 16,696 16,385 17,082 16,026 16,158 16,145 16,191 16,172 16,010 15,971 15,584 10,000 8,439 8,558 9,335 9,386 9,396 9,483 9,455 9,762 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year

[Note] 1. The statistics of the graph above are calculated by dividing the population by the number of public prosecutors in each country.

2. The statistics of the populations of legal professionals are obtained by the Supreme Court of Japan, except for that of attorneys in Japan.

3. Japan: The number of public prosecutors is a fixed number of each fiscal year (excluding assistant prosecutors) (See the table on page 51). The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (See the table on page 51).

4. U.S.: The number of federal prosecutors is the sum of the number of federal prosecutors and assistant federal prosecutors researched by the U.S. Department of Justice (See the table on page 51). The number of state prosecutors is the estimated number of those who belong to state prosecutor offices and deal with serious crimes (See the table on page 51). The population is based on the research of the U.S. Census Bureau (See the table on page 51).

5. U.K.: Numbers in England and Wales. The number of public prosecutors is the sum of the number of barristers and solicitors serving as public prosecutors researched by the U.K. Crown Prosecution Service. It also includes the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (See the table on page 51). The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics (See the table on page 51).

6. Germany: The number of public prosecutors is based on the research of the German Federal Ministry of Justice (See the table on page 52). The population is based on the research of the German Federal Statistical Office (See the table on page 52).

7. France: The number of public prosecutors is based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France and the Supreme Judicial Council (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) (See the table on page 52). The population is based on the research of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table on page 52).

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

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

Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France 6,000

5,064 4,880 5,000 4,663 4,342 4,061 3,818 4,000 3,642 3,471

3,000

2,000 1,264 1,191 1,159 1,159 1,102 1,070 1,080 1,051 1,000 520 504 490 478 468 459 452 451 496 479 450 437 426 418 413 417 274 268 265 0 271 265 263 258 257 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year

[Note] 1. The statistics of the graph above are the population of each country divided by the number of legal professionals in each country. 2. The statistics of the populations of legal professionals are obtained by the Supreme Court of Japan, except for that of attorneys in Japan. 3. The statistics on the graph are based on those of a particular day of each year in each country and for each profession (See pages 51 and 52).

50 Dates of Data (Upper Cell: Date, Lower Cell: The Number of Persons) Japan 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oct. 1, 2004 Oct. 1, 2005 Oct. 1, 2006 Oct. 1, 2007 Oct. 1, 2008 Oct. 1, 2009 Oct. 1, 2010 Oct. 1, 2011 Population 127,687,000 127,756,815 127,770,000 127,771,000 127,692,000 127,510,000 128,056,026 127,799,000 Apr. 1, 2005 Apr. 1, 2006 Apr. 1, 2007 Apr. 1, 2008 Apr. 1, 2009 Apr. 1, 2010 Apr. 1, 2011 Apr. 1, 2012 Attorneys 21,205 22,056 23,154 25,062 26,958 28,828 30,518 32,134 Judges Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of (excl. Judges at FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Summary Courts） 2,460 2,535 2,610 2,685 2,760 2,805 2,850 2,880 Public Prosecutors Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of Fixed # of (excl. Assistant FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Prosecutors) 1,548 1,591 1,634 1,679 1,723 1,768 1,791 1,810

U.S. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jul. 2004 Jul. 2005 Jul. 2005 Jul. 2006 Jul. 2008 Jul. 2009 Jul. 2009 Jul. 2011 Population 293,655,404 296,410,404 296,410,404 299,398,484 304,059,724 307,006,550 307,006,550 311,591,917 Dec. 2003 Dec. 2004 Dec. 2005 Dec. 2006 Dec. 2007 Dec. 2008 Jan. 2011 Dec. 2010 Lawyers 1,006,783 1,026,356 1,041,262 1,066,536 1,084,396 1,102,106 1,124,077 1,146,668 Judges Sep. 2004 Sep. 2005 Sep. 2006 Sep. 2007 Jan. 2009 Jan. 2010 Jan. 2011 Mar. 2012 (Federal) 1,783 1,811 1,812 1,800 1,818 1,826 1,829 1,823 Judges 2002-2003 2003-2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2009 (States) 29,498 29,763 29,892 29,900 29,891 29,891 30,309 30,678 Prosecutors Mar. 2005 Mar. 2006 Mar. 2007 Mar. 2008 Apr. 2009 Mar. 2010 Mar. 2011 Apr. 2012 (Federal) 5,537 5,375 5,230 5,376 5,836 5,852 5,947 5,465 Prosecutors 2001 2001 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2007 (States)(States) 29, 262 29, 262 26, 524 26, 524 26, 524 26, 524 26, 524 26, 453

U.K. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jun. 2003 Jun. 2004 Jun. 2005 Jun. 2006 Jun. 2007 Jun. 2008 Jun. 2009 Jun. 2010 Population 52,794,000 53,045,000 53,390,300 53,728,800 54,072,000 54,439,700 54,809,100 55,240,500 Lawers (Barristers) Dec. 2004 Dec. 2005 Dec. 2006 Dec. 2007 Dec. 2008 Dec. 2009 Dec. 2010 Dec. 2010 (Solicitors) Jul. 2003 Jul. 2004 Jul. 2006 Jul. 2007 Jul. 2008 Jul. 2009 Jul. 2010 Jul. 2010 100,028 103,935 112,025 116,022 119,839 123,289 125,997 125,997 Mar. & Apr. Mar. & Apr. Feb. - Apr. Apr. 2005 May 2006 Apr. 2008 Apr. 2010 2007 2008 2010 Apr. 2011 *Partially, *Partially, *Partially, Oct. 2009 *Partially, *Partially, *Partially, Apr. 2011 Judges incl. Dec. incl. Mar. incl. Mar. Feb. & Mar. incl. Mar. incl. Apr. incl. Sep. & Mar. 2012 2004 2006 2009 2009 2006 2007 Oct. 2009 3,511 3,817 3,613 3,639 3,865 3,690 3,636 3,726 Feb. 2006 *Partially, Feb. 2005 Feb. 2007 Feb. 2008 Jan. 2009 Feb. 2010 Mar. 2011 Mar. 2012 Prosecutors incl. Dec. 2005 2,829 2,900 3,047 3,218 3,300 3,187 3,057 2,888 [Note] Regarding the number of lawyers in the U.K., statistics were collected at different dates depending on the categories of lawyers.

51 Germany 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Dec. 31, 2003 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2010 Population 82,531,671 82,501,000 82,438,000 82,314,906 82,217,830 82,002,356 81,802,257 81,751,602 Jan. 1, 2005 Jan. 1, 2006 Jan. 1, 2007 Jan. 1, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2012 Lawyers 132,569 138,131 142,830 146,906 150,375 153,251 155,679 155,679 Dec. 31, 2002 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2010 Judges 20,901 20,395 20,395 20,138 20,138 20,101 20,101 20,411 Dec. 31, 2002 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2010 Public Prosecutors 5,150 5,106 5,106 5,084 5,084 5,122 5,122 5,246

France 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Nov. 2003 Nov. 2005 Jan. 2007 Jan. 2007 Jan. 2009 Jan. 2010 Jan. 2011 Jan. 2012 Population 59,862,000 60,863,000 61,538,322 61,538,322 62,448,977 62,793,432 65,026,885 65,350,181 Lawyers (incl. Legal Jan. 2003 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Advisers) (avoue pres la Cour Jan. 2003 Jan. 1, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 d'appel) (avocat au Conseil d'Etat et a la Cour Jan. 2003 Jan. 1, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 de cassation) (Trainee Lawyers) Jan. 2003 Jan. 1, 2005 Jan. 1, 2006 Jan. 1, 2006 - - - - 40,233 43,403 45,150 45,150 48,983 50,844 52,286 54,273

JJan. 2004 J Jan. 2006 J Jan. 2007 J Jan. 2007 D Dec. 3131, 2007 D Dec. 3131, 2008 D Dec. 3131, 2009 D Dec. 3131, 2009 Judges 5,257 5,645 5,844 5,844 5,806 5,886 5,931 5,931

Jan. 2004 Jan. 2006 Jan. 2007 Jan. 2007 Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2009 Public Prosecutors 1,857 2,065 2,107 2,107 1,899 1,931 1,990 1,990

52 Chapter 2 Populations of Other Legal Professions I. Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions

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

[Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions] % of 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Women in 2012 Attorneys 19,508 20,224 21,185 22,021 23,119 25,041 26,930 28,789 30,485 32,088 Number of Women 2,273 2,448 2,648 2,859 3,152 3,599 4,127 4,660 5,115 5,595 17.4% Patent Attorneys 5,192 5,654 6,127 6,695 7,186 7,732 7,789 8,148 8,684 9,145 Number of Women 443 502 613 713 826 933 949 1,012 1,107 1,201 13.1% Those who may represent clients in specified infringement 496 1,061 1,479 1,736 1,974 2,221 2,409 2,563 2,735 litigation Certified Public Tax Accountants 66,674 67,370 68,642 69,243 70,068 70,664 71,177 71,606 72,039 72,635 Number of Women 6,784 7,182 7,794 7,961 8,242 8,580 8,858 9,097 9,438 9,710 13.4% Certified Public Accountants 14,235 14,826 15,469 16,213 17,257 17,915 18,943 20,038 21,325 23,119 Number of Women 1,217 1,347 1,451 1,610 1,798 1,904 2,102 2,320 2,560 2,853 12.3% Judicial Scriveners 17,304 17,667 17,735 18,059 18,520 18,877 19,394 19,766 20,313 20,670 Number of Women 1,867 1,982 2,071 2,199 2,362 2,529 2,706 2,850 3,020 3,171 15.3% Those who may represent clients before Summary Courts 6,351 8,462 9,242 9,986 10,880 11,674 12,415 13,258 13,898 Administrative Scriveners 36,417 37,607 38,449 38,874 38,883 39,203 39,846 40,475 41,584 42,177 Number of Women 3,535 3,793 3,944 4,086 4,102 4,212 4,403 4,559 4,827 4,977 11.8% Public Consultants on Social and Labour Insurance 26,967 27,926 29,075 30,343 31,137 32,332 33,671 34,732 35,801 36,850 Number of Women －－－－－－8,420 9,076 9,489 9,987 27.1% Land and House Investigators 18,648 18,590 18,462 18,320 18,146 18,002 17,820 17,617 17,487 17,328 Number of Women －－－－－－－－－－－ Total 204,945 209,864 215,144 219,768 224,316 229,766 235,570 241,171 247,718 254,012

[Note] The statistics in the above table are as of the end of March of each year, except for the below mentioned professions. “-” means that the statistics are not taken. Judicial Scriveners: As of April 1 of each year, except for the following: The number of women - 2003 is as of June 5. The number of judicial scriveners who are granted the right to represent clients before summary courts in 2004 is as of May 1. Administrative Scriveners and Land and House Investigators: As of April 1 of each year.

53 Chapter 3 Mergers of Law Offices and the Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations I. The Number of Attorneys in Law Offices

The table below ranks law offices nationwide by the number of attorneys. Mergers of law offices are progressing mainly in urban areas. Recently, law offices with more than two attorneys have increased. There are 8 offices with more than 100 attorneys as of the end of March 2012. Among them, there are one office with 200 - 300 attorneys, and three offices with 300 - 400 attorneys, and one office with more than 400 attorneys.

■Major Offices (Top 10 Offices)■ (As of the end of March 2012) 1 Nishimura Asahi Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo 465 2 Nagashima Ohno Tsunematsu Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo 334 3 Anderson Mori Tomotsune Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo 316 4 Mori Hamada Matsumoto Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo 304 5 TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo 242 Tokyo Aoyama Aoki Koma Horitsu Jimusho Baker & McKenzie Gaikokuho Jimu 6 122 Bengoshi Jimusyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Tokyo 7 City-Yuwa Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo 114 8 Bengoshi Hojin Oh-Ebashi Horitsu Jimusho Osaka 101 9 Bengoshi Hojin Adire Horitsu Jimusho Tokyo 88 10 Atsumi Sogo Horitsu Jimusho•Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Osaka 81 [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.

■Changes in the Number of Law Offices Classified by Size■

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 One-attorney Offices 8,109 7,960 7,821 7,926 8,114 8,318 Offices with two 1,650 1,815 1,900 2,024 2,236 2,355 Offices with 3 to 5 1,392 1,540 1,657 1,820 1,948 2,109 Offices with 6 to 10 389 426 518 531 571 602 Offices with 11 to 20 96 127 140 172 177 191 Offices with 21 to 30 29 26 32 35 34 43 Offices with 31 to 50 13 18 19 19 21 21 Offices with 51 to 100 354776 Offices with 101 or more 557778 Total 11,686 11,922 12,098 12,541 13,115 13,653

■Changes in the Number of Attorneys in Each Size of Office■ 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Women One-attorney Offices 8,109 7,960 7,821 7,926 8,114 8,318 823 Offices with two 3,300 3,630 3,800 4,048 4,472 4,710 870 Offices with 3 to 5 5,019 5,606 5,999 6,658 7,125 7,690 1,441 Offices with 6 to 10 2,815 3,097 3,805 3,886 4,203 4,451 952 Offices with 11 to 20 1,352 1,766 1,982 2,389 2,523 2,625 589 Offices with 21 to 30 686 620 774 846 840 1,054 205 Offices with 31 to 50 475 662 750 727 823 817 196 Offices with 51 to 100 220 369 290 459 469 425 93 Offices with 101 or more 1,134 1,331 1,709 1,850 1,916 1,998 426 Total 23,110 25,041 26,930 28,789 30,485 32,088 5,595 [Note] As of March in each year except for the data of year 2007 (as of July)

54 II. Current Situation of Legal Professional Corporations The system of Legal Professional Corporations (LPCs) came into effect on April 1, 2002, and an entire ten years have passed by the end of March 2012. Under this system, law offices, which have been managed mainly by individual attorneys, are allowed to be juridical persons in order to ensure continuity in dealing with legal matters as well as to accelerate streamlining and mergers of law offices. An LPC becomes a member of the bar association in the district where its principal office is located. In the event an LPC opens a branch office, the LPC also becomes a member of the bar association in the district where the branch office is located.

1. The Number of LPCs 90 LPCs were established from April 2011 to March 2012. As of the end of March 2012, the number of LPCs nationwide was 581. The table below classifies LPCs by the year of establishment and bar association.

[Number of LPCs Established in Each Year] [Number of LPC Members of Each Bar Association] (2011) 200277 Sapporo32 Yokohama 30Fukui 2 Shimane 2 200337 Hakodate1228 Saitama Kanazawa Kagawa 3 200447 Asahikawa5171 Chiba Toyama Tokushima 5 200538 Kushiro8 Ibaraki 7 Osaka 105 Kochi 1 200633 Sendai127188 TochigiKyoto Ehime 200756 Fukushima871927 Gunma Hyogo Fukuoka 200882 Yamagata56 Shizuoka Nara 4 Saga 5 200969 Iwate20 Yamanashi ShigaNa 3gasaki 6 201079 Akita33 Nagano Wakayama 1 Oita 14 2011 90 Aomori 511126Niigata Hiroshima Kumamoto Tokyo 97Aichi 51 Yamaguchi 9 Kagoshima 17 Dai-ichi Tokyo53 Mie 2 Okayama 3Miyazaki 11 Daini Tokyo42 Gifu 7Tottori 5 Okinawa 6 Total 744 [Comparison of the Number of LPC Members of Each Bar Association] (2011) 120

100

0 Mie Oita Gifu Nara Saga Iwate Aichi Akita Shiga Fukui Kochi Chiba Kyoto Osaka Ehime Tokyo Hyogo Sendai Tottori Ibaraki Gunma Niigata Tochigi Aomori Nagano Kushiro Saitama Kagawa Toyama Sapporo Shimane Fukuoka Okinawa Nagasaki Shizuoka Miyazaki Okayama Hakodate Yamagata Kanazawa Hiroshima Yokohama Asahikawa Fukushima Wakayama Tokushima Kumamoto Yamanashi Kagoshima Yamaguchi Daini Tokyo Dai-ichi Tokyo

[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 2012, because some LPCs belong to several bar associations. 2. The statistics are based on notifications by the end of March 2012.

55 2. Size of Legal Professional Corporations The table below classifies the number of attorneys (representative members, members and employed attorneys) who belong to LPCs.

[Classification by Number of Attorneys of LPCs (Including Employed Attorneys) ]

# of Persons 123456789101112131415161718192021 # of LPCs 10611492585233201571381093531121 4 # of 106 228 276 232 260 198 140 120 63 130 88 120 117 42 75 48 17 18 38 20 84 Attorneys # of Women 73437375842313111262323231013100 2108 19 # of GJBs 00000000000000200000 0

# of Persons 22 23 24 25 28 29 32 37 39 40 41 53 61 89 105 Total

# of LPCs 111113111111111574 # of Attorneys 22 23 24 25 28 87 32 37 39 40 41 53 61 89 105 3126

# of Women 6636519415785871524593

# of GJBs 10000000101000510

[Classification by Total Number of Members] (Unit: corporation) # of Persons 12345678910111213141517202627Total # of LPCs 2431906127101310515111111111574

[Note] 1. The statistics are based on notifications submitted by the end of March 2012. 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.

56 Chapter 4 Current Situation of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (“Registered Foreign Lawyers”) The system of gaikokuho-jimu-bengoshi (GJB) was introduced by the Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services by Foreign Lawyers (Act No. 66 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as “GJB Act”). A GJB, a registered foreign lawyer, is a person whose professional duties are providing legal services in a foreign jurisdiction, with a qualification equivalent to the Japanese attorney qualification (a qualification to be a foreign lawyer) and who has obtained approval of the Minister of Justice and registered in the Roll of Registered Foreign Lawyers kept by the JFBA. The GJB Act before the revision (hereinafter referred to as “Old GJB Act”) prohibited GJBs from employing Japanese attorneys (Old GJB Act Art. 49, para. 1). In addition, joint enterprises and profit sharing between GJBs and Japanese attorneys or Legal Professional Corporations were restricted in principle (Old GJB Act Art. 49, para. 2). As an exception, specified joint enterprises were allowed under certain requirements (Old GJB Act para. 49-2), by which a GJB aimed to do a certain range of legal services by making a partnership contract or other continuous contract with an attorney who had five or more years of experience. In the rapid globalization of Japanese economic society, however, the needs for comprehensive and inclusive legal services of Japanese and foreign laws increased and correspondingly the necessity to construct closer cooperation and collaboration of Japanese attorneys and GJBs has grown. Accordingly the GJB Act was partially revised (enforced on April 1, 2005) to lift the prohibitions on employment of attorneys by GJBs, joint enterprises and profit distributions. Instead, the Revised GJB Act requires GJBs who are to employ or engage in joint enterprises with Japanese attorneys to notify the JFBA (Revised GJB Act Art. 49-3). Furthermore, in order to prevent GJBs from engaging in conduct beyond the scope of permitted practices, the law puts a certain restriction on the conducts of GJBs and employed attorneys (Revised GJB Act Art. 49 and Art. 49-3).

I. Changes in the Number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (1988-2012) The next graph shows the changes in the numbers of GJB registrations. From 1987, when the GJB system was launched, registrations tended to increase until 1991 when registrations remained at the same level. Registrations increased rapidly from 1998 and in April 2012, the number of registered GJBs was 357.

Number 400

359 357 344 350

300 290 267 252 241 250 236 213

200 186 189

150 150 125

97 100 87 78 79 78 79 77 77 80 58 47 50 31

0 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 Year

[Note] 1. Data are as of April 1 of each year. 2. There were no registrations on April 1, 1987 because the GJB Act was enacted on April 1, 1987.

57 II. Registration of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (Registered Foreign Lawyers) The tables below show the number of GJBs. (As of April 1, 2012) [by bar association] (Total: 357) [by home jurisdiction]

(Total 358/Numbers in ( ) refer to the number of Daini Tokyo 148 women GJBs [Total 358]) Dai-ichi Tokyo 113 U.S. Total 211 (24) Tokyo 72 New York 102 (17) Osaka 12 California 48 (1) Aichi-ken 4 Hawaii 18 Yokohama 2 Washington DC 12 Fukuoka-ken 2 Illinois 9 (1) Iwate 1 Virginia 5 Ibaraki-ken 1 Florida 2 Shizuoka-ken 1 Maryland 1 Okinawa 1 Massachusetts 2 (2) New Jersey 2 (1) [by nationality] (Total: 357) Texas 2 U.S. 141 Connecticut 1 Japan 72 North Carolina 1 (1) U.K. 42 Georgia 1 China 29 Louisiana 1 (1) Australia 24 Ohio 2 Canada 13 Pennsylvania 1 Germany 6 Washington 1 France 5 U.K. 59 (7) Republic of Korea 3 China 29 (12) Singapore 3 Australia Total 22 (6) Republic of the Philippines 2 New South Wales 17 (4) Brazil 2 Victoria 1 (1) Ireland 2 Queensland 4 (1) New Zealand 1 Republic of the Philippines 2 (1) Australia/New Zealand 1 Germany 5 Switzerland 1 France 6 (1) Italy 1 Canada Total 8 Bulgaria 1 British Columbia 6 Spain 1 Ontario 2 Nepal 1 Hong Kong 4 (2) Samoa 1 Singapore 2 (2) India 1 Brazil 2 (1) Paraguay 1 Italy 1 Greece 1 Switzerland 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Spain 1 Sweden 1 Republic of Korea 1 New Zealand 1 (1) Nepal 1 Paraguay 1 (1) Saudi Arabia 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)

58 III. Foreign Law Joint Enterprises A foreign law joint enterprise means an enterprise jointly operated by a GJB and an attorney or a legal professional corporation (LPC) under a partnership contract or other continuous contract for the purpose of providing legal services (Article 2-15 of the GJB Act). The revised GJB Act which came into effect on April 1, 2005, lifted the ban on running joint enterprises and sharing profits between GJBs and attorneys/legal professional corporations and instead required GJBs who were going to enter into foreign law joint enterprises to submit notifications to the JFBA (Article 49-3 of the revised GJB Act). Foreign law joint enterprises of which notifications have been submitted are as follows. （As of April 1, 2012, in order of date of notification submission)

Attorneys GJBs Employed Employed GJB Offices Law Firms LPCs (Women) (Women) Attorneys GJBs Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Horitsu 42192 Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny & Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny & 426 Myers Horitsu Jimusho Myers Horitsu Jimusho Atsumi Sogo Horitsu Jimusho· Atsumi Sogo Horitsu Jimusho· 17 （5） 1 （1） 65 6 Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo White & Case Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi White & Case Horitsu Jimusho 6 （2） 62216 Jimusho Skadden Arps Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Skadden Arps Horitsu Jimusho 23（1） 81 Jimusho Clifford Chance Horitsu Jimusho Clifford Chance Horitsu Jimusho 5 （1） 3 （1） 30 3 Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho· Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho· 257 Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu 22233 Jimusho Linklaters Jimusho Linklaters Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Orrick Tokyo Horitsu Jimusho· 23122 Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Ashurst Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Ashurst Tokyo Horitsu Jimusho 1132 Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo･Jones Day Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo·Jones Day 11 （1） 6 （1） 36 2 Horitsu Jimusho Horitsu Jimusho Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho Kyodo Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho Kyodo 2341 Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Squire Sanders Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Squire Sanders Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 44112 Horitsu Jimusho Horitsu Jimusho Morrison & Foerster Gaikokuho Jimu Ito Mitomi Horitsu Jimusho 7 （2） 11 （2） 14 1 Bengoshi Jimusho Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Gaikokuho TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 8 （1） 3 （1） 7 Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho 11 （3） 11 33 Kyodo Jigyo Kyodo Jigyo Wakely Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 10 1 6 Jimusho Bingham McCutchen Murase Gaikokuho Sakai Mimura Aizawa Horitsu Jimusho 15 （4） 1 （1） 44 Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Sullivan & Cromwell Gaikokuho Kyodo Sullivan & Cromwell Gaikokuho Kyodo 21 1 Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 31165 Horitsu Jimusho Horitsu Jimusho King & Wood Gaikokuho Jimu Miyake Yamazaki Horitsu Jimusho 61（1） 9 Bengoshi Jimusho Tokyo Aoyama Aoki Koma Horitsu Tokyo Aoyama Aoki Koma Horitsu Jimusho Baker & McKenzie Gaikokuho Jimusho Baker & McKenzie Gaikokuho 31 （4） 13 （2） 83 2 Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Kyodo Jigyo Nishikawa Sidley Austin Horitsu Nishikawa Sidley Austin Horitsu 2110 Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo DLA Pi T k P hi DLA Pi T k P hi

59 Attorneys GJBs Employed Employed GJB Offices Law Firms LPCs (Women) (Women) Attorneys GJBs Hwawoo Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Otani Horitsu Jimusho 11 Jimusho Hogan Lovells Horitsu Jimusho Hogan Lovells Horitsu Jimusho 1157 Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho· Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho· 21 Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo OL Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Tatsumura Horitsu Jimusho 111 Simmons & Simmons Gaikokuho Jimu TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 18 1 1 Bengoshi Jimusho Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 10 1 1 1 Jimusho Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu 1122 Jimusho Jimusho Maritax Nagatani Gaikokuho Jimu Maritax Horitsu Jimusho 115 Bengoshi Jimusho K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 4271 Horitsu Jimusho Horitsu Jimusho Nakamoto & Samon Gaikokuho Kyodo Nakamoto & Samon Gaikokuho Kyodo 112 Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho Orange County Gaikokuho Jimu Adachi, Henderson, Miyatake & Fujita 11 Bengoshi Jimusho Horitsu Jimusho Takahashi & Davis Horitsu Jimusho· Takahashi & Davis Horitsu Jimusho· 126 Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Karsch Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Ethos Law Office 11（1） 8 Jimusho Ali Al-kahtani Law Firm Gaikokuho TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 12 （1） 1 7 Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo Onishi・Nishi Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo Onishi・Nishi 1 （1） 1 Horitsu Jimusho Horitsu Jimusho Nihon Saitsu Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Bengoshi Hojin Akasaka Horitsu 11 Jimusho Jimusho Total 215 （25） 294（12） 513 60 [Note] 1. "Attorneys" is the number of attorneys who are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises. The figure within the brackets indicates the number of female attorneys. 2. "LPCs" is the number of LPCs which are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises. 3. "GJBs" is the number of GJBs who are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises. The figure within the brackets indicates the number of female attorneys. 4. "Employed Attorneys" is the number of attorneys who are hired by attorneys or GJBs operating foreign law joint enterprises. 5. "Employed GJBs" is the number of GJBs who are hired by attorneys or GJBs operating foreign law joint enterprises.

60 IV. The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional Corporations Attorneys and legal professional corporations should submit notifications to the JFBA if they employ foreign lawyers. (A foreign lawyer means a person whose professional duties are to provide legal services as a practice in a foreign state (in the case of a federal state stipulated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, the term "foreign state" shall mean its constituent unit such as a state, territory and others stipulated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice (Article 2 (ii) of Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services by Foreign Lawyers); the same shall apply hereinafter) and who is equivalent to an attorney.) The table below shows the number of employed foreign lawyers by nationality and by home jurisdiction in descending order. Foreign lawyers do not include GJBs. (See Page 57 for the information on GJBs.)

1. By Nationality Those who have U.S. nationality form the largest number followed by the U.K., Japan, Australia, and China (Top 5). (As of April 1, 2012)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Nationality U.S. 4 5128242433141813155 U.K. 7256415219111090 Japan 43398131311111489 Australia 62263121033855 China 1244527227 Canada 221443 3120 New Zealand 33612116 Republic of Korea 1 1 1 1 2 3 9 Philippines 1 1112 1 7 Germany 14117 Singapore 121116 France 11 1 3 Finland 1113 Ireland 1113 Russia 1113 Greece 11 2 Sweden 112 Taiwan 112 Israel 1 1 India 1 1 Slovakia 1 1 Belgium 1 1 Bulgaria 1 1 Mexico 1 1 Iceland 1 1 Brazil 1 1 Jamaica 1 1 Total 24 18 29 35 53 86 100 45 65 53 508

[Note] 1. "Japan" in “Nationality” means the number of those who have Japanese nationality but have been qualified in foreign jurisdictions. 2. The above numbers of employed foreign lawyers are based on the date of their employment in the notifications submitted by April 1, 2012. Those whose employment has been terminated are not reflected in the numbers so that the total number is not equal to the number of those actually employed at the time of April 1, 2012.

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

(As of April 1, 2012)

Home 2002 2003 2004 2005 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Jurisdiction U.S. 8111715354348263420257 U.K. 8 5 81162227141819138 Australia 62264111043755 China 1233526224 New Zealand 22311110 Germany 11 41 1 8 Philippines 1 1112 1 7 Canada 1 121 1 6 Hong Kong 1 11111 6 Singapore 1113 Republic of Korea 11 2 Russia 11 2 Belgium 11 IndiaIdi 1 1 Mexico 11 Taiwan 11 Brazil 11 Jamaica 11 England & Wales 11 Total 24 20 31 36 52 91 99 49 68 55 525

[Note] 1. Regarding the above numbers of employed foreign lawyers, please refer to [Note] 2 of "1. By Nationality" in the previous page. 2. Some persons hold qualifications in multiple jurisdictions so that the total number of the above table is not equal to that of the table on the previous page.

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

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

(Foreign Law Joint Enterprises: As of April 1, 2012) Lawyers Countries in Number of Outside of the Rank by Gross Law Firms (Location) which Firm Has Lawyers Country of Revenue Offices Main Office Baker & McKenzie 3,805 41 83% 1 Verein DLA Piper 3,348 29 65% 3 Verein Jones Day 2,502 16 28% 11 National (U.S.) Clifford Chance 2,466 23 70% 5 International (U.K.) Hogan Lovells 2,363 17 63% 9 Verein Linklaters 2,134 19 63% 6 International (U.K.) Allen & Overy 2,112 25 64% 8 International (U.K.) Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 2,034 15 69% 7 International (U.K.) Latham & Watkins 1,931 12 30% 4 National (U.S.) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 1,859 13 16% 2 National (U.S.) White & Case 1,814 24 65% 13 International (U.S.) K&L Gates 1,763 11 16% 20 National(U.S.) Sidley Austin 1,538 9 17% 12 National (U.S.) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1,239 7 7% 17 National (U.S.) Morrison & Foerster 1,029 5 22% 24 San Francisco Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 1,022 8 35% 30 National(U.S.) Paul, Hastings 910 8 22% 27 National (U.S.) Bingham McCutchen 901 5 7% 28 National(U.S.) O'Melveny & Myers 884 6 15% 33 Los Angeles Ashurst 788 12 48% 71 International(U.K.) Squire, Sanders&Dempsey 785 15 30% 64 National(U.S.) Sullivan & Cromwell 749 7 19% 18 New York Simmons & Simmons 686 17 48% 92 International(U.K.)

[Note] 1. The above ranks and numbers are taken from 'The Global 100', The American Lawyer (October 2011). 2. Law firms in the table are listed in order of the number of lawyers among those within the top 100 law firms in the world ranked by gross revenue and are assumed as the same law firms that have submitted notifications concerning foreign law joint enterprises to the JFBA.

63 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 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.

Until September 2006, there was no court-appointed attorney system for suspects, and thus, in order for any attorney to continue to act for the suspect after conducting an interview as a duty attorney, it was necessary for the attorney to be privately retained by the suspect. A suspect with financial difficulties who is not able to pay for their defense expenses can use the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System, which has been self-funded by the JFBA and other bar associations. The JFBA has requested the expansion of the court-appointed attorney system to cover suspects as well as defendants.

Since October 2006, the court-appointed attorney system for suspects has been expanded to include cases that should be tried by a collegiate panel, and it has been further extended since May 2009 to cover all cases in which the presence of a defense council is mandatory.

64 II. Curent Situations of Duty Attorneys (Toban Bengoshi )

Even though the court appointed attorney system has now been introduced, a court appointed attorney is still appointed only after the detention order has been issued to the suspect after a maximum of 72-hour detention following arrest. In addition, the range of cases to which a court-appointed attorney may be assigned is limited. Therefore, the duty attorney system plays an important role for any suspect whose detention has not been decided yet, and any other type of suspect whose case falls outside the scope of cases in which a court appointed attorney is to be provided. The following table shows the status of the duty attorney system in recent years. The number of “ Cases Undertaken ” is the number of cases in which attorneys who had interviewed suspects or defendants as duty attorneys accepted to privately undertake the cases. The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases” is the number of cases for which the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System granted aid for defense expenses due to financial difficulties of the suspects. The number of “ Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases ” is the number of the juvenile cases for which the Juvenile Attendant Aid System granted aid for attendant expenses. Attorneys who were dispatched as duty attorneys undertook most of the cases covered by both systems.

# of Duty Attorney Registrations Duty Attorney Requests Cases Undertaken by Duty Attorneys % of Attorneys % of Cases Registrations Cases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase Registered Undertaken 2005 9,122 43% 67,711 7% 12,237 12% 19% 2006 9,664 44% 67,826 0% 12,524 2% 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 0% 14,901 14% 42%

Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases Number of Detention Requests Cases Cases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase

2005 8,290 23% 3,394 15% 142,272 0% 2006 8,480 2% 3,645 7% 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%

[Note] 1. Statistics related to duty attorneys are based on calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December each year), except for the number of duty attorney registrations and the percentage of duty attorneys registered, which are as of April 1 from 2005 to 2009, and in the case of 2010, are as of February 1, 2010. 2. The denominator of “% of Cases Undertaken” is the number of cases undertaken by duty attorneys except for cancelled, unclear, or uncertain cases. 3. The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases” and “Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases” in 2006 is the number of cases for which aid was actually granted by the Japan Legal Aid Association. The number in 2007 is the sum of the cases for which aid was actually granted by the JFBA from April to September 2007 (statistics taken as of the end of March 2008) and the number of cases in which aid commencements were decided by the Japan Legal Support Center from October 2007 to March 2008. The number after 2008 is that of completed cases in each financial year of the Japan Legal Support Center. 4. The “Number of Detention Requests” is based on the added number of cases involving both "detention permitted" and "detention rejected" in the "measures taken after arrest" section of the "Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution" for each year. 5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole numbers.

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

The number of requests for duty attorneys nationwide has been gradually decreasing from the peak seen in 2006, due to the court-appointed attorney system for suspects launched on October 2, 2006. However, even after the scope of the court-appointed attorney system was expanded, the fact that the number of cases undertaken by duty attorneys still exceeds more than 30,000 cases each year illustrates the fact that the duty attorney system still retains its own meaning and importance. The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases” is the number of cases in which suspects without enough financial resource used the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System and were granted aid for defense expenses before indictments. In 2011, there were 6,565 cases. The Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System was operated by the Japan Legal Aid Association from 1990 by the request of the JFBA. The system provided aid for defense expenses in cases where attorneys were privately appointed but it was difficult for the suspects to pay the attorneys' expenses. This system has always suffered from budget shortages so the JFBA established the Emergency Fund for Duty Attorney System in 1995 to support the system. This fund was replaced with the Fund for Juvenile and Criminal Defense in June 2009.

# of Duty Attorney Requested Cases # of Duty Attorney Appointed Cases Cases # of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases 75,000 67,826 70,000 67,711 63,396 64,708 65,000 63,106 60,023 60,000 54,181 55,000 51,462 50,000 47,143 45,000 39,690 40,000 38,074 37,952

35,000 30,271 30,000 25,571 25,000 22,910

20,000 14,901 13,808 14,250 15,000 12,237 12,524 12,438 13,050 10,900 9,684 10,269 10,537 10,000 8,519 11,457 5,807 6,493 8,480 5,489 5,901 6,357 6,644 6,764 8,290 7,556 5,000 4,982 6,956 5,318 2,787 3,144 3,564 6,565 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year [Note] 1. The number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases and the number of Duty Attorney Appointed Cases are based on calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December each year). 2. The number of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases in 2007 is the sum of the cases for which aid was actually granted by the JFBA from April to September 2007 (statistics taken as of the end of March 2008) and the number of cases in which aid commencements were decided by the Japan Legal Support Center from October 2007 to March 2008. The number after 2008 is that of completed cases of each fiscal year at the Japan Legal Support Center. The numbers before 2006 are the numbers of cases for which aid was actually granted by the Japan Legal Aid Association.

66 Section 2 The Status of Defense Attorneys Involvement in the Overall Criminal Cases I. Court-Appointed Attorney System, Court-Appointed Attorney Contracts, and the Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys In the court-appointed attorney system, a defendant (a person who has been indicted for a suspicion of having committed a crime) and a suspect (a person under a suspicion of having committed a crime) who has not yet been indicted of ciminal cases can request the court to appoint an attorney, when a defendant or a suspect is unable to appoint counsel privately because of indigency or other reasons. Under a certain condition, a court may appoint one ex-officio.

Formerly, the court-appointed attorney system was only for defendants, and bar associations made registration lists of court-appointed attorneys and courts appointed attorneys from the lists as negotiated between bar associations and courts. On October 2, 2006, the system was reformed to also cover suspects in certain types of serious cases. Under the reformed system, the Japan Legal Support Center nominates attorneys from its list of contracted attorneys and the courts appoint the nominated attorneys. On May 21, 2009, the system was further expanded to cover suspects facing servitude or imprisonment for a maximum of three years or more, for which trials require the presence of attorneys. The table below shows the number of court-appointed attorneys contracted with the Japan Legal Support Center, the number of defendants with court-appointed attorneys, and the number calculated by dividing the number of defendants by the number of contracted attorneys. In 2011, 64.1% of all attorneys were contracted as court-appointed attorneys. The number of defendants per contracted attorney on average is 3.

Number of Attorneys Contracted as Number of Court-Appointed Attorneys （2011.4.1） Number of Defendants with Number of Defendants per Attorneys Court-Appointed Number of Percentage of Contracted Attorney Attorneys Attorneys （2011.4.1） Attorneys Contracted Contracted (2011) Total 19,566 64.1% 30,518 57,928 3.0

[Note] 1. The number of attorneys contracted as court-appointed attorneys is from the statistics taken by the Japan Legal Support Center, as of April 1, 2011. 2. The number of attorneys is as of April 1, 2011. 3. "Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys" is the sum of the statistics of all the district and summary courts based on the "2011 Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Criminal Part)." 4. As "Number of Defendants with Court-Appointed Attorneys" is as of 2011, "Number of Attorneys Contracted as Court- Appointed Attorneys" and "Number of Attorneys" as of April 1, 2011 are used.

II. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at District Courts The total number of criminal cases handled at district courts peaked in 2004 at approximately 80,000, and has gradually been decreasing. In these cases, almost 100% of defendants were with defense counsel. When observing the percentage of defendants with privately retained counsel and those with court-appointed counsel, one can see that there was not much difference between them in the 1980s, but the court-appointed counsel cases increased to 85.1% in 2011. On the other hand, the private counsel cases have decreased to the level of 17%.

Total Number of Cases (Number of persons whose Defendants with Defense Counsel trials have been finalized) (Person Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel ) (Percentage) 99.4% 97.6% 97.1% 97.1% 97.2% 98.1% 100% 90,000

90% 85.1%80,000 75,370 71,379 80% 70,000 63,204 68.4% 70% 75.0% 63.0% 60,000 59.6% 72.6% 60% 54,880 57,968 50,000 50% 47,539 40,000 40% 38.8% 30,000 30% 35.5% 30.0% 20% 25.9% 25.0% 20,000

10% 17.0% 10,000

0% 0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 (Year)

III. Changes in the Percentage of Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at Summary Courts The total number of criminal cases (the total number of persons whose trials have been finalized) at summary courts increased from the year 2000 but is decreasing recently. Defense counsel is retained in almost 100% of the cases, mostly appointed by courts. (Number of persons whose Total Number of Cases trials have been finalized) Defendants with Defense Counsel (Percentage) Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel 98.7% 100% 96.6%(Number of defendants 18,000 95.1% finalized) 96.3% 97.1% 97.7% 90% 94.0%16,000 15,398 89.3% 78.9% 88.2% 80% 84.6% 13,646 14,000 79.2% 70% 11,489 12,000 60% 9,383 9,541 9,142 10,000 50% 8,000 40% 6,000 30% 18.6% 4,000 20% 16.4% 12.4% 9.5% 9.0% 10% 5.5% 2,000

0% 0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011(Year)

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

68 IV. Changes in the Percentage of Defendants Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel (after Indictment) (Court-Appointed and Privately Retained) at High Courts The percentage of defendants with court-appointed counsel at the high court level has also increased similar to the tendency seen at the district and summary court level.

(Number of defendants Total Number of Cases Defendants with Defense Counsel (Percentage) finalized) Defendants with Privately Retained Counsel Defendants with Court-Appointed Counsel (Person) 120% 10,000

9,344 9,000 100% 93.1% 93.3% 95.6% 92.3% 94.0% 92.8% 8,000 7,629 75.0%7,000 80% 6,139 70.4% 7,005 61.6% 66.8% 6,000 4,762 5,282 60% 5,000 47.6% 4,000 49.2% 40% 46.6% 43.9% 3,000 34.0% 24.5% 22.4% 27.6% 2,000 20% 1,000

0% 0 (Year) 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

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

69 Section 3 Defense Activities in Juvenile Cases After juveniles have been referred to family courts, there is no system for appointing attorneys as defense council for juveniles unlike criminal trials. However, for juvenile cases, a juvenile may at any time appoint an attandant acting in the role of protecting his/her rights. In the Juvenile Act, attendants are not limited to attorneys, however, most attendants are attorneys. Since there was no system for appointing attorneys as attendants for juveniles with public money after they were referred to family courts, the Juvenile Attendant Aid System financed by the JFBA has been used. The revision of the Juvenile Act in 2000 introduced a system for providing court-appointed attorney attendants for juveniles through public funds only in certain serious cases in which public prosecutors were involved, and the Juvenile Act was further revised in 2007 to enhance this system. Even so, however, in the current system, the juvenile cases in which court-appointed attorneys are able to attend are limited to certain serious cases such as the crime of committing an intentional criminal act that caused death to a victim, and any crime punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment with or without labor, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than two years, for juveniles placed in juvenile classification homes, and cases where the family courts deem it necessary. The number of appointed attendants for juvenile criminal cases was only 378 in 2011, and this number represents only 3.7 percent of the total number of juveniles sent to classification homes (10,186 persons). Through the expansion of applicable cases under the court-appointed defense attorney system for suspects from May 2009, more juvenile suspects have been provided court-appointed defense councils. However, the cases covered by the court-appointed attendant system were not expanded and thus court-appointed attorneys for juvenile suspects are not necessarily appointed as attendants once the cases are referred to family courts.

Thus, the JFBA has been encouraging court-appointed attorneys for juvenile suspects to continuously act as their attendants after cases have been referred to family courts by using the Juvenile Attendant Aid System as necessary. As a result, the number of cases involving attendants has been increasing in recent years.

I. The Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) and the Proportion of the Presence of Attendants The proportion of cases involving attendants has been increasing since 2000, but the percentage is still relatively low in total.

(Percentage) Total Number of Cases With Attendant Without Attendant (Cases) 100% 350,000 99.4% 99.2% 98.6% 90% 94.5% 92.9% 290,870 300,000 80% 83.2% 250,239 70% 250,000 60% 188,683 200,000 50% 150,000 40% 30% 79,998 100,000 48,886 20% 63,630 16.8%50,000 10% 5.5% 7.1% 0% 0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 (Year) [Note] 1. The statistics are based on the "Annual Report of Judicial Statistics (Juvenile Section)." 2. The total number of cases from 1999 excludes those cases referred to summary courts, those involving death or injury through negligence in the pursuit of social activities when driving vehicles, those transferred to other courts, or those jointly tried that were not counted as completed cases (subordinate cases). From 2002, the number also excludes cases involving death or bodily injury through dangerous driving. 3. A person other than an attorney may be an attendant. The statistics of "with attendant" and "without attendant" above include attendants other than attorneys.

70 II. Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) with Appointed Attendants (by type)

The graph below shows the changes in the number of juvenile cases before family courts with appointed attendants, by type of relationship with the juvenile. The respective proportions of cases involving court- appointed attorneys and privately retained attorneys were 4.7 percent and 95.3 percent in 2011.

■Changes in the Number of Juvenile Probation Cases (at Family Courts) with Appointed Attendants (by type)■

(Cases) Attorneys Custodians Others (Type) 10,000

9,000 149 8,000 35

7,000

6,000

5,000 196 289 60 4,000 51 8,033

3,000 151 47 105 4,232 2,000 51 5 4,068 5 2,477 1,000 1,583 1,967

0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 '(Year)

Section 4 The Lay Judge System I. Cases Determined by Lay Judges

On May 29, 2009, the Act on Criminal Trials Examined under the Saiban-in (lay judge) system was enacted and the Saiban-in (lay judge) 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. Lay judge trials are conducted at District Courts (50 places) in addition to certain branches thereof (10 places).

■The Number of Prosecuted Cases per Offence for Crimes Subject to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials■ （January 2011 - December 2011） (Unit: case)

Number of Crime Cases

Robbery Causing Injury 403

Homicide 368

Arson of Inhabited Buildings 165

Rape Causing Death or Injury 127 Injury Causing Death 172 Indecent Assault Causing Death or Injury 105 Rape and Armed Robbery 77 Robbery Causing Death or Injury 38 Dispersion of Counterfeit Currency 27 Counterfeiting Currency 25 Gang Rape Causing Death or Injury 17 Dangerous Driving Causing Death 21 Abandonment Causing Death by a Person Responsible for Protection 13 Other Crimes under the Penal Code 24 Violations of the Stimulants Control Act 174 Violations of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Control Act 26 Violations of the Criminal Regulations to Control Explosives 1 Violations of the Act for Controlling the Possession of Firearms or Swords and Other Such Weapons. 3 Crimes Other than those stimulated in the Penal Code 5 Total Number of Crimes 1,791

[Note] 1. The above data was collected and prepared by the JFBA based on materials provided by the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office. Note that values shown in the data may have changed since the data was collected. 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 lay judge 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 lay judge trials are counted.

73 II. Actual Practice of Lay Judge Trials 1. The Number of Persons Whose Trials Have Been Tried by Judges Including Lay Judges and Have Been Finalized The following table shows the number of persons who have been subjected to lay judge trials over which the final judgments thereof have been rendered between the period of January and December, 2011. Based on the number of attorneys, the number of persons whose trials have been finalized per attorney was calculated.

■Number of persons whose trials have been finalized and the number of such persons per attorney■

January 2011 to Decmber 2011

Number of Number of persons persons Number of Transfer- whose trials whose Convicted, attorneys red to the Others have been trials have Convicted but partly Acquitted （2011.4.1） family (Note 3) finalized per been acquitted （Persons） court attorney finalized （Persons） (Persons)

Total 1,570 1,508 6 10 1 45 28,009 0.06

[Note] 1. The above number of persons whose trials have been finalized is written in the "Materials relating to the actual practice status of lay judge trials in 2011," created by the Supreme Court of Japan, i.e., the actual number of persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courts of first instance over ordinary criminal cases. 2. The calculation for the total number of persons whose trials have been finalized per attorney was made as follows: The total number of persons whose trials have been finalized were divided by the total number of attorneys 3. "Others" shown in the above table indicates dismissing the prosecution, transferring the case to other courts, and so on. 4. The above number of attorneys is as of April 1, 2011.

74 2. The Number of Persons Whose Trials Have Been Finalized per the Actual Period Taken for Court Deliberations

The amount of time taken for court deliberation at the trials which have been tried by judges, including lay judges, 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 not in dispute. The tables below show the number of persons whose trials have been finalized per the period taken for court deliberations and per the number of trials (by confession and denied cases) for the trials which have been tried by judges, including lay judges, and that have been finalized during the year 2011 (from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011)

■Distribution of the period of court deliberations (from acceptance to finalization of trials) and the average period of court deliberations in 2011 (by confession and denial)■ Number of Period of court deliberations persons The whose Over 6 average Over 3 Over 4 Over 5 Over 9 cases 3 months months - Over 1 duration months - months - months - months- have been or less 9 year (months) 4 months 5 months 6 months 1 year finalized months Total 1,525 9 98 206 226 506 241 239 8.9 Confession 885 9 93 165 167 312 83 56 7.3 Denial 640 - 5 41 59 194 158 183 10.9

■Distribution of the number of persons whose cases have been finalized per number of trials and the average number of trials in 2011 (by confession and denial)■ Number of Number of trials The persons average whose 8 times 2 times number cases 3 times 4 times 5 times 6 times 7 times or or less of trials have been more (times) finalized Total 1,525 44 582 508 191 75 53 72 4.1 Confession 885 41 478 268 61 16 8 13 3.6 Denial 640 3 104 240 130 59 45 59 4.9

■Distribution of the number of persons whose trials have been finalized per the actual period taken for court deliberations (from the first trial until the trial has been finalized) and per the number of trials, and the average number of trials in 2011 ■ Number of The number of trials (times) The persons average whose number cases 2 times 8 times of trials have 3 times 4 times 5 times 6 times 7 times or less or more (times) been finalized Total 1,525 44 582 508 191 75 53 72 4.1 2 days or less 24 23 1 - - - - - 2.0 3 days 354 16 337 1 - - - - 3.0 4 days 354 2 164 187 1 - - - 3.5 5 days 174 2 33 114 25 - - - 3.9 10 days or less 425 1 47 197 136 37 7 - 4.4 20 days 124 - - 6 20 31 34 33 6.8 The Actual The Period Taken or less More than 20 70 - - 3 9 7 12 39 8.1 days

[Note] 1. The above numbers of persons are taken from the "Materials relating to the actual practice status of lay judge trials in 2011," created by the Supreme Court of Japan, i.e., the actual number of persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courts of first instance over ordinary criminal cases. 2. As for trials other than those which have been tried by judges including lay judges, after the opening of such trials, any trials which have subsequently been tried by judges including lay judges have been consolidated herein and are included in the above figures. 3. Regarding the number of trials opened, the length of the period required for trial preparation (including the period when the examination of the witness is conducted pursuant to Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) has been included. There is a possibility that more than one trial be held during a day, and the number of trials opened and the actual number of days may, therefore, not be exactly equal, but will be almost the same.

Chapter 2 Representation in Civil and Other Lawsuits Representation in civil and other lawsuits is an important duty of attorneys. Regarding attorneys ’ representation before courts, the graph below mainly analyzes the percentage of attorneys’ involvement in civil, commercial, family and administrative lawsuits based on the statistics of the “Judicial Statistics Annual Report.” Section 1 Civil Lawsuits I. Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before District Courts The total number of lawsuits had been decreasing since 2004, but it rebounded in 2006 and continued to rise until 2010, however, it dropped again in 2011. Attorneys’ involvement is approximately 77% in total in 2011. Observing the data by the purpose of the lawsuit, the percentage of appointment is high in lawsuits concerning labor and intellectual property.

Percentage Total Number of Cases With Attorneys Cases 100% 250,000 90% 86.1% 212,490 81.3% 81.0% 78.9% 78.8% 80% 77.4% 200,000

70% 157,451 145,982 60% 143,321 150,000 118,481 50% 112,079 40% 100,000 30% 20% 50,000 10% 0% 0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Year

Attorneys' Involvement in Lawsuits (by Purpose) (2011) Cases with Attorneys Total Percentage One Side Purpose of Lawsuit Total Number of Both Sides Plaintiff Defendant Number Involvement Side Side Personnel Affairs －－－－－－ Money 165,269 127,704 77.3% 50,814 69,261 7,629 Payment for Contracted (1,790) (1,591) (88.9%) (1,055) (432) (104) Construction Damages through (451) (443) (98.2%) (392) (32) (19) Construction Defects Damages through Medical (770) (757) (98.3%) (635) (45) (77) Treatment Damages through Pollution (69) (65) (94.2%) (51) (7) (7) Labor (1,975) (1,849) (93.6%) (1,402) (244) (203) Intellectual Property (409) (387) (94.6%) (214) (28) (145) Other (159,805) (122,612) (76.7%) (47,065) (68,473) (7,074) Buildings 26,674 18,466 69.2% 3,020 15,208 238 Land 7,906 7,048 89.1% 3,342 3,489 217 Labor （Except for Lawsuits 844 819 97.0% 712 60 47 Concerning Money） Intellectual Property （Except for Lawsuits Concerning 176 160 90.9% 135 22 3 Money） For Injunction against 5 5 100.0% 5 －－ Pollution Other 11,616 10,302 88.7% 5,635 4,079 588 Total 212,490 164,504 77.4% 63,663 92,119 8,722 [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.

77 II. Changes in the Percentage of Appointed Attorneys in Ordinary Second Instances (before High Courts)

Though the total number of cases on an annual basis has tended to decrease in recent years, it has been increasing since 2010. The percentage of appointed attorneys has been approximately 94% from 1980.

Percentage Total Number of Cases With Attorneys Cases 100% 25,000 94.7% 94.8% 94.1% 94.2% 94.4% 92.1% 90%

80% 19,205 20,000

70% 16,530 15,588 15,290 60% 15,000 12,712 50% 10,899 40% 10,000

30%

20% 5,000

10%

0% 0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Year

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

78 III. Percentage of Attorneys’ Involvement in Ordinary Civil Lawsuits before Summary Courts The number of lawsuits has been increasing since 2000, however, it dropped in 2011. The recent increase in the number of lawsuits is said to have been influenced by lawsuits relating to excessive payments of interest (lawsuits related to requests for the return of excessive or usurious interest filed against money lenders). However, the number of such lawsuits is likely to decline gradually in the near future. Since April 2003, authorized Judicial Scriveners have been able to participate in lawsuits as representatives. After 2007, the percentage of cases with representative attorneys is almost the same as those involving the participation of authorized Judicial Scriveners.

Total Number of Cases With Attorneys Percentage (%) Cases With Judicial Scriveners' Participation Without Representatives 100% 650,000 90.5% 87.0% 89.6% 600,000 90% 82.9% 550,798 79.8% 550,000 80% 500,000

70% 450,000

60% 386,833 400,000 58.9% 303, 927 350,000 50% 266,673 300,000

40% 218,937 250,000

30% 200,000 107,151 22.3% 17.1% 150,000 20% 12.4% 10.2% 19.3% 100,000 10% 13.0% 50,000 9.5% 8.2% 0% 0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Year [Note] 1. The statistics are based on the “Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Civil and Administrative Affairs Part).” 2. It includes ordinary lawsuits which were transferred from actions on small claims. 3. Statistics of lawsuits with judicial scriveners’ participation are taken from 2003. 4. Summary courts have the jurisdiction over lawsuits claiming an amount of up to 1,400,000 yen raised from 900,000 yen since April 2003. 5. “With Attorneys” and "With Judicial Scriveners" on the graph means lawsuits in which attorneys or judicial scriveners were appointed by one party or both parties.

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

I. Current Situation of In-house Attorneys 1. Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys As attorneys are gaining work in a more diverse range of fields, the number of attorneys working in companies, ministries, local governments, and other bodies while utilizing their special knowledge and experiences as attorneys is increasing. An in-house attorney refers to an attorney who is a staff member or employee or is engaged as a director, board member or other officer of a government office or public or private organization except for legal professional corporations (Art. 50, Basic Rules on the Duties of Practicing Attorneys).

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

The number of in-house attorneys in Japan was 771 as of the end of June, 2012, while the number of public officers with fixed terms was 106 as of June 1, 2012. The number of public officers having fixed terms was 184 when inquiry was made to related government agencies and autonomous bodies. The reason for the number of public officers having fixed terms being 106, as shown in the graph below, was because the number of public officers having fixed terms who have unregistered as attorneys was excluded from the total number of 184 Corporate In-House Attorneys Public Officers with Fixed Terms Number of Attorneys 900

800 771

700 588 600

500 435 400 354

300 267 187 200 165 122 106 81 89 86 100 40 50 61 60 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year

[Note] 1. The number of corporate in-house attorneys was researched by the Japan In-House Lawyers Association based on a survey conducted by the JFBA. 2. The number of public officers with fixed terms was researched by the JFBA. Data collection dates were: Aug. 2004, May 2005, Dec. 2006, and as of June of each year from 2007 to 2012.

80 2. Public Officers with Fixed Terms The "Act on Special Measures of Employment and Remuneration of Officials with Fixed Term of Office in the Regular Service" which came into force in November 2000 introduced a system enabling central government ministries and agencies to employ persons with expert knowledge and experience or advanced insights from outside sources for fixed terms by offering them appropriate salary levels. In addition, through the implementation of the Act on Employment of Fixed-Term Local Public Officers Engaged in Regular Services, since July 2007, local governments have also been able to employ persons from outside sources in accordance with the ordinances of each local government. Previously, attorneys were, in principle, unable to take up paid public positions (Old Art. 30, Para. 1, Attorney Act). When attorneys wished to work for government ministries or agencies, they were required to work as part-time staff members while retaining their registration as attorneys or rescind their registration before taking such public positions. Under such a situation, a system which enabled central and local governmental organizations to employ persons from outside sources for fixed terms was introduced and Article 30 of the Attorney Act was revised, more particularly, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Old Article 30 which restricted the assumption of public positions by attorneys were deleted (enforced on April 1, 2004). The table below shows the ministries, agencies, etc. which employ attorneys as of June 1, 2012, as confirmed by the JFBA.

Number of Number of . Attorneys < Local Governments > Attorneys （Women) （Women) Cabinet Office 2 （0） Special local public body for Tokyo 23 wards 1 （1） Japan Fair Trade Commission 12 （3） Machida City, Tokyo 1 （0） Financial Services Agency 22 （3） Kanagawa Prefectural Government 1 （1） Ministry of Internal Affairs 4 （1） Atsugi City, Kanagawa Prefecture 1 （0） Consumer Affairs Agency 12 （4） Nagareyama City, Chiba Prefecture 1 （1） Ministry of Justice 4 （0） Tochigi City, Tochigi Prefecture 1 （1） Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2 （0） Nabari City, Mie Prefecture 1 （1） Ministry of Finance 9 （3） Taki-cho, Mie Prefecture 1 （1） National Tax Agency 11 （5） Minamiise Cho, Mie Prefecture 1 （1） Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 3 （0） Toyama City, Toyama Prefecture 1 （0） Agency for Natural Resources and Energy 1 （0） Matsubara City, Osaka 1 （0） Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency 1 （0） Akashi City, Hyogo Prefecture 4 （1） Japan Patent Office 1 （0） Fukuoka City, Fukuoka Prefecture 1 （0） Agency for Cultural Affairs 1 （0） Koga City, Fukuoka Prefecture 1 （0） Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 1 （0） Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism 1 （0） Legislative Bureau, House of Representatives 2 （2） (subtotal) 89 (21) (subtotal) 17 （8） TOTAL: 106 (29)

[Note] 1. Only the number of attorneys registered with the JFBA as of June 1, 2012, are counted. 2. The number within the brackets refers to the number of female attorneys.

3. Diet Member and Head of Local Goverments Registered as Attorneys The table below shows the number of diet members and heads of local governments registered as attorneys as at the end of September, 2012. As of September 2012, there were two attorneys in the Cabinet, Mr. Yukio Edano (Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, House of Representative/The Democratic Party of Japan), and Mr. Nobuo Matsuno, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, House of Councillors/The Democratic Party of Japan).

Number of Organization Attorneys House of Representatives 20 House of Councillors 11 Heads of Local Governments 10

81 Part 3 Activities of the JFBA and Local Bar Associations Chapter 1 Autonomy of Attorneys Section 1 Complaints and Dispute Conciliations I. Complaints against Attorneys In the event that opposing parties or clients have complaints about attorneys or legal professional corporations, they may file their complaints to bar associations. Each bar association has established a “Public Complaint Desk” as a reception to receive and deal with complaints from citizens. The graphs below show the number of complaints filed at public complaint desks of bar associations from January to December of 2011 classified by applicants and contents. They also show the changes in the number of cases received at public complaint desks from 1998 to 2011.

Number of Complaints by Applicant (2011) Number of Cases From Clients From Opposing Parties Others 2400 2175 2200 2000 1800 1598 1600 1390 1400 1163 1200 1004 1000 800 548 577 599 600 456 478 400 269 240 205 213 200 60 66 47 31 0 0 10 0 Dissatisfaction with Final Result Ways of Handling Delay of HandlingInappropriate Manner or Attitude Fees Handling of Entrusted Money Others

Dissatisfaction with Final Result Contents in 2011 5.6% Handling of Entrusted Money 2.0% Others 12.1% Fees Ways of Handling 9.6% 26.9%

Inappropriate Manner Delay of Handling or Attitude 12.8% 30.9% *Total % may not be 100 due to rounding to one decimal place.

Changes in the Number of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks Number of Complaints 12,000 11,129 10,807 9,764 10,000 9,427 8,861 8,668 8,112 8,212 8,000 6,646

6,000 5,050

4,000 3,224 2,533 2,791 2,203 2,000

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Year 2011

[Note] 1. Please note that data before 2003 was collected under the conditions that some bar associations had not set up public complaint desks and methods of receiving complaints and taking statistics varied. From January 2004, statistics have been collected under the unified standards. 2. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December).

82 II. Dispute Conciliation 1. Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received The Dispute Conciliation System was created for resolving disputes with clients with regard to the duties of attorneys and the practices of law firms. Under this system, bar associations autonomously hear arguments from both parties and conciliate fairly and properly to settle amicably in the context of the actual situation (Article 41 of the Attorney Act). The table below shows the total number of dispute conciliation cases newly received from 2002 to 2011.

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 534 496 506 505 512 504 512 619 717 641 [Note] Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December).

2. Handling of Dispute Conciliation Cases (All Bar Associations) – 2002 to 2011 – The graph below shows the details of how dispute conciliation cases were handled by all bar associations from 2002 to 2011. The lower pie chart shows how cases were handled in 2011. These show that approximately one third of all the dispute conciliation cases are settled.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total number of dispute 521 504 494 509 506 480 499 571 693 676 conciliation cases per year

Cases 800

23 700 14 131 133 600 14 33 21 124 26 11 26 Others18 20 500 90 313 302 103 101 93 111 83 93 223 Withdrawals 400 206 232 187 228 230 207 238 300 Not Settled 227 200 226 164 210 168 162 190 165 160 100 147 Settled 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Yea

Others 2.1% Withdrawals Settled Handling Details for 2011 19.7% 33.6%

Not Settled 44.7% *Total % may not be 100 due to rounding to one decimal place.

[Note] Formerly statistics of handling details were taken in four categories: "Conciliated," "Not Conciliated," "Withdrawals" and "Others." From 2005, the categories were changed to "Settled," "Not Settled," "Withdrawals" and "Others." The former "Conciliated" corresponds to "Settled" and "Not Conciliated" corresponds to "Not Settled."

Section 2 Disciplinary System for Attorneys I. Summary of the Disciplinary System for Attorneys Under any systems of the Daigen-nin Rules (1876) to the former Attorney Act (1933), the government had been authorized to supervise attorneys. The current Attorney Act (Act No.205 of 1949) has realized the autonomy of attorneys, by which the JFBA, the autonomous organization of attorneys, has been authorized to deal with the registration of attorneys on the roster of attorneys and the JFBA and bar associations have been authorized to take disciplinary actions against attorneys and legal professional corporations (hereinafter referred to as “attorneys, etc.”). Attorneys, etc. are entrusted with the mission to protect fundamental human rights and realize social justice (Article 1 of the Attorney Act, hereinafter referred to as “Act”). The self-disciplinary system has been established because if the government has the disciplinary authority, it is difficult for attorneys, etc. to complete their mission in case citizens’ fundamental human rights conflict with the government. A disciplinary action is interpreted as an administrative action in the broad sense, which is taken under the public authority given to the bar associations and the JFBA. This explains why an attorney etc. who has had a disciplinary action imposed on them by a bar association may appeal under the Administrative Appeal Act (Act Art. 59) and an attorney, etc. whose appeal is dismissed or rejected or who is subject to disciplinary actions by the JFBA may file a lawsuit for revocation of such decision with the Tokyo High Court (Act Art. 61). Below is the summary of the disciplinary system under the current Act after the revision in 2003 (Please see also the chart on page 93.).

1. Request for Discipline Any person who believes that there are grounds for disciplining an attorney, etc. may make a request for disciplinary action to the bar association to which said attorney, etc. belongs (Act Art. 58, para. 1).

2. Investigation by Disciplinary Enforcement Committee If there has been a request for discipline, the bar association shall cause its Disciplinary Enforcement Committee to make an investigation (Act Art. 58, para. 2). The same shall apply if a bar association itself finds that there are grounds for disciplining an attorney, etc. (Act Art. 58, para. 2). The Disciplinary Enforcement Committee investigates the case and decides whether it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee to examine the case (the revision of 2003 clearly indicated that the committee can consider extenuating circumstances. Act Art. 58, para. 4). Please note that a disciplinary procedure begins with an investigation by the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee, so the statute of limitations (Act Art. 63) and restrictions on requests for transfer and rescission of registration (Act Art. 62) are decided based on the time when the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee for its examination. This point had been established as interpretation and was clearly indicated by the revision of 2003.

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 (including its subcommittee) finds with its resolution that it is appropriate to discipline the accused attorney, etc. and sets forth the details of the disciplinary action to be undertaken, the bar association (or JFBA) shall discipline the accused attorney, etc. (Binding effect of resolutions, Act Art. 58, para. 5 and Art. 60, para. 5.).

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

5. Public Notice by the Official Gazette etc. If disciplinary actions are imposed by the bar association or the JFBA, the facts are made public by the JFBA’s journal “Jiyu-to-Seigi (Liberty and Justice)” and the Official Gazette (Act Art. 64-6, para. 3, Art. 68 of the Articles of Associations of JFBA).

85 II. Operation of the Disciplinary System 1. Cases Handled by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA (1) Bar Associations In 2011, bar associations accepted 1,885 filings of complaints for discipline. Observing the resolved cases in 2011, the periods from filing of complaints for discipline to resolution by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees were within 6 months in approximately 32.4% of the cases. 80% of the cases were within 1 year. In recent years, approximately 10% of the cases on which Disciplinary Enforcement Committees investigated were referred to Disciplinary Actions Committees for examinations. 137 cases were referred in 2011.

(2) JFBA In 2011, 711 objections were filed with the JFBA. 682 of the objections were against investigations conducted by bar associations and were referred to the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee for its examinations. In 2011, the JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee resolved 547 cases. In 7 of the cases, the committee resolved that disciplinary examinations were appropriate and referred the cases to bar associations. 84.6% of the cases reached resolutions within 6 months. Following are details of accepted filings of objections and resolutions (2009-2011).

[Details of Accepted Filings of Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee) ] Details of Newly Accepted Filings of Objections Prolonged Disciplinary No YearProceedings Partially not Illegal Total Disciplinary beyond a Appropriate Objections Action Reasonable Period 2009 429 36 1 0 466 2010 441 62 0 8 511 2011 605 60 1 16 682 [Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee) ] Closed Cases Examination Inappropriate Order to Promptly Unclosed Year Examination Total Proceed with Cases Appropriate Disqualification Rejections Dismissals or Termination Disciplinary by Death Procedures 2009 3 531 17 5 17 572 88 2010 9 404 11 5 35 464 135 2011 7 494 14 10 22 547 270

[Note] 1. Examination Appropriate: The JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee found it appropriate to refer the case back to the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the original bar association for investigation. 2. Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures: The JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee found the objection claiming prolonged proceedings was reasonable and resolved to order the bar association to promptly proceed with disciplinary procedures. 3. Among the cases of "Examination Inappropriate" in 2009, one case was “partial rejection and partial dismissal” and thus was double- counted. 4. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December).

86 2. Processing Cases at Disciplinary Actions Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA (1) Bar Associations The number of cases referred to Disciplinary Actions Committees of bar associations nationwide for examinations has been approximately 100 a year recently. The number of disciplinary actions has been between 60 and 80 a year. It was 80 in 2011. Observing the resolved cases in 2011, approximately 42.9% of the cases reached resolutions within 6 months. The periods were within 1 year in 82.7% of the cases. We had not spent over two years in any cases in recent years, but we did in 3.2% of the cases in 2009, 1.7% in 2010, and 2.3% in 2011.

(2) JFBA i. Objections Among the objections filed with the JFBA in 2011, 29 of them concern the cases referred to Disciplinary Actions Committees of bar associations for examinations (10 objections against “no disciplinary action,” 16 against “unjustly lenient disciplinary action” and 3 against “prolonged disciplinary proceedings beyond a reasonable period”). These cases were referred to the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee for examination. In 2011, the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee resolved 26 cases. Details of resolutions from 2009 to 2011, are shown below.

[Details of Resolutions on Objections (JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee) ]

Closed Cases Order to Disqualificati Promptly Unclosed Year on or Rejections Rescissions Modifications Dismissals Withdrawals Proceed with Total Cases Termination Disciplinary by Death Procedures 2009 29 0 1 1 0 0 0 31 14 2010 21 1 2 0 0 2 0 26 15 2011 20 3 0 0 0 1 2 26 18 [Note] 1. Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures: The JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee found the objection claiming prolonged proceedings was reasonable and resolved to order the bar association to promptly proceed with disciplinary procedures. 2. Details of “Rescissions (rescind the resolutions of bar associations)” 2010: from “no discipline” to “admonition” in one case 2011: from “no discipline” to “admonition” in three cases 3. Details of “Modifications” 2009: from "admonition" to "suspension of practice for one month" in one case 2010: from "admonition" to "suspension of practice for one month" in two cases 4. Data of this table and the below table are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December). ii. Appeals In 2011, 29 appeals were filed with the JFBA. In this year, the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee resolved 28 cases. Following are details of the resolutions from 2009 to 2011. [Details of Resolutions on Appeals (JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee) ] Closed Cases Rescissions Modifications Dismissals, Year Rejection of Primary of Primary Unclosed Cases Terminations Total s Disciplinary Disciplinary etc. Actions Actions 2009 25 0 2 4 31 15 2010 18 4 5 4 31 18 2011 20 2 3 3 28 19

87 [Note] 1. “Dismissals”: Because the valid period for filing an appeal has passed, etc. “Terminations etc.”: By withdrawal, disqualification, or death. 2. Details of “Rescissions of Primary Disciplinary Actions (rescind the disciplinary actions of bar associations)” 2010: from “admonition” to “no discipline” in four cases 2011: from “admonition” to “no discipline” in two cases 3. Details of “Modifications of Primary Disciplinary Actions (modify to lighter disciplinary actions)” 2009: from “suspension of practice for two months” to “suspension of practice for one month" in one case, from "order to withdraw from the bar association to which he/she belongs" to "suspension of practice for two years” in one case 2010: from “suspension of practice for one month” to “admonition” in one case, from “suspension of practice for two years” to “one year and six months” in one case, from “suspension of practice for six months” to “five months” in one case, from “suspension of practice for three months” to “admonition” in one case, from “suspension of practice for two years” to “one year” in one case. 2011: from “suspension of practice for six months” to “admonition” in one case, from “suspension of practice for four months” to “two months” in one case, and from “suspension of practice for one year” to “eight months” in one case.

3. Processing Cases at the JFBA Board of Discipline Review In 2011, 327 cases with applications for discipline review were referred to the JFBA Board of Discipline Review for examination. In this year, 275 cases reached resolutions. None of these 275 cases were resolved to be transferred to bar associations for their disciplinary examinations. Following are details of accepting cases with applications for discipline review and resolutions from 2009 to 2011.

[Details of Resolutions on Cases with Applications for Discipline Review (JFBA Board of Discipline Review)] Closed Cases Newly Examinations Disqualification Unclosed Year Examinations Accepted Inappropriate Dismissals Withdrawals or Termination Total Cases Appropriate (Rejections) by Death 2009 312 0 281 10 1 0 292 90 2010 231 0 251 4 0 0 255 66 2011 327 0 271 2 2 0 275 118

[Note] 1. “Examinations Appropriate”: The board found that it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Actions Committee of the original bar association to examine the case. 2. “Unclosed” includes cases being investigated continuously from the previous year. 3. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December).

88 Section 3 Disciplinary Actions and Disciplinary Procedure I. Statistics Regarding Disciplinary Actions 1. Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) – 1995 to 2011 – The graph below shows the number of newly accepted requests for disciplinary actions by all bar associations from 1995 to 2011. In 2011, 1,885 requests were newly accepted.

Number of Cases 10,000 9,585

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

1,849 1,885 2,000 1,596 1,268 1,367 1,402 1,030 1,127 1,192 715 719 884 840 1,000 576 485 488

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

[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 8,095 requests were made against the defense counsel of the Hikari City Mother-Child Murder Case.

89 2. Number of Requests for Disciplinary Action and Details of Handling the Requests (All Bar Associations) This table shows the number of requests for disciplinary action and details of handling the requests by all bar associations from 1995 to 2011. In 2011, the number of disciplinary actions taken increased from that of the previous year to 80 cases, but the percentage of the total number of attorneys involved was 0.25%, as shown on the next page, and this has remained at a similar level for the past ten years. Closed Cases Disciplinary Actions Newly Suspension of Practice Order to No Expired Year Accepted Dismissals and Withdraw Disciplinary Statute of Requests Admonitions Less than 1 Disbarments Total Terminations 1 to 2 Years from Bar Actions Limitations Year Assoc. 1995 576 17 14 1 5 2 39 422 9 80 1996 485 16 6 1 3 1 27 402 7 52 1997 488 11 19 4 1 3 38 381 9 23 1998 715 19 16 4 2 2 43 440 4 40 1999 719 17 20 7 5 3 52 479 11 24 2000 1,030 17 12 4 7 1 41 690 25 26 2001 884 34 20 4 4 0 62 778 19 38 2002 840 28 22 10 3 3 66 674 22 49 Dismissals Terminations 2003 1,127 27 23 2 3 4 59 822 69 23 2004 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 [Note] 1. Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December). 2. If a request consolidates two or more cases regarding one attorney, it is counted as one case. 3. Rescissions and/or modifications of disciplinary actions and/or decisions by the JFBA are not counted. 4. Regarding the newly accepted requests, when one person simultaneously requests disciplinary actions against two or more attorneys, it is counted as one case per attorney. 5. "Newly Accepted Requests" means the sum of the number of requests for disciplinary action and the number of cases in which bar associations made attorneys subject to disciplinary procedures through their own motions. The numbers of "No Disciplinary Actions" and "Terminations" reflect the total numbers at both the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee and Disciplinary Actions Committee levels. 6. In the event that two or more resolutions and/or rulings are made in one case (eg. Partially discipline appropriate and partially inappropriate), they are all counted in the corresponding actions. 7. "Dismissals and Terminations" has included the category of "Expired Statute of Limitations" since 2003. 8. "Dismissals and Terminations" was divided to "Dismissals" and "Terminations" from 2003, and "Dismissals" has been included in "No Disciplinary Actions" since 2005. Changes in Numbers of Disciplinary Actions and their Details Admonitions Suspension of Practice Less than 1 Year Cases From the Bottom Suspension of Practice 1 to 2 Years Order to Withdraw from Bar Associations Disbarments 90 7 80 80 80 1 5 70 1 7 69 5 2 70 66 1 62 62 3 1 3 5 9 3 59 2 5 60 0 3 2 4 60 52 4 4 3 1 4 2 10 3 49 4 27 24 3 2 23 26 50 43 2 13 39 38 5 41 3 29 2 20 2 18 7 1 40 2 3 2 22 23 5 1 4 7 27 19 30 1 4 4 1 16 20 3 14 1 12 20 19 40 42 40 43 6 34 35 38 28 27 31 10 23 17 16 19 17 17 11 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

90 3. Percentage of Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) The graph below shows changes in the percentage of disciplinary actions taken and the percentage of members who have had disciplinary actions imposed upon them in all bar associations from 1995 to 2011.

(1) Percentages of Cases with Disciplinary Actions out of All Requests for Disciplinary Actions In 2011, the percentage of cases in which disciplinary actions were taken was 4.2%. The percentage declined to 0.7% in 2007 because we received 9,585 requests in that year, approximately seven times the number of requests in the previous year.

Percentage 9.0%

8.0%

7.0% 6.8%

6.0%

5.0% 4.2%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year [Note] Percentages are calculated based on the number of disciplinary actions taken and the number of requests for disciplinary actions received by each bar association in each year. This is not a study of whether there were any disciplinary actions taken in each discipline request.

(2) Changes in Percentage of Members with Disciplinary Actions The percentage of members who have had disciplinary actions imposed upon them remains between approximately 0.20% and 0.35% in the last ten years.

Percentage 0.40%

0.35%

0.30% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25%

0.20%

0.15%

0.10%

0.05%

0.00% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year [Note] The basic number of attorneys used to calculate is the number of regular members at the end of December of each year.

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

1. The Disciplinary System The chart on the next page shows the present disciplinary system (effective from April 1, 2004).

92 Disciplinary System Request for Disciplinary Action Anyone may request shows the procedural flow of objection filings against the disciplinary procedures which have not been concluded within a reasonable period of time.

Bar Association

Order Disciplinary Enforcement Committee of Bar Association

Request No Failed to Proceed within Examination Examination Reasonable Period

Disciplinary Actions Committee of Bar Association

Failed to Proceed Disciplinary No Disciplinary Action Action within Reasonable Period

Unjustly Lenient Order

Appeal for Filing of Objection Examination Filing of Objection

JFBA

JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee Committee

Grounds founded

Examination Dismissal Dismissal for Objection Appropriate Rejection Rejection against Prolonged Proceedings beyond Reasonable Period No Grounds founded for Dismissal Dismissal Disciplinary Change Change Disciplinary Objection against Rejection Action Rejection Application for Action Prolonged Discipline Review Proceedings beyond Reasonable Period

JFBA Board of Discipline Review

Lawsuit for Rescission Examination Dismissal Rejection Appropriate

Tokyo High Court

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

94 Flow Chart of the JFBA's Appeal System for Human Rights Relief

Appeal

Summary

Start Preliminary Transfer No Preliminary Investigation

Preliminary Investigation

No Start Transfer Discontinu

Main

Take Action (Warning, Take No Action Discontinue Recommendation, Requests, etc.)

[Procedures] SummarySummary I Investigation:nvestigation: D Determinesetermines th thee necess necessityity o off P Preliminaryreliminary I Investigationnvestigation i inn cases w wherehere re redressesdresses o off human rights abuses are appealed. No Preliminary Investigation: Cases where no action will likely be taken based on the results of summary investigations or the nature of the case.

Start Preliminary Investigation: (1) Cases which supposedly have important influence on society, (2) cases involving details or interested parties that are nationwide or widespread and (3) cases which require investigations into or requests to government organs. Transfer: Cases which are considered appropriate to be referred to bar associations or other institutions for investigation and research. Preliminary Investigation: Investigation to be conducted before the main examination.

No Examination: Cases in which, based on the Preliminary Investigation, there likely will not be any recognition of infringement of human rights or risk of infringement through further examination. Start Examination: Cases in which, based on the Preliminary Investigation, there is a possibility of recognition of infringement of human rights or risk of infringement through further examination.

Discontinue: Cases in which appeals are withdrawn, or the appellants were found to be dead or missing. Main Examination: Examination of infringement of human rights or the risk of infringement as cases for human rights relief. Take No Action: Cases in which examinations determine that taking action is unnecessary. Take Action: Cases in which examinations determine that actions should be taken. Actions taken by the JFBA include judicial measures (accusations/requests for trial), warnings (which notice JFBA opinions and ask for reconsideration), recommendations (which ask for appropriate measures), requests (for realization of their purposes), advices/cooperation, and expression of opinions.

95 II. The Number of Human Rights Relief Cases (by Category) The graph and table below are the number of appeals of human rights relief to the JFBA from 1995 to 201１, categorized by nature. They show that the number of the appealed cases has drastically increased from 2002, especially cases involving treatment at prisons or detention centers.

Others Administrative Organs or Legal System Retrial Cases Infringements at Prisons or Detention Centers Number of Cases Infringements by Police 450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

Fiscal Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Category Infringements by 16 11 18 7 13 13 15 24 19 8 17 16 21 22 32 34 30 Police Infringements at 17 12 16 18 28 41 27 68 89 143 267 197 237 269 249 233 220 Prisons or Detention Retrial Cases10103467912262726242422393448 Administrative Organs 3 9 8201461410172011326 81519 11 or Legal System Others 75 91 58 61 61 60 45 73 84 108 86 76 106 85 85 90 82 Total 121 133 103 110 122 127 110 187 235 306 407 345 394 406 420 410 391

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

96 Chapter 3 International Activities of the JFBA Japanese Attorneys are expanding their role and influence in international society. This chapter presents current international activities of the JFBA and their achievements, divided into four major categories, namely, 1) international human rights, 2) international exchange, 3) international cooperation, and 4) the overseas visiting fellow program and support for recruitment in international organizations. The below chart shows relation with other bodies in international activities of the JFBA.

International Activities of the JFBA (Correlation Diagram)

Date: Date of Signature

InternationalInternational BaBarr OrganizationsOrganizations Law Council of Australia 1999/9/2 2009/7/28 (re-signed) InternationalInternational BarBar AssociationAssociation (IBA)(IBA) Japan Federation of Bar Associations Bar Association of the Kingdom Officers (ILAC) 2000/4/20

Law Association for Asia and the Pacific Korean Bar Association (KBA) (LAWASIA) Office of International Affairs/International Affairs Division 2004/12/4

International Criminal Bar (ICB) American Bar Association Various Committees (ABA) 2006/10/24 The Conference of the Presidents of Law Associations in Asia (POLA) German Federal Bar (BRAK) 2008/6/24 International Criminal Court (ICC) < Three-Bar Paris Bar Meeting> 2010/6/24

Human Rights Council (Geneva) Collaboration> All China Lawyers Association Economic and Social Council (New York) Commission on the Status of Women (New York) Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Council of Bars and Law (Vienna) Societies of Europe (CCBE) [Treaty Bodies] Secretariat Human Rights Committee Office of the High Committee on Economic, Social and Commissioner for Human Cultural Rights Rights (Geneva) Japan International New York University Committee on the Elimination of Japanese Foreign Embassies in Racial Discrimination Cooperation Agency University of California, Berkeley United Nations Office on Committee Against Torture Drugs and Crime (Vienna) Government (JICA) Japan University of Illinois Committee on the Rights of the Child University of Essex, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Division for the Human Right Centre at the Advancement of Women Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (New York) University of Essex

Organizations entered into MOUs International Bar Organizations 97 Governmental Bodies, etc Section 1 International Human Rights Activities I. Activities at the United Nations (UN) The JFBA has been accredited with consultative status by the Economic and Social Council and sends its delegation to various UN meetings. The JFBA sent a delegation to the United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in April 2012.

II. Activities Related to the UN and UN Human Rights Bodies Japan has ratified various international human rights treaties. Under these treaties, Japan periodically submits reports on its human rights situation to respective UN human rights bodies and they review the Japanese situation based on the reports. The JFBA makes counter reports to governmental reports (hereinafter referred to as “JFBA reports”) and submits them to UN human rights bodies. Also, the JFBA has prepared and released opinion papers relating to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR is a new system conducted by the Human Rights Council which was established under the reforms made to the UN human rights mechanism in 2006, and under which the human rights situation in all UN member states is reviewed once every four years by the Human Rights Council which then submits reports regarding the same to the Human Rights Council.

For details, please refer to the “International Human Rights Library” section of the JFBA website.

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) 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 ) 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) 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) 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)

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.

98 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.

II. MOUs with Overseas Bar Organizations The MOUs between the JFBA/local bar associations and overseas bar organizations are as follows:

[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

[MOUs between Local Bar Associations and Overseas Bar Organizations] Bar Associations Bar Associations and Overseas Bar Associations to Date of Overseas Bar Associations to Date of and Federation of Federation of Bar which MOU is signed Signature which MOU is signed Signature Bar Associations Associations Hokkaido Bar Chamber of Sakhalin Federation of Bar 2008/11/07 Suwon Bar Association (Korea) 2003/12/26 Region (Russia) Yokohama Bar

Associations Association Sapporo Bar Uijeongbu Bar Association 2008/12/08 Shanghai Bar Association (China) 2009/04/28 Association (Korea) Saitama Bar Chicago Bar Association (US) 2007/03/26 Incheon Bar Association (Korea) 2005/05/21 Association Shizuoka-ken Bar The Zhejiang Provincial Lawyers Paris Bar (France) 2010/06/24 2012/04/01 Tokyo Bar Association Association (China) Association Hong Kong Bar Association Aichi Bar Association of Mongolian 2012/02/20 2008/09/19 (China) Association Advocates (Mongolia) The Law Society of Hong Osaka Bar 2012/02/20 Seoul Bar Association (Korea) 1993/10/04 Kong (China) Association The Law Society of England Nara Bar Australian Capital Territory Law 2003/10/03 1995/06/29 and Wales (UK) Association Society (Australia) Hiroshima Bar Hawaii State Bar Association 2005/10/20 Deagu Bar Association (Korea) 1998/05/08 Association Shanghai Bar Association 2006/01/23 Fukuoka-ken Bar Busan Bar Association (Korea) 1990/03/23 (China) Association Dai-ichi Tokyo International Law Section, the 2007/04/30 Dalian Bar Association (China) 2010/02/27 Bar Association State Bar of California (US) Section of International Law, Saga Bar American Bar Association 2008/07/09 Ulsan Bar Association (Korea) 2006/04/21 Association (US) Chamber of Lawyers Frankfurt Nagasaki Bar 2009/07/01 Tainan Bar Association (Taiwan) 2003/03/25 am Main (Germany) Association Seoul Bar Association (Korea) 1989/08/11 Oita Bar Association Jeju Bar Association (Korea) 2010/02/27 The Bar Association of San Kumamoto Bar Gyeongnam Bar Association 2007/03/08 2004/03/26 Francisco (US) Association (Korea) Czech Bar Association Taichung Bar Association 2007/01/10 2006/03/11 Daini Tokyo Bar (Czech) Kagoshima Bar (Taiwan) Association Queensland Law Society Association Jeollabukdo District Bar 2010/03/23 2012/02/22 (Australia) Association (Korea) Taipei Bar Association Miyazaki Bar Chungbuk Bar Association 2010/03/31 2009/06/12 (Taiwan) Association (Korea) Okinawa Bar Barreau de Toulouse (France) 2012/06/05 Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan) 1994/02/25 Association

99 Section 3 International Cooperation I. JICA Long-Term Experts The JFBA has been engaging in international cooperation since 1994 and sending instructors to seminars organized by various domestic organizations that invite overseas trainees and also dispatching attorneys to countries such as Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Mongolia, and China as JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) long-term experts. In 2001 the JFBA applied for a partnership enterprise with the JICA and for a three-year period from September 2002 to August 2005 provided assistance in establishing and operating the Lawyers’ Training Center in Cambodia and in developing the legal aid system in that country. The JFBA also entered into an agreement of collaboration with the JICA. Furthermore, the JFBA was entrusted and conducted a JICA project for a three-year period from 2007 to the summer of 2010 to provide legal technical assistance to the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia, such as assistance for the Lawyer’s Training Center and provision of continuous legal education programs for lawyers.

[JICA Long-Term Experts (Fiscal 2006-2012.5.31)] Term Country Activity Sep. 2006 - Mongolia Enhancing the functions of the Association of Mongolian Advocates (provided Nov. 2008 advice on revision of the Practicing Law on Advocacy and assistance in strengthening the functions of the Association of Mongolian Advocates and operating the Conciliation Center, etc.) Mar. 2007 – Indonesia Enhancing the settlement and mediation system (amendments to the rules of the Mar. 2009 Supreme Court on its mediation system, provided advice to improve training curricula for mediators) Apr. 2007 – Vietnam Assist in reforming the legal system (mainly laws on civil execution, real property Mar. 2009 registration, and security transaction registration), and advise on judicial reforms (establishment of a national federation of bar associations) Sep. 2007 – Cambodia Legal technical assistance (with a focus on improving laws and regulations related to Sep. 2008 the Civil Code and coordination of donors engaging in drafting other related laws) Apr. 2008 – China Assist with improving the Civil Procedure Law, the Arbitration Law, and other laws Apr. 2010 related to civil affairs (meetings with the National People's Congress and advice upon request) May 2008 – Cambodia Assist the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (to improve the operation Jun. 2010 of the Lawyers’ Training Center and its training materials) Mar. 2009 – Cambodia Assist in drafting laws and regulations (mainly drafting laws and regulations related Mar. 2011 to the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code and coordination of other donors) May 2009 – Vietnam Assist with judicial reforms related to the interests of lawyers (advice on how to Mar. 2011 work with counter partners, workshops, etc.) Mar. 2010 – Cambodia Assist in drafting laws associated with the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Mar. 2012 Procedure May 2010 – Mongolia Mediation System Nov. 2012 Jul. 2010 – Laos The Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure Jul. 2012 Jul. 2010 – Nepal Advisor on legal technical assistance Jul. 2012 Jan. 2011 – China The Civil Procedure Law and laws related to Chinese civil affairs Jan. 2013 Mar. 2011 – Vietnam Enhancing the capacity of lawyers/Assisting in drafting laws Mar. 2013 Mar. 2011 – Cambodia Development of human resources/Assisting in drafting laws and regulations/ Mar. 2013 Conducting practical operations of civil law

100

[JICA Long-Term Experts (Total by Country)] China: 2

Mongolia: 3

Nepal: 1

Cambodia: 7 Laos: 2

Indonesia: 2 Vietnam: 7

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

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

1996-2000 The JFBA cooperated in the 1st through 5th Cambodia Justice Training Sessions organized by the JICA. Oct. 2000 The JFBA Conducted a seminar for Cambodian lawyers. The JFBA applied a project of legal and judicial cooperation for the Bar Association of the Kingdom of 2001-2002 Cambodia (BAKC) for a JICA partner enterprise and conducted the project. (Training seminars for lawyers and proposals for a legal aid system)

The JFBA was entrusted and conducted a JICA partner enterprise project to provide assistance for the BAKC. 2002-2005 (Assistance for the Lawyers’ Training Center and provision of continuous legal education and gender training programs for lawyers)

The JFBA was entrusted and conducted a JICA project to provide legal technical assistance to the BAKC, such as assistance for the Lawyer’s Training Center and provision of continuous legal education programs for lawyers. From 2008-2010, the JFBA sent members to Cambodia as JICA long-term experts. In addition, from 1999 to date, the JFBA has sent a total of seven JICA long-term experts for JICA's project (which provides legal technical assistance). Also, the JFBA has recommended committee members to supporting committees in 2007-2012 Japan on the drafting of the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure of Cambodia. Further, the JFBA sent commissioners 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, organized by JICA and the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice.

Vietnam Cooperating 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 seven JFBA members have been sent to Vietnam as JICA long-term experts in the past ten years. In addition, many JFBA members participated 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 other focusing on training legal professionals. In May 2009, with the help of the JFBA, the first integrated national bar association in Vietnam was established.

Laos The JFBA conducted research on judicial issues in Laos in May 2000. Based on the results, the JFBA is providing assistance as follows: The JFBA cooperated in a JICA legal technical assistance project and enhancement of fostering legal professional project for Laos, and three JFBA members, one as a short-term expert and two as long-term experts, were sent to Laos. Another JFBA member has also been working in Laos since July 2010 as a long-term expert. In addition, the JFBA sent its members as instructors in response to a request from the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice for its seminars in Laos. However, the number of lawyers in Laos is still around 100. The JFBA is seeking for other ways to cooperate in fostering lawyers in Laos.

Mongolia The JFBA has sent a total of two members to Mongolia as JICA long-term experts; one as a JICA advisor to Mongolia since 2004 and the other for a project to strengthen the functions of the Association of Mongolian Advocates (AMA) from 2006 to 2008. Specifically, they assisted in enhancing the Conciliation Center of the AMA including training programs in Japan. In addition, a number of members have been sent as short-term experts to seminars conducted in Mongolia. A JFBA member has been sent to Mongolia as a JICA long-term expert since May 2010, and a total of three JFBA members have worked as JICA long-term experts until now.

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

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

Nepal The JFBA has been cooperating in a JICA international legal technical assistance project for Nepal, and a JFBA member has been working in Nepal as a JICA long-term expert since July 2010.

103 Section 4 Overseas Visiting Fellow Program and Support for Working in International Organizations I. JFBA Overseas Visiting Fellow Program The JFBA entered an agreement with New York University School of Law (NYU) (1997) and the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) (1999) that they accept JFBA members recommended by the JFBA as their visiting fellows and has been sending its members who are engaged in public interest activities. In addition, a similar agreement was made in 2007 between the JFBA and the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign College of Law (UIUC), and also in 2011 between the JFBA and the School of Law at the University of Essex. (It is possible to study as an LLM student only at the University of Essex.) For program details, please refer to the JFBA website (http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/activity/international/studyabroad.html).

[Past Overseas Visiting Fellows] As of 2012, a total of 34 members were sent overseas through this program. As visiting fellows, they interacted with professors and students of the law schools they attended. In addition, they provided information about legal issues and the roles of attorneys in Japan. They also gave presentations on their own study themes. After they returned to Japan, their experiences and knowledge have been contributing to the JFBA through their activities in JFBA committees. The table below lists information of the members sent as visiting fellows from 2005 through 2012.

Year of Year Univ. Bar Assoc. Adm. to Study Theme Bar U.S. Immigrant Law and roles of legal professionals and NGOs for NYU Tokyo 2000 protecting immigrants 2005 Measures against organized crimes in the US UCB TkTokyo 2000 CtCorporate compli ance

Legislation on human rights of women NYU Daini Tokyo 1999 Gender training to eliminate gender bias in courts

2006 Current status and issues of public defense system in the U.S. - Primarily on the dissolution of uneven distribution of legal services- UCB Daini Tokyo 2000

International human rights law Legal systems to eliminate racial discrimination NYU Tokyo 1992 Educational systems for children of foreign residents and ethnic minorities

2007 Interview with suspects, electronic recording of investigations Treatment of criminals UCB Aichi 1999 Death penalty system

Individual Communications under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights NYU Aichi 2003 Present situation of law clinics in U.S. law schools and the possibility of introducing them into Japanese law schools 2008 The Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act UCB Daini Tokyo 2004 Current citizens’ movements for information disclosure

104 Year of Year Univ. Bar Assoc. Adm. to Study Theme Bar Child abuse NYU Kyoto 2002

Roles of attorneys in assisting crime victims 2009 UCB Tokyo 2004

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

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

Treatment and rehabilitation countermeasures for juvenile crime in the 2010 UCB Daini Tokyo 2008 United States

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

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 from fraudulent online transactions in which the damage in each individual case is small but the effect nationwide is extensive. NYU Daini Tokyo 1999 (ii) Measures to obtain personal information to identify anonymous online offenders in cases of fraud, defamation and/or invasion of privacy. (including the relationships between “privacy of communications”) 2011

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

(1) Development of laws in order to enforce the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in the U.S. UIUC Daini Tokyo 2009 (2) The American system of Law-Related Education (LRE)

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

The method of carrying out organized crime group eradication in the U.S. UCB Tokyo 2002 Examination of the Witness Protection Program Comparative study of bankruptcy law of the United States and Japan UIUC Akita 2000 focusing on their functions to rehabilitate individual debtors 2012 Essex Protection of fundamental human rights in developing countries through Shiga 2005 (LLM） international development assistance Legal, judicial, and administrative systems established by European Essex countries to ensure the effectiveness of the rights of the child guaranteed by (Visiting Daini Tokyo 2000 the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child and the fellow) effectiveness of such systems

105 II. 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 facilitate sharing and exchanging information among its members as well as to provide and promote sufficient and sustainable international legal technical assistance. Since its establishment, the JFBA is encouraging members to interact with each other and share information. In addition, for those who are interested in working in international organizations, the JFBA launched the “Attorney Roster System for Working in International Organizations,” collaborating with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The table below lists the number of attorneys who registered under the International Legal Technical Assistance Roster System in each year.

[Changes in the Number of Attorneys on the International Legal Technical Assistance Roster]

（Person）

250 233

196 200 177 163 147 150 136 123 110 101 91 100 83 70 53 50

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 （Year)

III. Other Support In order to provide information for JFBA members and law school students who are interested in working in international organizations, the JFBA organizes events such as seminars concerning international organizations and operates the “International Organizations Career Support” page on its website. Furthermore, in order to produce legal professionals who work in international organizations, the JFBA requested four international organizations (the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Representation in Japan, the International Organization for Migration Japan, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Economic Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to accept judicial apprentices during their practical training programs at the Legal Training and Research Institute of the Supreme Court. In response to our request, these organizations have started to accept judicial apprentices since 2009. Since 2010, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Office in Japan has also started to accept them. Further, an internship scheme at the ILO office and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) office was introduced in 2010, 2012, respectively, targeting the JFBA members.

106