目次 Final Contents FINAL - 日本弁護士連合会：HOME

◇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 1I. JFBA’s Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

Accident 1II. 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 21Chapter 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 45Chapter 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 64Chapter 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)

2

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

■Data 1-2-1　Counseling Issues by Prefecture (Five Affected Prefectures ■ （Unit: %）

Iwate Miyagi Fukushima Ibaraki ChibaNumber of Legal Consultations (N) 4,925 17,736 12,294 1,277 515

5.0 5.5 2.0 6.6 23.3

～

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:%）

Iwate Miyagi Fukushima Ibaraki Chiba4 925 17 736 12 294 1 277 515

Number of LegalConsultations (N)

The table of Data 1-2-1 clarifies differences of issues subject to consultation depending on the five affectedprefectures. 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 “ RealProperty Ownership (incl. Loss of Ownership)” is not 100% either. We adopted this aggregate analysis methodsince 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.

1 Real Property Ownership (incl. Loss of Ownership)

　Omitted Categories 2-23

24 Non-Disaster Issues

4,925 17,736 12,294 1,277 515Applicable 5.0 5.5 2.0 6.6 23.3Not Applicable 95.0 94.5 98.0 93.4 76.7Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

～

[24　Non-Disaster Issues] （Unit:%）

Iwate Miyagi Fukushima Ibaraki Chiba4,925 17,736 12,294 1,277 515

Applicable 6.1 6.9 4.5 2.6 3.7Not Applicable 93.9 93.1 95.5 97.4 96.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Consultations (N)

Number of LegalConsultations (N)

　Categories 2-23 were omitted. The figures in bold were used for the figures in Data 1-2-1

4

5.0

1.7

0.8

2.4

5.0

1.9

0.3

1.2

11.3

5.3

6.3

24.5

2.1

0.6

5.0

25.6

0.3

3.2

0.0

3.0

0.1

0.1

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

1 Ownership of Real Property (incl. Loss of Ownership)2 Ownership of Vehicles, Ships, etc. (incl. Loss of Ownership)

3 Current Assets (e.g. Deposits, Shares, etc.)4 Real Property Lease (Leased Land)

5 Real Property Lease (Leased Houses)6 Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and …

7 Land boundaries8 Debt Collection (Loans, Accounts Receivable, Contracts for …

9 Loan or Lease of Houses, Vehicles, Ships, etc.10 Payment of Other Loans

11 Insurance12 Disaster Laws and Regulations

13 Taxes14 New Loans

15 Divorce/Relatives16 Wills/Inheritance

17 Consumer Damage18 Labor Issues

19 Foreign Nationals20 Risk-Bearing, Commercial or Corporate Issues

21 Criminal Issues22 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc.

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

5.5 2.0

0.6 0.9

20.8 9.1

0.5 0.8

8.0 4.1 5.1

15.8 1.6 1.1

3.5 12.5

0.9 4.2

0.1 2.6

0.2 0.6

7.6 6.9

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0



5 Real Property Lease (Leased Houses)6 Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and Disputes …









23 Others24 Non-Disaster Issues

（％）

[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.

■ Data 1-2-4 Issues of Free Legal Consultations (Miyagi-wide) ■

7.2

6.1



5

2.0 0.6 0.1

1.9 7.5

6.3 0.2 0.5

7.0 2.7

1.7 8.4

1.2 0.3

2.9 4.0

0.4 4.3

0.1 1.7

0.3 55.1

7.8 4.5

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0













（％）


■Data 1-2-5 Issues of Free Legal Consultations (Fukushima-wide) ■

6.6 0.9

0.2 3.4

11.5 43.5

1.3 0.2

1.6 1.9 2.7

6.7 1.1 0.9 0.4

2.0 4.0

1.9 0.1

2.2 0.5

3.8 7.9

2.6

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0



5 Real Property Lease (Leased Houses)6 Liability of Possessors and Owners of Structures and …










（％）


■Data 1-2-6 Issues of Free Legal Consultations (Ibaraki-wide) ■

6

23.3 0.4 0.2

3.5 12.8 13.4

7.8 0.2

5.0 1.2

9.3 15.7

3.1 0.6 0.6

7.8 1.6 1.4

0.0 4.7

0.2 6.8

9.1 3.7

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0













（％）

[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 515.

■ Data 1-2-7 Issues of Free Legal Consultations (Chiba-wide) ■

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 FukushimaPrefecture in relation to the nuclear power plant accident by evacuation zone category, limited to the cases reportedto 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 andIitate-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 MoreZones ” and other cities, towns and villages in Fukushima Prefecture were included in “ B. Cities, Towns andVillages out of Any Zones.” Please note that on September 30, 2011, the designation of the emergency evacuationpreparation zone was cancelled, and among cities, etc. located in the no-entry zone, Kawauchi-mura, Tamura-shiand Minamisouma-shi were excluded from the no-entry zone on March 30, 2012. (However, they were included inthe “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 relationto the nuclear power plant accident temporarily decreased in May 2011, but steadily increased in all zones through2011. Especially, the proportion of such issues noticeably increased in the “B. Cities, Towns and Villages out ofAny Zones”.

85.890 0

100.0

（％）

■ 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) ■

36.3

60.2 54.3

58.0

65.6 69.4

77.8

85.8

79.1 83.3 78.7 75.5 75.2 75.0

70.2

14.8

33.7 36.0 42.6

51.0 55.9

70.0

78.6 72.7

76.2 73.1

69.4

72.2 70.4 63.6

3.9 8.2 10.6

15.3

22.4

33.6

48.7 53.9 53.4

65.3

58.1 58.5

69.8 64.9

57.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Mar., 2011

Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan., 2012

Feb. Mar. Apr. May（Month of Consultation）

A Cities, Towns and Villages within One or More Zones C Fukushima-wide

B Cities, Towns and Villages outside of any Zones

8

（Unit：Case）

Month of Consultation Mar.,2011

Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.,2012

Feb. Mar. Apr. May

A　Cities, Towns andVillages within One orMore Zones

102 835 864 633 585 454 546 643 465 317 305 310 210 192 161

B Cities, Towns andVillages outside ofany Zones

207 843 639 373 286 259 273 204 161 173 160 183 285 171 130

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

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

[Note] 1. The percentages of the legal consultations shown in Data 1-2-8 were calculated as follows: the number of legalconsultations 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 oflegal 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 notequal “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-muraand 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 PowerPlant Accident, etc.” in Fukushima Prefecture. (Each consultation was classified into only one category forthis detailed classification.) (The figures were based on the data collected by the JFBA concerning freelegal consultations provided through telephone or face-to-face meetings during the period from mid-Marchto mid-December 2011. Legal consultations provided during briefing sessions, etc. were excluded from thedata.) This detailed classification was conducted by attorneys in charge of the analysis of consultations byreviewing issues of consultations in the category of “Nuclear Power Plant Accident, etc.” and extractingkey words from each case, which characterized the case. Consultations regarding compensation for damagecaused by the nuclear power plant incident form the largest proportion of consultations in the “ NuclearPower Plant Accident, etc.,” accounting for approximately 70% of consultations in the category. There areconsiderable proportions of legal consultations in relation to contracts other than lease contracts, living asevacuees, and lease contracts (from both lessees and lessors).

Stolen Property/Custodial Responsibility 0.8%

Entrance into Evaculation/No-Entry

Zones 0.6%

Education 0.4% Business Continuation/Asset Management 0.5%

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

(N=4,454)

Compensation for Damage 71.3%

Contracts 7.5%

Living as Evacuees 6.3%

From Lessees 2.8%

From Lessors 1.5%

Radioactivitiy 2.2%

Government's Policies and Proposals 1.1%

Damage by Rumors 0.7%

Various Procedures 1.1%p y

Other 3.2%

[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 aimof settling disputes related to the Disaster by attorneys acting as mediators with a high degree of mobility, speed andexpertise. The graph below shows the ADR cases applied for and settled by the Sendai Bar Association from thelaunch of the ADR, in April 2011 until July 2012.

20

83 80

41

28 2631

2316 13 14

2115

7 10 12

1 6 24 18 24 12 21 10 13 6 7 12 9 4 5 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90（Cases)

■ Data 1-3 Disaster related ADR Cases Handled by the Sendai Bar Association （April 2011 - July 2012）■

Number of Requests for Disaster related ADR

Number of Settlements of Disaster related ADR

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

2. PR Activities

(1) Opened a disaster recovery support page within theJFBA website (March 23, 2011)

(3) Published a full-page advertisement in newspapersconcerning the compensation claim document provided by theTokyo Electric Power Co., Inc. (TEPCO), together with threebar associations in Tokyo (Fukushima Minyu News/FukushimaMinpo News on September 25, 2011)

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

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.

12

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

613

1,1521,424

1,7512,008

2,222

2,535

2,8372,994 3,111

3,3503,441613

52101

74

1664 68

4413 32 37 27

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011/8/22-8/26

8/29-9/2

9/5-9/9

9/12-9/16

9/20-9/22

9/26-9/30

10/3-10/7

10/11-10/14

10/17-10/21

10/24-10/28

10/31-11/4

11/7-11/11

11/14-11/18

11/21-11/25

11/28-12/2

12/5-12/9

12/12-12/16

12/19-12/22

12/26-12/30

2012/1/2-1/6

1/10-1/13

1/16-1/20

1/23-1/27

1/30-2/3

2/6-2/10

2/13-2/17

2/20-2/24

2/27-3/2

3/5-3/9

3/12-3/16

3/19-3/23

3/26-3/30

4/2-4/6

4/9-4/13

4/16-4/20

4/23-4/27

5/1・5/2

5/7-5/11

5/14-5/18

5/21-5/25

5/28-6/1

6/4-6/8

6/11-6/15

6/18-6/22

6/25-6/29

7/2-7/6

7/9-7/13

7/17-7/20

7/23-7/27

Total

（Cases

Number of Inquiries (Cases)

Total Number of Inquiries Number of Inquiries (Inquiries incl. those generally in relation to the system)

■Data 1-4-1 Inquiries Received by the Management Committee (as of July 27, 2012) ■

6 1641 60

91116

139180

220258

288 303

7

109

168

286

363399

451

556

619 625 630654

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011/8/22-8/26

8/29-9/2

9/5-9/9

9/12-9/16

9/20-9/22

9/26-9/30

10/3-10/7

10/11-10/14

10/17-10/21

10/24-10/28

10/31-11/4

11/7-11/11

11/14-11/18

11/21-11/25

11/28-12/2

12/5-12/9

12/12-12/16

12/19-12/22

12/26-12/30

2012/1/2-1/6

1/10-1/13

1/16-1/20

1/23-1/27

1/30-2/3

2/6-2/10

2/13-2/17

2/20-2/24

2/27-3/2

3/5-3/9

3/12-3/16

3/19-3/23

3/26-3/30

4/2-4/6

4/9-4/13

4/16-4/20

4/23-4/27

5/1・5/2

5/7-5/11

5/14-5/18

5/21-5/25

5/28-6/1

6/4-6/8

6/11-6/15

6/18-6/22

6/25-6/29

7/2-7/6

7/9-7/13

7/17-7/20

7/23-7/27

（Cases)

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 introduced and which are now under preparation for such applications)

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

14

2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 32 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 6610

13 13 1316 17

2222 22 23

26

2

33 4 4

4 4

55 5

77

1 11

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2011/8/22

～2012/5/11

～5/18 ～5/25 ～6/1 ～6/8 ～6/15 ～6/22 ～6/29 ～7/6 ～7/13 ～7/20 ～7/27

(Cases)■Data 1-4-3 Debt-Workout Settlements of under the Management Committee (as of July 27, 2012)

■Ibaraki

Fukushima

Miyagi

Iwate

Aomori

Tokyo

10

17

21 22 22

2627

33

36 36

39

43

The Number of Debt-Workouts Settled

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

(As of July 27, 2012)

Total Number of Consultations and Requests Received

（As of July 27, 2012) （Unit: Case）

Iwate Miyagi Fukushima Aomori Ibaraki Chiba

(5) Cases for which a decision was made to offer support

Cases

502

188

168

74

(4) Cases in the final stage of decision-making for supportafter the process mentioned in (3).

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

62

10

Descriptions

Breakdown

(1) Inquiries, etc. on support systems, being completed byexplanation or advice, etc.

(2) Pending cases in the consultation stage for offeringsupport (3) Cases under concrete consultation with the businessoperator and financial institutions

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

■Data 1-4-5 Consultations Received by “Industrial Recovery Consultation Centers” in Affected Prefectures (the Number of Business Operators and Consultations)■

Iwate（2011/10/7）

Miyagi（2011/11/16）

Fukushima（2011/11/30）

Aomori（2011/12/19）

Ibaraki（2011/11/7）

Chiba（2012/3/5） Total

Number of Consultations 312 517 227 45 90 122 1,313

Completed Cases 223 391 172 38 65 84 973

Completed by advice, explanation,etc. 167 284 160 31 47 56 745

Referred to the Corporation forRevitalizing Earthquake affectedBusinesses

15 77 5 1 0 2 100

Transferred to the ordinaryrevitalization procedures 3 3 2 1 5 13 27

Agreements on financial assistanceby financial institutions, etc 38 27 5 5 13 13 101

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 topurchase of credits (Note 2) 38 28 10 0 2 3 81

(Starting Date of Consultations)

[Note] 1. The figures are based on the data of “Consultations by Industrial Recovery Consultation Centers” provided by the Smalland Medium Enterprise Agency and such figures are the total numbers since the establishment of the centers. Please note thatAomori 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 orreschedule payment plans, business plans, real property related matters and arrangements between creditors are still underconsideration 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

Sep. 2011 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.

2012 Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul.

The Cumulative Number of Applications Filed for Settlement 38 118 261 521 769 1,124 1,590 2,037 2,517 2,926 3,398

The Cumulative Number of Cases 0 1 2 6 14 37 86 177 304 464 679

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000 （Cases）

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

2. Efforts toward Providing Assistance for VictimsTaking into account that it would be very difficult to support victims with only the compensationprovided, since December 2011, the JFBA has been involved in developing plans aimed at providingsupport for disaster victims, independent from the framework of the compensation system. Having beenactively engaged in hearings with each of the major political parties, the JFBA compiled its “OpinionPaper Concerning the Establishment of Special Legislation to Provide Backup for Disaster Victims ofthe Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant Accident, and for the Recovery and Regeneration ofFukushima Prefecture ” on February 16, 2012, taking into consideration the points that such accidentoccurred under the state ’ s nuclear energy policy, and thus, the primary responsibility for providinghumanitarian assistance to the victims of such accident should lie with the state, and the state shouldenact 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 Dietmembers at the Members’ Office Building of the House of Councilors, “the Act on the Protection andSupport for the Children and other Victims of the TEPCO Disaster” was enacted on June 21, 2012, andsuch 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 AccidentThe JFBA issued a number of Opinion Papers discussing, from different perspectives, issues related tothe radioactive substances released in the wake of the nuclear power plant accidents, namely, low-levelexposure, radioactive materials accumulated in foodstuffs, radioactive waste and so on, as well asproblems surrounding the public administration of nuclear safety, which drew much attention from thepublic after the accident. There have been some JFBA Opinion Papers, which garnered a certain amountof public attention and may have had some indirect impact on the development of governmental policies.

Settled 0 1 2 6 14 37 86 177 304 464 679

The Number of Applications Filed for Settlement per Month 38 80 143 260 248 355 466 447 480 409 472

20

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

21

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

22

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.

23

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

The Number ofAttorneys Registered

to Provide LegalConsultation (person)

The Number ofAttorneys Registeredin Bar Associations

(person)

The Registration Rate

The Number of AttorneysWho Contracted toProvide Legal AidServices (person)

The Number ofAttorneys Registeredin Bar Associations

(person)

The Contract Rate

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%

2000（as if March 31, 2001）

District CourtJurisdictions

2011（as of March 31, 2012）

■Data 2-1-1-2 The Number of Attorneys Who Contracted toProvide Civil Legal Aid Services ■ (The Japan Legal Support Center)

■Data 2-1-1-1 The Number of Attorneys Registered for Legal Consultation ■ （The Japan Legal Aid Association）

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%

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) andthe 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 toperform 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 theoffices 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) forthe 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 allattorneys 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.

[Reference] Average of the 50 district court jurisdictions: The registration rate: 64.9% The contract rate (for the number of attorneys who contracted to providelegal aid services)： 78.9%

25

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

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

[Note] 1. Only after the implementation of the Civil Legal Aid Act in October 2000, were different types of support, such as “support forlegal 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 numberof cases (legal services provided) between October 2006 and March 2007 at the Japan Legal Support Center. After 2007, the data iscalculated by the number of cases (legal services provided) by the Japan Legal Support Center. As for support for representation, andsupport for document preparation, data has been calculated as the number of cases which have actually been taken on and started.

35,505

88,513

280,389

4,072 20,098

56,318

103,751

163 3,639 6,164

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Cases

Year

Support for legal consultation Support for representation Support for document preparation

①Money cases 10.8%

②Real estate cases 2.0%

③Family affairs cases23.8%

④Labor cases 2.6%⑤ Maintenance cases

1.2%

⑥Multiple debts cases57.9%

⑦Execution, public sale 1.0%

⑧Others 0.7%

Breakdown for 2011



③Family cases 40.2%

④ Traffic Accidents 5.5%

⑤Consumer finances 15.0%

⑥Others 15.3%

Breakdown for 1990



③Family affairs cases

21.1%④Labor cases

1.1%

⑤Maintenance cases 2.3%

⑥Bankruptcy 61.6%

⑦Compulsory execution 0.6%

⑧Public administration

0.7%⑨Others 0.7%

Breakdown for 2000

The actual number of cases for support for representation

1990 4072 cases2000 20,098 cases 2011 103,751 cases

[Note] 1. Since the breakdown items differ per year, some consideration should be given when making a comparison of the pie chart for 1990, 2000 and 2011. (The names of breakdown items have not been changed as those when the data was collected in 1990, 2000 and 2011.)2. Data for 1990 and 2000 were based on the actual number of cases conducted by the JLAA. Data for 2011 was based on the number of cases which have been taken on and started.

The Civil Legal Aid Act was enacted in

October 2000

The Japan Legal Support Center (Hoterasu) was

established in 2006

※ "Bankruptcy" includes voluntary liquidation

26

（Unit: Million Yen）

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

10,213 10,395 10,407 15,542 16,554 16,402

10,093 9,083 15,796 15,548 14,793 15,445

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

〔〕

Subsidy for operational feeExpenses for services for ensuring court-appointed attorneys

Total

■Data 2-1-1-5 Change in the Amount of the Government Budget for the Japan Legal Support Center ■

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

（Million yen）

（Year）

Subsidy for Operational Fee Expenses for Services for Ensuring Court-Appointed Attorneys

The second stage of the court-appointed attorney system for suspects, i.e. the expansion of applicable cases under the system, was launched in May 2009.

〔Reference〕（Unit: Million Yen）

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

46,978,383 47,284,501 51,730,976 53,454,231 53,565,978 50,962,8085,194,540 4,906,955 5,064,181 5,196,824 5,053,948 5,422,503

（Unit: Yen）

1958 1965 1975 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993

State subsidy,etc. 10,000,000 50,000,000 102,000,000 83,348,000 115,606,000 138,495,000 161,494,000 194,616,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

State subsidy,etc. 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

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

State subsidy,etc. 3,303,452,000 3,498,174,000 4,000,164,000 4,503,502,000 2,380,606,671

[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 theMinistry of Transport, the subsidy from that Ministry stopped in 1976, and a subsidy was provided as “rewards” between 1982 and2005.3. 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 GreatHanshin-Awaji Earthquake.4. The state subsidy in the above table excludes the aid money for support activities concerning acquiring Japanese nationality forJapanese 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.

General spending in the Government BudgetExpenses for other matters in general spending[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 ■

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)]

[Map of Japan showing areas with one or no

attorney (as of October 1, 2012)]

Area with no attorneys: 50

Area with only one attorney: 24

Area with no attorneys: 0

Area with only one attorney: 2

29

Prefecture Population perattorney

Population perprefecture

（Unit:1,000 people)

The numberof attorneys

Prefecture Population perattorney

Population perprefecture

（Unit:1,000 people)

The number ofattorneys

1 Iwate 42,939 1417 33 1 Iwate 16,425 1314 802 Aomori 40,081 1483 37 2 Ibaraki 15,818 2958 1873 Shiga 38,188 1222 32 3 Akita 15,809 1075 684 Shimane 37,190 781 21 4 Aomori 15,489 1363 885 Ibaraki 36,474 2845 78 5 Yamagata 14,696 1161 796 Mie 35,157 1793 51 6 Gifu 14,382 2071 1447 Saitama 33,015 6405 194 7 Mie 13,482 1847 1378 Saga 31,357 878 28 8 Fukushima 13,007 1990 1539 Fukushima 29,634 2104 71 9 Tochigi 12,821 2000 15610 Kagoshima 29,475 1798 61 10 Shiga 12,739 1414 11111 Chiba 29,084 5555 191 11 Toyama 12,651 1088 8612 Gifu 27,932 2067 74 12 Saitama 12,490 7207 57713 Miyazaki 27,833 1169 42 13 Shimane 12,068 712 5914 Yamagata 27,348 1258 46 14 Kagoshima 11,799 1699 14415 Yamaguchi 27,121 1573 58 15 Nagano 11,641 2142 18416 Akita 26,106 1227 47 16 Miyazaki 11,541 1131 9817 Nara 25,943 1375 53 17 Chiba 11,529 6214 53918 Fukui 25,750 824 32 18 Yamaguchi 10,924 1442 13219 Nagasaki 24,422 1563 64 19 Niigata 10,885 2362 21720 Tottori 23,692 616 26 20 Shizuoka 10,711 3749 35021 Tochigi 23,313 1935 83 21 Tottori 10,446 585 5622 Nagano 22,469 2157 96 22 Tokushima 10,400 780 7523 Niigata 22,098 2475 112 23 Nagasaki 10,343 1417 13724 Toyama 21,961 1120 51 24 Saga 10,329 847 8225 Ehime 20,473 1515 74 25 Nara 10,265 1396 13626 Tokushima 20,293 832 41 26 Ehime 10,092 1423 14127 Oita 20,279 1237 61 27 Kochi 9,595 758 7928 Shizuoka 19,951 3671 184 28 Oita 9,528 1191 12529 Kumamoto 19,785 1840 93 29 Ishikawa 9,328 1166 12530 Wakayama 18,842 1074 57 30 Gunma 9,264 2001 21631 Hokkaido 18,384 5644 307 31 Yamanashi 9,215 857 9332 Yamanashi 18,149 853 47 32 Fukui 9,125 803 8833 Gunma 18,037 1966 109 33 Kumamoto 8,844 1813 20534 Ishikawa 16,643 1165 70 34 Hyogo 8,270 5582 67535 Hyogo 16,631 5405 325 35 Wakayama 8,156 995 12236 Kanagawa 15,678 7980 509 36 Kagawa 7,459 992 13337 Kochi 14,732 825 56 37 Kanagawa 7,449 9058 1,21638 Okayama 14,702 1926 131 38 Hokkaido 7,374 5486 74439 Miyagi 13,883 2249 162 39 Okayama 6,470 1941 30040 Kagawa 13,461 1023 76 40 Miyagi 6,464 2327 36041 Hiroshima 12,955 2850 220 41 Hiroshima 6,344 2855 45042 Fukuoka 10,860 4811 443 42 Okinawa 6,172 1401 22743 Aichi 10,706 6691 625 43 Fukuoka 5,473 5079 92844 Kyoto 10,125 2602 257 44 Aichi 5,136 7416 1,44445 Okinawa 7,146 1222 171 45 Kyoto 4,929 2632 53446 Osaka 4,629 8735 1887 46 Osaka 2,381 8861 3,72147 Tokyo 1,878 11856 6314 47 Tokyo 909 13196 14517

8,957 123,611 13,800 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.

1990 2011

Total

■Data 2-1-2-2 Comparison of Population per Attorney - In the order of the largest population per attorney - ■

Total

Ranking Ranking

30

II. Enhancement and Speeding up of Civil Lawsuits – The Number of Cases and AverageDeliberation Time

The graph below shows changes in the number of newly received first instance cases of ordinary civilcases at the district court and summary court level and also the changes seen in the amount of conciliationof civil affairs at the summary court level, which has seen significant changes in volume. Attorneys arefrequently 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 beendeclining since its peak in 2003, due to a sharp drop in the number of specific conciliation cases; from530,000 cases in 2003 to approx. 10,000 cases in 2011.

522,639500,000

600,000

700,000

（件）

(District Courts) Ordinary Civil Litigation Cases(Summary Courts) Ordinary Civil Litigation Cases

■資料2-2-3 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）■

2004年4月

簡裁事物管轄140万円

人訴移管（注2）

522,639500,000

600,000

700,000

Cases(District Courts) Ordinary Civil Litigation Cases (Summary Courts) Ordinary Civil Litigation Cases(Summary Courts) Conciliations

■Data 2-2-1 Transition in the Number of Newly Received First Instance Cases of Ordinary Civil Cases (District Courts / Summary Courts) ■

Since April 2004, summary courts have had jurisdiction over the subject matter of litigation not exceeding 1,400,000 yen.

[Note] 1. The figures were obtained from the “Annual Report of Judicial Statistics (Civil/Administrative Cases)” – “thenumber of civil cases – types of cases and newly received, disposed, and pending cases at all district courts in Japan, andper 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 casesrelated 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, andsummary courts have jurisdiction over the first instance for claims where the value of the subject matter of litigation doesnot exceed 1,400,000 yen. Furthermore, the family court has had jurisdiction over the first instance for litigation casesrelated to personal status since April 2004.

106,871144,479 156,850 132,727

196,367

96,635

244,865297,261

355,386

59,120

128,870

315,577

321,383

63,0090

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010（年）

2011

106,871144,479

156,850132,727

196,367

96,635

244,865297,261

355,386

,

59,120

128,870

315,577

321,383

63,0090

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010（Year）

2011

31

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

12.9

10.1

7.5

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

（Month）

（Year)

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

All

2011

All ：8.4All ： 8.8

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

32

III. Ideal Model for the Legal Profession Supporting the Judicial System1. The Number of Legal Professionals and the Nurturing of Legal Professionals

The Program for Promoting Justice System Reform which was adopted by the Cabinet councilmeeting in March 2002 included the directive of "aiming to increase the number of those who pass thebar examination to about 3,000 a year by around 2010," reviewing the judicial system from theperspective of i) enhancement of the number of legal professionals playing key roles in the judicialsystem, 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 wasgenerally a shift of between 400 and 500 per year, and this number increased to slightly more than 700by 1995. Such number has increased to approx. 1,000 since 1999, after the discussions conductedbetween the legal professions; judges, prosecutors and lawyers, also taking into account therecommendations 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 withwhich the result was decided at just "one point," it was recommended that nurturing legalprofessionals with high quality during the whole "processes," namely, at law schools, barexaminations and legal apprentice training, which are inter-relating. Taking this into consideration, anew system for nurturing legal professionals was established centering on law schools, and thenumber 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 in1990

[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 JFBAmemership)

1990.

5,827

32,088

（6）

（5,595）

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

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

（Person）

Year

■Data 2-3-1-1 Changes in the Number of Attorneys （1950 - 2012）■

The Number of Attorneys (as of March 31, 2012): 32,088（Female: 5,595）

The Number of Attorneys

The Number of Female Attorneys2012

33

Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female

1983 (1985) 447 44 52 7 49 2 343 34 3 11984 (1986) 450 44 70 8 34 4 342 32 4 01985 (1987) 448 52 62 10 37 6 347 36 2 01986 (1988) 482 45 73 8 41 4 367 32 1 1

1987 (1989) 470 57 58 10 51 6 360 40 1 11988 (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 31994 (1996) 699 142 99 26 71 12 521 102 8 21995 (1997) 720 155 102 26 70 16 543 113 5 01996 (1998) 726 144 93 21 73 11 553 110 7 21997 (1999) 729 167 97 18 72 16 549 132 11 11998 (2000) 742 202 87 22 69 16 579 164 7 01999 (2000) 788 196 82 26 74 10 625 158 7 22000 (2001) 975 281 112 31 76 20 774 225 13 52001 (2002) 988 269 106 30 75 22 799 214 8 32002 (2003) 1,005 225 101 29 75 19 822 175 7 22003 (2004) 1,178 277 109 35 77 19 983 222 9 1

■Data 2-3-1-2　The Number of Legal Apprentices who Have Completed Legal Training per Chosen Profesion■

Year of Entrance to(Completion of) Legal

Training Institute

The Number of Thosewho Have Completed

Legal TrainingJudges Prosecutors Attorneys Others

003 ( 00 ) , 78 77 09 35 77 9 983 92004 (2005) 1,187 279 124 34 96 30 954 213 13 22005 (2006) 1,477 360 115 35 87 26 1,254 291 21 82006 (2007) 2,376 568 118 43 113 39 2,043 457 102 292007 (2008) 2,340 619 99 36 93 32 2,026 527 122 242008 (2009) 2,346 635 106 34 78 31 1,978 523 184 472009 (2010) 2,144 563 102 32 70 22 1,714 443 258 662010 (2011) 2,152 597 102 34 71 24 1,515 418 464 121

[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, thenumber refers to that as of April of each year. 2. The number of public prosecutors (except for assistant public prosecutors) indicates the fixed number foreach 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.)

[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. (Theirtraining period was two years.) For those who started between 1999 and 2005, they completed their training in October, one and a half years later. (Thetraining period was one year and six months.) For those between 2006 and 2008, they completed their training in September or December of the followingyear. 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.

1,533 1,838 2,017 2,213 2,460 2,805 2,850

930 1,132 1,173 1,375 1,627 1,806 1,839

5,827 8,478

13,800 18,243

21,185

28,789 32,088

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1950 1970 1990 2000 2005 2010

（Person）

Year

■Data 2-3-1-3 Changes in the Number of Legal Professionals in Japan ■

Attorneys

Judges Public Prosecutors

2,850 (Judges As of April 2012)1,839 (Prosecutors As of March 31, 2012)

32,088 (Attorneys As of March 31, 2012)

2012

34

（Unit：Person）

Number ofLegal

Professionals

Number ofPeople per

LegalProfessional

Number ofJudges

Number ofPeople per

Judge

Number ofPublic

Prosecutors

Number ofPeople per

PublicProsecutor

Number ofLawyers

Number ofPeople per

Lawyer

1990 245,809,000 725,574 339 29,460 8,344 25,120 9,785 670,994 3662000 274,114,000 990,240 277 30,781 8,905 31,340 8,746 928,119 2952012 311,591,917 1,211,087 257 32,501 9,587 31,918 9,762 1,146,668 2721990 50,393,000 62,159 811 1,378 36,570 1,988 25,349 58,793 8572000 52,428,000 91,381 574 3,555 14,748 2,109 24,859 85,717 6122012 55,240,500 132,611 417 3,726 14,826 2,888 19,128 125,997 4381990 61,242,000 75,493 811 17,627 3,474 3,759 16,292 54,107 1,1322000 82,037,000 129,977 631 20,920 3,921 4,998 16,414 104,059 7882012 81,751,602 181,336 451 20,411 4,005 5,246 15,584 155,679 5251990 56,184,000 23,791 2,362 4,486 12,524 1,529 36,746 17,776 3,1612000 58,518,748 37,281 1,570 4,875 12,004 1,566 37,368 30,840 1,8972012 65,350,181 62,194 1,051 5,931 11,018 1,990 32,839 54,273 1,2041990 123,255,000 17,363 7,099 2,017 61,108 1,173 105,077 14,173 8,6962000 126,686,000 21,265 5,957 2,213 57,246 1,345 94,190 17,707 7,1552012 127 799 000 36 824 3 471 2 880 44 375 1 810 70 607 32 134 3 977

Germany

The table below shows a cross-country comparison of the number of legal professionals. When comparing thenumber 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 perattorney in Japan has sharply dropped.

Number of LegalProfessionals

U.S.

U.K

Population

Japan

■Data 2-3-1-4　Cross-Country Comparison of the Number of Legal Professionals ■

Judges Public Prosecutors Lawyers

France

Year(Pleaserefer toNote）

2012 127,799,000 36,824 3,471 2,880 44,375 1,810 70,607 32,134 3,977

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 allstates (all 50 states and Washington D.C.). As for the federal courts, the numbers were fixed in 1990, December 1999, and inMarch 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 legalprofessionals 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, November1999, and July 2011.

[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 "CourtData 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 isas of April 1 each year. The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Bureau of Statistics of the Ministryof Internal Affairs and Communications.

366857 1,132

3,161

8,696

295 612 7881,897

7,155

272 438 525 1,204

3,977

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

10,000

U.S. U.K. Germany France Japan

（Person） ■Data 2-3-1-5 Cross-Country Comparison of the Number of People per Lawyer ■

1990 2000 2012

35

6. Germany: The numbers of judges and prosecutors are as of January 1989 and December 1998, and also the end of December2010, 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, 1998and 2010.

7. France: The number of judges and prosecutors is for the 1990s, January 2000, and also on January 1, 2011, based on theresearch 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 legaladvisers, 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 ofJustice 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 ofStatistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)).

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 systemintroduced in 1985 (Crown Prosecution Services), and the number of barristers and solicitors serving as public prosecutors inMarch 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 thosesolicitors serving as part-time judges, public prosecutors, and the Attorney General, and the dates are 1990, 2000, and July andDecember 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.

36

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

Old System for Nurturing Legal Professionals

- Law faculty of universities- Other faculties of universities- Other professions, etc.

Former bar examination

Selected through Examinations "One Point"

Legal training（*）

- Judges

- Public prosecutors

- Attorneys

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

New System for Nurturing Legal Professionals

(*) - 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. ）

New System for Nurturing Legal Professionals

- Law faculty of universities

- Other faculties of universities

- Other professions, etc.

<Law Schools>- Two -year course for those who completed law as undergraduates: 2 years- Three-year course for those who have not studied law as undergraduates: 3 years

New bar examination(From 2006 onwards)

Legal apprentice

training course(1 year)

- Judges

- Public prosecutors

- Attorneys

Theoretical and practical education for nuturing legal

professionals

Examination taking the education programs of law

schools into accountTraining centered on actual practice

Nuturing through "Processes"Nationally licenced examination to be qualified to take bar examination (from 2011 onwards)

The purpose of the examination is to judge whether or not a person has; i) the necessary knowledge equal to those who have completed law school, ii) advanced expertise, and iii) the basic education necessary for actual legal practice.

[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 under the condition of such person having completed a training course for attorney services (Training for the granting of qualifications to persons qualified to become attorneys) designated by the Minister of Justice. After completing such traning course, such person shall be certified by the Minister of Justice (Article 5 of the Attorney Act ).

37

72,800

41,75640,341 45,207

39,55529,714

24,014 22,927 18,446

13.0

7.2 6.9 7.8

6.8

5.2 4.9 5.1 4.1

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

（Competitive Ratio）（Person）

（Year）

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

Applicants（person） Ratio of Applicants

■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）非法学部出身者（人）Enrollment after Work Experience Non-law Graduates (person)

[Note] 1. The above graph was made by the JFBA, based on materials published by the “Central Education DeliberationCouncil Sectional Meeting, Special Committee for Law School in MEXT (the 47th and 49th).”2. The number of applicants refers to the total number of applicants across Japan taking an admission test for law schoolconducted individually at each law school after conducting an aptitude test. For example, in the case that an applicant hasapplied to both “A” law school and “B” law school, it would be calculated as one applicant to each “A” and “B” lawschools, 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 maximumnumber of admissions (total for all of Japan).

2,792

2,0911,925 1,834

1,609

1,298

993763 689

1,988

1,660 1,6341,490 1,410

1,224

868748 591

48.4 37.7

33.3 32.1 29.8 26.8

24.1 21.1 21.9 34.5

29.9 28.3 26.1 26.1 25.3 21.1 20.7 18.8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

（％）(Person)

(Year)

社会人入学者（人）非法学部出身者（人）

社会人割合（％）非法学部出身者割合（％）

Enrollment after Work Experience(person)

Ratio of Non-law Graduates (%)Ratio of Working People (%)

38

[Note] 1. Information based on the “Academic background” section written on the application document for the bar examination. Insuch 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 lastattended.2. “Law graduates” refers to successful bar examination candidates having studied at law-related faculties and with an academic

93.2 91.5 88.9

82.0

6.8 8.5 11.1 18.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1990 1995 2000 2005

（％）

(Year)

■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 GraduatesRatio of Successful Bar Examination Candidates for Non-law Graduates

2006

[Note] 1. Information based on the “Having/Not having studied law at law-related faculties of universities” section of “Eligibility foradmission 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 whograduated 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 Ministryof Justice, except for those for 2012, which were based on research data by the Ministry of Justice.

background described in 1. “Non-law graduates” refers to successful bar examination candidates with a background other than theabove “law graduate.”3. “Non-law graduates” includes a) applicants with an academic background of a four-year university, having studied at faculties otherthan law; b) applicants who have been exempted a first examination of the bar exam because of having an educational background ofother than a four-year university; and c) applicants who have passed a first examination, or applicants who have been exempted a firstexamination and also have not studied at universities.

88.5 77.7 78.4 79.1 81.0 81.9 82.4

11.5 22.3 21.6 20.9 19.0 18.1 17.6

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

100.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

（％）

(Year)

Ratio of Successful Law Graduates Ratio of Successful Non-law Graduates

■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) ■

39

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Law Graduates (A) (person) 893 1,439 1,618 1,617 1,679 1,689 1,685Examination 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 359Examination 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 2,044Examination Pass Rate 48.3% 40.2% 33.0% 27.6% 25.4% 23.5% 24.6%

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

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

2,091

4,607

6,261

7,3928,163 8,765 8,387

1,0091,851 2,065 2,043 2,074 2,063 2,102

48.3

40.2

33.0 27.6 25.4 23.5 25.1

0 0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

(%)(Person)

■Data 2-3-1-12 Pass Rate of New Bar Examination ■The Number of Applicants (person)The Number of Successful Bar Candidates (person)The Pass Rate (%)

(As of Sept. 2012)

The Number ofPeople who

Completed Law asUndergraduates

The Number ofPeople who did not

Study Law asUndergraduates

2,176 1,518 69.8% 69.8% －

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

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

4,994 2,300 46.1% 68.0% 30.5%

4,792 2,121 44.3% 64.7% 30.3%

4,535 1,722 38.0% 54.0% 26.5%

3,937 1,027 26.1% 39.2% 15.3%

Law School Graduates in 2007 (Qualified for takinga bar exam between 2008 and 2012)






[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 HaveTaken New Bar Examination per Year ■

[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 thelimitation on the number of times an applicant may sit for the bar examination (currently limited to three times within a periodof five years after completion of law school.)


The Number ofPeople

CompletingTheir Studiesat Law School

(person)

TheCumulativeNumber ofSuccessfulCandidates

(person)

The Year when Studying at Law is Completed

0.0 02006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (Year)

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.

41

Bar

Association

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total

1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year 6th year 7th year 8th year

Tokyo Assistant judge 1 3 0 3 1 0 3 3 14

Prosecutor 1 0 2 2 3 1 4 0 13

Dai-ichi

Tokyo

Assistant judge 5 2 5 4 4 5 2 2 29

Prosecutor 1 3 1 2 1 1 0 2 11

Daini Tokyo Assistant judge 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 10

Prosecutor 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 3 8

Osaka Assistant judge 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 17

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

■ 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）

42

■Data 2-3-2-2 The Number of Attorneys Appointed As Judges (Full-time Judges) (per Federation of Bar Associations ■ (unit:

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

Kanto Kinki Chubu Chugoku

RegionKyushu Tohoku Hokkaido Shikoku Total

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

(Unit: person)

Federation Year Appointed

43

（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 10thThe Numberof AttorneysAppointed as

Judges

The Numberof AttorneysAppointed as

Judges


Judges


Judges


Judges


Judges


Judges


Judges


Judges


Judges

Civil 7 10 8 10 5 9 8 4 9 12FamilyAffairs 5 2 1 5 8 1 4 1 5Civil 2 2 1 1

FamilyAffairs 2 1 3 2 2

KawasakiBranch

Civil 1 1 2

Civil 1 1 2FamilyAffairs 2 1 1 2 1Civil 2 1 1 2 1

FamilyAffairs 1 1 1Civil 4 4 3 6 3 5 2 6 2 5

FamilyAffairs 3 2 1 5 1 4 2 2 2

SakaiBranch

Civil 1 1 1 3

Civil 2 1 1 2 2 1FamilyAffairs 1 1 1 1 1Civil 2 2 1 1 2 2 1

FamilyAffairs 1 1 1Civil 3 2 4 6 3 5

FamilyAffairs 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 2Civil 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

FamilyAffairs 1 1Civil 2 2 2 3 2 3

FamilyAffairs 1 1 1 1 1 1

KokuraBranch

Civil 1 1 2

Civil 2 1 1 1 1 1 1FamilyAffairs 1 1Civil 2 1 2 2 3 2

FamilyAffairs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Takamats Civil 1 1 1 1 1 530 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 haveretired in the middle of their two-year term, because of the appointment as full-time judges, etc.

Total

19Sapporo

10Sendai

20Fukuoka

10

■Data 2-3-2-3 The Number of Attorneys Appointed As Judges (Part-time Judges) (Per District Court)■

Hiroshima

40Nagoya

14Kobe

14Kyoto

62Osaka

10Chiba

11Saitama

DistrictCourt

16Yokohama

114Tokyo

CumulativeTotal

44

YearNumber

ofAttorneys

WomenAttorneys Year

Numberof

Attorneys

WomenAttorneys Year

Numberof

Attorneys

WomenAttorneys Year

Numberof

AttorneyWomen

Attorneys

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 6 009 0 3% 1973 9 541 2 7% 1989 13 541 5 3% 2005 21 185 12 5%

Chapter 1 Population of Attorneys

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

Part 1 Current Situation of Attorneys and Other Legal Professions

I. Changes in the Number of Attorneys －1950 to 2012－

1957 6,009 0.3% 1973 9,541 2.7% 1989 13,541 5.3% 2005 21,185 12.5%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 Actand 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, afterobtaining approval of the Minister of Justice of Japan, have been registered with the JFBA as RegisteredForeign Lawyers (Gaikokuho-jimu-bengoshi )*Quasi Members: foreign lawyers who were approved by the Supreme Court of Japan pursuant to Article 7 ofthe Attorney Act before its major revision in 1955 and Article 65 of the Act on Special Measures Incidental toReversion 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 Okinawabefore the reversion of Okinawa in 1972, and after the reversion, were permitted to engage in practice asstipulated in Article 3 of the Attorney Act with the title of “Okinawa Bengoshi (attorney)” within OkinawaPrefecture.*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 ofmale attorneys was 26,493 and the number of female attorneys was 5,595 as of the end of March, 2012. Ascan be seen in the graph, the greatest number of attorneys for both male and female are those in their 30s.

3,043

7,915 4,178

3,603

4,102

2,544

1,108

1,118

2,489

1,080

452

291

130

35

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

20 - 29（4,161）

30 - 39（10,404）

40 - 49（5,258）

50 - 59（4,055）

60 - 69（4,393）

70 - 79（2,674）

80 or older（1,143）

Female: 5,595

(Age)(person)

（as of the end of March 2012）

Male: 26,493

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

(person)

46

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 1of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (Seethe 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 numberof legal professionals in practice in each state researched by the American Bar Association (See the table on page 51). Thepopulation 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 barristersin private practice and solicitors with practicing certificates except for those solicitors serving as part-time judges, publicprosecutors, and the Attorney General. The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics(See the table on page 51).

6. Germany: The number of lawyers is based on the research of the German Federal Bar (See the table on page 52). Thepopulation 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, andavocat au Conseil d'Etat et a la Cour de cassation based on the research of the Ministry of Justice of France (See the table onpage 52). The population is based on the research of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institutnational de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table on page 52).

III. Comparison of the Total Number of Lawyers, Judges, and Public Prosecutors with those of ForeignCountries

The graph below compares the numbers of lawyers, judges, and public prosecutors of major foreigncountries. It uses the statistics of the numbers of legal professionals of each country obtained by theSupreme Court of Japan (except for the number of attorneys in Japan) and compares the population perjudge, public prosecutor, and legal professionals in each country. Regarding each country's population oflegal professionals, see pages 51 and 52.

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

[Note]1. The statistics of the graph above are the population divided by the number of lawyers in each country.

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

The graph below is a cross-country comparison of “the number of people per lawyer.” In 2012, there wereapproximately 3,900 people per attorney in Japan, while the number of people per lawyer in the other fourcountries was all below 1,200.

6,022 5,792 5,5185,098

4,7374,423 4,196 3,977

292 289 285 281 280 279 273 272528 510 477 463 451 442 435 438

623 597 577 560 547 535 525 525

1,488 1,402 1,363 1,363 1,275 1,235 1,244 1,204

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Japan U.S. U.K. Germany France

Year

Population

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 wereapproximately 44,000 people per judge in Japan, while the number was below approximately 15,000 peopleper judge in the other four countries. There is a large gap between the number in Japan and that in other fourcountries.

6. Germany: The number of judges is the total number of judges who belong to federal and state jurisdictions (includingprobation judges), based on research of the Federal Ministry of Justice (See the table on page 52). The population is based onthe 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 JudicialCouncil (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) (See the table on page 52). The population is based on the research of theNational Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE))(See the table on page 52).

[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 ofattorneys in Japan.

3. Japan: The number of judges is a fixed number of each fiscal year (excluding judges of summary courts) (See the table onpage 51). The population is as of October 1 of the year before, researched by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of InternalAffairs and Communications of Japan (See the table on page 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 (all50 states and Washington D.C.) (See the table on page 51). The population is based on the research of the U.S. CensusBureau (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 judgesresearched 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).

51,90550,397 48,954 47,587 46,265 45,458 44,932 44,375

9,388 9,388 9,349 9,445 9,589 9,680 9,553 9,587

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

3,949 4,045 4,042 4,088 4,083 4,080 4,070 4,005

11,387 10,782 10,530 10,530 10,756 10,668 10,964 11,018

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Year

Population

48

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

6. Germany: The number of public prosecutors is based on the research of the German Federal Ministry of Justice (See the table onpage 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 JudicialCouncil (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) (See the table on page 52). The population is based on the research of the NationalInstitute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)) (See the table onpage 52).

The graph below is a cross-country comparison of “the number of people per public prosecutor.” In 2012,there were approximately 70,000 people per prosecutor in Japan, which is far above the number in the otherfour countries.

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

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

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

4. U.S.: The number of federal prosecutors is the sum of the number of federal prosecutors and assistant federal prosecutors researchedby the U.S. Department of Justice (See the table on page 51). The number of state prosecutors is the estimated number of those whobelong to state prosecutor offices and deal with serious crimes (See the table on page 51). The population is based on the research of theU.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 servingas public prosecutors researched by the U.K. Crown Prosecution Service. It also includes the Attorney General and the Director ofPublic Prosecutions (See the table on page 51). The population is based on the research of the U.K. Office for National Statistics (Seethe table on page 51).

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

8,439 8,558 9,335 9,386 9,396 9,483 9,455 9,762

18,662 18,292 17,522 16,696 16,385 17,082 17,929 19,128

16,026 16,158 16,145 16,191 16,172 16,010 15,971 15,584

32,23629,474 29,207 29,207

32,885 32,519 32,677 32,839

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Japan U.S. U.K. Germany FrancePopulation

Year

49

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

[Note]1. The statistics of the graph above are the population of each country divided by the number of legal professionals in each country.2. The statistics of the populations of legal professionals are obtained by the Supreme Court of Japan, except for that of attorneys inJapan.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 51and 52).

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

5,064 4,8804,663

4,3424,061

3,818 3,642 3,471

274 271 268 265 265 263 258 257496 479 450 437 426 418 413 417

520 504 490 478 468 459 452 451

1,264 1,191 1,159 1,159 1,102 1,070 1,080 1,051

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Year

50

Japan 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Oct. 1, 2004 Oct. 1, 2005 Oct. 1, 2006 Oct. 1, 2007 Oct. 1, 2008 Oct. 1, 2009 Oct. 1, 2010 Oct. 1, 2011127,687,000 127,756,815 127,770,000 127,771,000 127,692,000 127,510,000 128,056,026 127,799,000

Apr. 1, 2005 Apr. 1, 2006 Apr. 1, 2007 Apr. 1, 2008 Apr. 1, 2009 Apr. 1, 2010 Apr. 1, 2011 Apr. 1, 201221,205 22,056 23,154 25,062 26,958 28,828 30,518 32,134

Fixed # ofFY 2005

Fixed # ofFY 2006

Fixed # ofFY 2007

Fixed # ofFY 2008

Fixed # ofFY 2009

Fixed # ofFY 2010

Fixed # ofFY 2011

Fixed # ofFY 2012

2,460 2,535 2,610 2,685 2,760 2,805 2,850 2,880Fixed # ofFY 2005

Fixed # ofFY 2006

Fixed # ofFY 2007

Fixed # ofFY 2008

Fixed # ofFY 2009

Fixed # ofFY 2010

Fixed # ofFY 2011

Fixed # ofFY 2012

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 2012Jul. 2004 Jul. 2005 Jul. 2005 Jul. 2006 Jul. 2008 Jul. 2009 Jul. 2009 Jul. 2011

293,655,404 296,410,404 296,410,404 299,398,484 304,059,724 307,006,550 307,006,550 311,591,917Dec. 2003 Dec. 2004 Dec. 2005 Dec. 2006 Dec. 2007 Dec. 2008 Jan. 2011 Dec. 2010

1,006,783 1,026,356 1,041,262 1,066,536 1,084,396 1,102,106 1,124,077 1,146,668

Sep. 2004 Sep. 2005 Sep. 2006 Sep. 2007 Jan. 2009 Jan. 2010 Jan. 2011 Mar. 20121,783 1,811 1,812 1,800 1,818 1,826 1,829 1,823

2002-2003 2003-2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 200929,498 29,763 29,892 29,900 29,891 29,891 30,309 30,678

Mar. 2005 Mar. 2006 Mar. 2007 Mar. 2008 Apr. 2009 Mar. 2010 Mar. 2011 Apr. 20125,537 5,375 5,230 5,376 5,836 5,852 5,947 5,465

2001 2001 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 200729 262 29 262 26 524 26 524 26 524 26 524 26 524 26 453

Lawyers

Population

Attorneys

Judges(excl. Judges atSummary Courts）Public Prosecutors(excl. AssistantProsecutors)

Population

Prosecutors(Federal)

Judges(Federal)Judges(States)

Prosecutors(States)

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

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 2012Jun. 2003 Jun. 2004 Jun. 2005 Jun. 2006 Jun. 2007 Jun. 2008 Jun. 2009 Jun. 201052,794,000 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

Apr. 2005*Partially,incl. Dec.

2004

May 2006*Partially,incl. Mar.

2006

Mar. & Apr.2007

*Partially,incl. Mar.

2006

Mar. & Apr.2008

*Partially,incl. Apr.

2007

Apr. 2008*Partially,incl. Mar.

2009

Feb. - Apr.2010

*Partially,incl. Sep. &Oct. 2009

Apr. 2010Oct. 2009

Feb. & Mar.2009

Apr. 2011Apr. 2011Mar. 2012

3,511 3,817 3,613 3,639 3,865 3,690 3,636 3,726

Feb. 2005

Feb. 2006*Partially,incl. Dec.

2005

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

2,829 2,900 3,047 3,218 3,300 3,187 3,057 2,888

Prosecutors

Population

Judges

(States)

[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 2012Dec. 31, 2003 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2010

82,531,671 82,501,000 82,438,000 82,314,906 82,217,830 82,002,356 81,802,257 81,751,602Jan. 1, 2005 Jan. 1, 2006 Jan. 1, 2007 Jan. 1, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2012

132,569 138,131 142,830 146,906 150,375 153,251 155,679 155,679Dec. 31, 2002 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2010

20,901 20,395 20,395 20,138 20,138 20,101 20,101 20,411Dec. 31, 2002 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2006 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2010

5,150 5,106 5,106 5,084 5,084 5,122 5,122 5,246

France 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Nov. 2003 Nov. 2005 Jan. 2007 Jan. 2007 Jan. 2009 Jan. 2010 Jan. 2011 Jan. 2012

59,862,000 60,863,000 61,538,322 61,538,322 62,448,977 62,793,432 65,026,885 65,350,181Lawyers(incl. LegalAdvisers)

Jan. 2003 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011

(avoue pres la Courd'appel)

Jan. 2003 Jan. 1, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011

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

Jan. 2003 Jan. 1, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2005 Dec. 31, 2007 Jan. 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011

(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

J 2004 J 2006 J 2007 J 2007 D 31 2007 D 31 2008 D 31 2009 D 31 2009

Population

Judges

Lawyers

Population

Public Prosecutors

Jan. 2004 Jan. 2006 Jan. 2007 Jan. 2007 Dec. 31, 2007 Dec. 31, 2008 Dec. 31, 2009 Dec. 31, 2009

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

1,857 2,065 2,107 2,107 1,899 1,931 1,990 1,990Public Prosecutors

Judges

52

Chapter 2 Populations of Other Legal Professions

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012% of

Womenin 2012

Attorneys 19,508 20,224 21,185 22,021 23,119 25,041 26,930 28,789 30,485 32,088Number 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 9,145Number of Women 443 502 613 713 826 933 949 1,012 1,107 1,201 13.1%

Those who may represent clientsin specified infringement

litigation496 1,061 1,479 1,736 1,974 2,221 2,409 2,563 2,735

Certified Public Tax Accountants 66,674 67,370 68,642 69,243 70,068 70,664 71,177 71,606 72,039 72,635Number 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 23,119Number of Women 1,217 1,347 1,451 1,610 1,798 1,904 2,102 2,320 2,560 2,853 12.3%

I. Changes in Populations of Other Legal Professions

There are several qualified professions which deal with the law like attorneys: judicial scriveners, certified publictax accountants, patent attorneys, certified public accountants and administrative scriveners, etc. In cross-countrycomparisons of populations, it should be noted that attorneys in some other countries handle the matters whichare 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]

Judicial Scriveners 17,304 17,667 17,735 18,059 18,520 18,877 19,394 19,766 20,313 20,670Number 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 clientsbefore 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 42,177Number 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 andLabour 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 thestatistics 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 beforesummary courts in 2004 is as of May 1.Administrative Scriveners and Land and House Investigators: As of April 1 of each year.

53

1 Tokyo 465

2 Tokyo 334

3 Tokyo 316

4 Tokyo 304

5 Tokyo 242

6Tokyo

122

7 Tokyo 114

8 Osaka 101

9 Tokyo 88

10 Osaka 81

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

The table below ranks law offices nationwide by the number of attorneys. Mergers of law offices are progressing mainly inurban areas. Recently, law offices with more than two attorneys have increased. There are 8 offices with more than 100attorneys as of the end of March 2012. Among them, there are one office with 200 - 300 attorneys, and three offices with300 - 400 attorneys, and one office with more than 400 attorneys.

Tokyo Aoyama Aoki Koma Horitsu Jimusho Baker & McKenzie Gaikokuho JimuBengoshi Jimusyo Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

City-Yuwa Horitsu Jimusho

Bengoshi Hojin Oh-Ebashi Horitsu Jimusho

TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho

Nishimura Asahi Horitsu Jimusho

Nagashima Ohno Tsunematsu Horitsu Jimusho

Anderson Mori Tomotsune Horitsu Jimusho

Mori Hamada Matsumoto Horitsu Jimusho

I. The Number of Attorneys in Law Offices

Atsumi Sogo Horitsu Jimusho•Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

[Note]1. In those offices, the locations of legal professional corporations are those of their principal offices.2. A legal professional corporation includes its principle office, secondary offices, and partner offices.

Bengoshi Hojin Adire Horitsu Jimusho

(As of the end of March 2012)■Major Offices (Top 10 Offices)■

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20128,109 7,960 7,821 7,926 8,114 8,3181,650 1,815 1,900 2,024 2,236 2,3551,392 1,540 1,657 1,820 1,948 2,109

389 426 518 531 571 60296 127 140 172 177 19129 26 32 35 34 4313 18 19 19 21 21

3 5 4 7 7 65 5 7 7 7 8

11,686 11,922 12,098 12,541 13,115 13,653

Total Women

8,109 7,960 7,821 7,926 8,114 8,318 8233,300 3,630 3,800 4,048 4,472 4,710 8705,019 5,606 5,999 6,658 7,125 7,690 1,4412,815 3,097 3,805 3,886 4,203 4,451 9521,352 1,766 1,982 2,389 2,523 2,625 589

686 620 774 846 840 1,054 205475 662 750 727 823 817 196220 369 290 459 469 425 93

1,134 1,331 1,709 1,850 1,916 1,998 42623,110 25,041 26,930 28,789 30,485 32,088 5,595

Offices with 21 to 30Offices with 31 to 50

Offices with 51 to 100Offices with 101 or more

Total

2012

One-attorney OfficesOffices with two


Offices with 11 to 20

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Offices with 101 or more


[Note] As of March in each year except for the data of year 2007 (as of July)



Total

One-attorney OfficesOffices with two

Offices with 3 to 5


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

■Changes in the Number of Attorneys in Each Size of Office■

54

77 32 30 2 237 1 22 8 347 5 17 1 538 8 7 105 133 12 7 18 856 8 7 19 2782 5 6 4 569 2 0 3 679 3 3 1 1490 5 11 12 6

97 51 9 1753 2 3 1142 7 5 6

2011

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

1. The Number of LPCs90 LPCs were established from April 2011 to March 2012. As of the end of March 2012, the number of LPCsnationwide was 581.The table below classifies LPCs by the year of establishment and bar association.

2002 Sapporo Yokohama Fukui Shimane2003 Hakodate Saitama Kanazawa Kagawa2004 Asahikawa Chiba Toyama Tokushima2005 Kushiro Ibaraki Osaka Kochi2006 Sendai Tochigi Kyoto Ehime2007 Fukushima Gunma Hyogo Fukuoka2008 Yamagata Shizuoka Nara Saga2009 Iwate Yamanashi Shiga Nagasaki2010 Akita Nagano Wakayama Oita

Aomori Niigata Hiroshima KumamotoTokyo Aichi Yamaguchi Kagoshima

Dai-ichi Tokyo Mie Okayama MiyazakiDaini Tokyo Gifu Tottori Okinawa

[Number of LPCs Established in Each Year] [Number of LPC Members of Each Bar Association] (2011)

744Total

[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.

y

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Sapp

oro

Hak

odat

eA

sahi

kaw

aK

ushi

roSe

ndai

Fuku

shim

aY

amag

ata

Iwat

eA

kita

Aom

ori

Toky

oD

ai-ic

hi T

okyo

Dai

ni T

okyo

Yok

oham

aSa

itam

aC

hiba

Ibar

aki

Toch

igi

Gun

ma

Shiz

uoka

Yam

anas

hiN

agan

oN

iigat

aA

ichi

Mie

Gifu

Fuku

iK

anaz

awa

Toya

ma

Osa

kaK

yoto

Hyo

goN

ara

Shig

aW

akay

ama

Hiro

shim

aY

amag

uchi

Oka

yam

aTo

ttori

Shim

ane

Kag

awa

Toku

shim

aK

ochi

Ehim

eFu

kuok

aSa

gaN

agas

aki

Oita

Kum

amot

oK

agos

him

aM

iyaz

aki

Oki

naw

a

[Comparison of the Number of LPC Members of Each Bar Association] (2011)

55

2. Size of Legal Professional Corporations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

106 114 92 58 52 33 20 15 7 13 8 10 9 3 5 3 1 1 2 1 4

106 228 276 232 260 198 140 120 63 130 88 120 117 42 75 48 17 18 38 20 84

7 34 37 37 58 42 31 31 11 26 23 23 23 10 13 10 0 2 10 8 19

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 574

22 23 24 25 28 87 32 37 39 40 41 53 61 89 105 3126

6 6 3 6 5 19 4 15 7 8 5 8 7 15 24 593

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 10

(Unit: corporation)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 20 26 27 Total

243 190 61 27 10 13 10 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 574

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

# of Persons# of LPCs

# ofAttorneys

# of Women


# of GJBs


# ofAttorneys

# of Women# of GJBs

[Classification by Total Number of Members]

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

[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

I. Changes in the Number of Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi (1988-2012)

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

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

The GJB Act before the revision (hereinafter referred to as “Old GJB Act” ) prohibited GJBs from employingJapanese attorneys (Old GJB Act Art. 49, para. 1). In addition, joint enterprises and profit sharing between GJBsand Japanese attorneys or Legal Professional Corporations were restricted in principle (Old GJB Act Art. 49, para.2). As an exception, specified joint enterprises were allowed under certain requirements (Old GJB Act para. 49-2),by which a GJB aimed to do a certain range of legal services by making a partnership contract or other continuouscontract with an attorney who had five or more years of experience.

In the rapid globalization of Japanese economic society, however, the needs for comprehensive and inclusive legalservices of Japanese and foreign laws increased and correspondingly the necessity to construct closer cooperationand collaboration of Japanese attorneys and GJBs has grown. Accordingly the GJB Act was partially revised(enforced on April 1, 2005) to lift the prohibitions on employment of attorneys by GJBs, joint enterprises andprofit distributions. Instead, the Revised GJB Act requires GJBs who are to employ or engage in joint enterpriseswith Japanese attorneys to notify the JFBA (Revised GJB Act Art. 49-3). Furthermore, in order to prevent GJBsfrom engaging in conduct beyond the scope of permitted practices, the law puts a certain restriction on theconducts of GJBs and employed attorneys (Revised GJB Act Art. 49 and Art. 49-3).

The next graph shows the changes in the numbers of GJB registrations. From 1987, when the GJB system waslaunched, registrations tended to increase until 1991 when registrations remained at the same level. Registrationsincreased rapidly from 1998 and in April 2012, the number of registered GJBs was 357.

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

31 47

58

78 79 78 79 77 77 80 87 97

125

150

186 189

213

236 241 252

267

290

344 359 357

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

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

Number

57

Daini Tokyo 148Dai-ichi Tokyo 113 U.S. Total 211 (24)Tokyo 72 New York 102 (17)Osaka 12 California 48 (1)Aichi-ken 4 Hawaii 18Yokohama 2 Washington DC 12Fukuoka-ken 2 Illinois 9 (1)Iwate 1 Virginia 5Ibaraki-ken 1 Florida 2Shizuoka-ken 1 Maryland 1Okinawa 1 Massachusetts 2 (2)

New Jersey 2 (1)Texas 2

U.S. 141 Connecticut 1Japan 72 North Carolina 1 (1)U.K. 42 Georgia 1China 29 Louisiana 1 (1)Australia 24 Ohio 2Canada 13 Pennsylvania 1

(Total 358/Numbers in ( ) refer to the number ofwomen GJBs [Total 358])

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]

[by nationality] (Total: 357)

Canada 13 Pennsylvania 1Germany 6 Washington 1France 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 5Switzerland 1 France 6 (1)Italy 1 Canada Total 8Bulgaria 1 British Columbia 6Spain 1 Ontario 2Nepal 1 Hong Kong 4 (2)Samoa 1 Singapore 2 (2)India 1 Brazil 2 (1)Paraguay 1 Italy 1Greece 1 Switzerland 1Saudi Arabia 1 Spain 1Sweden 1 Republic of Korea 1

New Zealand 1 (1)Nepal 1Paraguay 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

Freshfields Bruckhaus DeringerGaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer HoritsuJimusho 4 2 19 2

Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny &Myers Horitsu Jimusho

Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo O'Melveny &Myers Horitsu Jimusho 4 2 6

Atsumi Sogo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Atsumi Sogo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 17 （5） 1 （1） 65 6

White & Case Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

White & Case Horitsu Jimusho 6 （2） 6 22 16

Skadden Arps Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

Skadden Arps Horitsu Jimusho 2 3 （1） 8 1

Clifford Chance Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Clifford Chance Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 5 （1） 3 （1） 30 3

Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Paul Hastings Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 2 5 7

Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu

GJBs(Women)

EmployedAttorneys

EmployedGJBs

A foreign law joint enterprise means an enterprise jointly operated by a GJB and an attorney or a legal professionalcorporation (LPC) under a partnership contract or other continuous contract for the purpose of providing legalservices (Article 2-15 of the GJB Act). The revised GJB Act which came into effect on April 1, 2005, lifted the banon running joint enterprises and sharing profits between GJBs and attorneys/legal professional corporations andinstead required GJBs who were going to enter into foreign law joint enterprises to submit notifications to the JFBA(Article 49-3 of the revised GJB Act). Foreign law joint enterprises of which notifications have been submitted are asfollows.

Law FirmsGJB Offices Attorneys(Women) LPCs

（As of April 1, 2012, in order of date of notification submission)

Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho Linklaters

Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho Linklaters 2 2 23 3

Orrick, Herrington & SutcliffeGaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho

Orrick Tokyo Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 2 3 12 2

Ashurst Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

Ashurst Tokyo Horitsu Jimusho 1 1 3 2

Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo･Jones DayHoritsu Jimusho

Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo·Jones DayHoritsu Jimusho 11 （1） 6 （1） 36 2

Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho

Latham & Watkins Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho 2 3 4 1

Squire Sanders Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho

Squire Sanders Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho 4 4 11 2

Morrison & Foerster Gaikokuho JimuBengoshi Jimusho

Ito Mitomi Horitsu Jimusho 7 （2） 11 （2） 14 1

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius GaikokuhoJimu Bengoshi Jimusho

TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 8 （1） 3 （1） 7

Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho·GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo

Kitahama Horitsu Jimusho·GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo 11 （3） 1 1 33

Wakely Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 10 1 6

Bingham McCutchen Murase GaikokuhoJimu Bengoshi Jimusho

Sakai Mimura Aizawa Horitsu Jimusho 15 （4） 1 （1） 44

Sullivan & Cromwell Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho

Sullivan & Cromwell Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho 2 1 1

Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho

Allen & Overy Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho 3 1 16 5

King & Wood Gaikokuho JimuBengoshi Jimusho

Miyake Yamazaki Horitsu Jimusho 6 1 （1） 9

Tokyo Aoyama Aoki Koma HoritsuJimusho Baker & McKenzie GaikokuhoJimu Bengoshi Jimusho GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo

Tokyo Aoyama Aoki Koma HoritsuJimusho Baker & McKenzie GaikokuhoJimu Bengoshi Jimusho GaikokuhoKyodo Jigyo

31 （4） 13 （2） 83 2

Nishikawa Sidley Austin HoritsuJimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Nishikawa Sidley Austin HoritsuJimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 2 1 10

DLA Pi T k P hi DLA Pi T k P hi

59

GJBs(Women)

EmployedAttorneys

EmployedGJBsLaw FirmsGJB Offices Attorneys

(Women) LPCs

Hwawoo Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

Otani Horitsu Jimusho 1 1

Hogan Lovells Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Hogan Lovells Horitsu JimushoGaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 1 1 5 7

Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Tokyo Akasaka Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 2 1

OL Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho Tatsumura Horitsu Jimusho 1 1 1

Simmons & Simmons Gaikokuho JimuBengoshi Jimusho

TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 18 1 1

Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho

TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 10 1 1 1

Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho

Arqis Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo HoritsuJimusho 1 1 2 2

Maritax Nagatani Gaikokuho JimuBengoshi Jimusho

Maritax Horitsu Jimusho 1 1 5

K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho

K&L Gates Gaikokuho Kyodo JigyoHoritsu Jimusho 4 2 7 1

Nakamoto & Samon Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho

Nakamoto & Samon Gaikokuho KyodoJigyo Horitsu Jimusho 1 1 2

Orange County Gaikokuho JimuBengoshi Jimusho

Adachi, Henderson, Miyatake & FujitaHoritsu Jimusho 1 1

Takahashi & Davis Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo

Takahashi & Davis Horitsu Jimusho·Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo 1 2 6

Karsch Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

Ethos Law Office 1 1 （1） 8

Ali Al-kahtani Law Firm Gaikokuho TMI Sogo Horitsu Jimusho 12 （1） 1 7Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho 12 （1） 1 7

Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo Onishi・NishiHoritsu Jimusho

Gaikokuho Kyodojigyo Onishi・NishiHoritsu Jimusho 1 （1） 1

Nihon Saitsu Gaikokuho Jimu BengoshiJimusho

Bengoshi Hojin Akasaka HoritsuJimusho 1 1

Total 215 （25） 2 94 （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 thenumber of female attorneys.2. "LPCs" is the number of LPCs which are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises.3. "GJBs" is the number of GJBs who are engaged in foreign law joint enterprises. The figure within the brackets indicates the numberof female attorneys.4. "Employed Attorneys" is the number of attorneys who are hired by attorneys or GJBs operating foreign law joint enterprises.5. "Employed GJBs" is the number of GJBs who are hired by attorneys or GJBs operating foreign law joint enterprises.

60

1. By Nationality

U.S. 4 5 12 8 24 24 33 14 18 13 155U.K. 7 2 5 6 4 15 21 9 11 10 90Japan 4 3 3 9 8 13 13 11 11 14 89Australia 6 2 2 6 3 12 10 3 3 8 55China 1 2 4 4 5 2 7 2 27Canada 2 2 1 4 4 3 3 1 20New Zealand 3 3 6 1 2 1 16Republic of Korea 1 1 1 1 2 3 9

Total Nationality

2010 20112008 2009

IV. The Number of Foreign Lawyers Employed by Attorneys and Legal Professional CorporationsAttorneys and legal professional corporations should submit notifications to the JFBA if they employ foreignlawyers. (A foreign lawyer means a person whose professional duties are to provide legal services as a practicein a foreign state (in the case of a federal state stipulated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, the term"foreign state" shall mean its constituent unit such as a state, territory and others stipulated by Ordinance of theMinistry of Justice (Article 2 (ii) of Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services byForeign Lawyers); the same shall apply hereinafter) and who is equivalent to an attorney.) The table belowshows 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.)

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

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

(As of April 1, 2012)

Republic of Korea 1 1 1 1 2 3 9Philippines 1 1 1 1 2 1 7Germany 1 4 1 1 7Singapore 1 2 1 1 1 6France 1 1 1 3Finland 1 1 1 3Ireland 1 1 1 3Russia 1 1 1 3Greece 1 1 2Sweden 1 1 2Taiwan 1 1 2Israel 1 1India 1 1Slovakia 1 1Belgium 1 1Bulgaria 1 1Mexico 1 1Iceland 1 1Brazil 1 1Jamaica 1 1Total 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 foreignjurisdictions.2. The above numbers of employed foreign lawyers are based on the date of their employment in the notifications submitted byApril 1, 2012. Those whose employment has been terminated are not reflected in the numbers so that the total number is notequal to the number of those actually employed at the time of April 1, 2012.

61

U.S. 8 11 17 15 35 43 48 26 34 20 257

U.K. 8 5 8 11 6 22 27 14 18 19 138

Australia 6 2 2 6 4 11 10 4 3 7 55

China 1 2 3 3 5 2 6 2 24

New Zealand 2 2 3 1 1 1 10

Germany 1 1 4 1 1 8

Philippines 1 1 1 1 2 1 7

Canada 1 1 2 1 1 6

Hong Kong 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Singapore 1 1 1 3

Republic of Korea 1 1 2

Russia 1 1 2

Belgium 1 1I di 1 1

2. By Home Jurisdiction

2010

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

20112002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total HomeJurisdiction

2007 2008 2009

(As of April 1, 2012)

India 1 1

Mexico 1 1

Taiwan 1 1

Brazil 1 1

Jamaica 1 1

England & Wales 1 1

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 onthe previous page.

62

Law Firms (Location) Number ofLawyers

Countries inwhich Firm Has

Offices

LawyersOutside of the

Country ofMain Office

Rank by GrossRevenue

Baker & McKenzieVerein 3,805 41 83% 1

DLA PiperVerein 3,348 29 65% 3

Jones DayNational (U.S.) 2,502 16 28% 11

Clifford ChanceInternational (U.K.) 2,466 23 70% 5

Hogan LovellsVerein 2,363 17 63% 9

LinklatersInternational (U.K.) 2,134 19 63% 6

Allen & OveryInternational (U.K.) 2,112 25 64% 8

Freshfields Bruckhaus DeringerInternational (U.K.) 2,034 15 69% 7

Latham & WatkinsNational (U.S.) 1,931 12 30% 4

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & FlomNational (U.S.) 1,859 13 16% 2

White & CaseInternational (U.S.) 1,814 24 65% 13

K&L GatesNational(U.S.) 1,763 11 16% 20

Sidley AustinNational (U.S.) 1,538 9 17% 12

Morgan, Lewis & BockiusNational (U.S.) 1,239 7 7% 17

Morrison & FoersterSan Francisco 1,029 5 22% 24

Orrick, Herrington & SutcliffeNational(U.S.) 1,022 8 35% 30

Paul, HastingsNational (U.S.) 910 8 22% 27

Bingham McCutchenNational(U.S.) 901 5 7% 28

O'Melveny & MyersLos Angeles 884 6 15% 33

AshurstInternational(U.K.) 788 12 48% 71

Squire, Sanders&DempseyNational(U.S.) 785 15 30% 64

Sullivan & CromwellNew York 749 7 19% 18

Simmons & SimmonsInternational(U.K.) 686 17 48% 92

(Foreign Law Joint Enterprises: As of April 1, 2012)

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

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

[Note]1. The above ranks and numbers are taken from 'The Global 100', The American Lawyer (October 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 grossrevenue 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 )

Registrations % of AttorneysRegistered Cases Rate of Increase Cases Rate of Increase % of Cases

Undertaken2005 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%

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 forthe number of duty attorney registrations and the percentage of duty attorneys registered, which are as of April 1 from 2005 to 2009, andin 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, oruncertain cases.3. The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases” and “Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases” in 2006 is the number of cases for whichaid was actually granted by the Japan Legal Aid Association. The number in 2007 is the sum of the cases for which aid was actuallygranted by the JFBA from April to September 2007 (statistics taken as of the end of March 2008) and the number of cases in which aidcommencements were decided by the Japan Legal Support Center from October 2007 to March 2008. The number after 2008 is that ofcompleted cases in each financial year of the Japan Legal Support Center.4. The “Number of Detention Requests” is based on the added number of cases involving both "detention permitted" and "detentionrejected" in the "measures taken after arrest" section of the "Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution" for each year.5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole numbers.

Juvenile Attendant Aid Cases Number of Detention Requests

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

Criminal Suspect Defense AidCases

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

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

Even though the court appointed attorney system has now been introduced, a court appointed attorney is stillappointed only after the detention order has been issued to the suspect after a maximum of 72-hour detentionfollowing arrest. In addition, the range of cases to which a court-appointed attorney may be assigned is limited.Therefore, the duty attorney system plays an important role for any suspect whose detention has not been decided yet,and any other type of suspect whose case falls outside the scope of cases in which a court appointed attorney is to beprovided.

65

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

The number of requests for duty attorneys nationwide has been gradually decreasing from the peak seen in 2006,due to the court-appointed attorney system for suspects launched on October 2, 2006.

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

The number of “Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases” is the number of cases in which suspects without enoughfinancial resource used the Criminal Suspect Defense Aid System and were granted aid for defense expensesbefore indictments. In 2011, there were 6,565 cases.

However, even after the scope of the court-appointed attorney system was expanded, the fact that the number ofcases undertaken by duty attorneys still exceeds more than 30,000 cases each year illustrates the fact that the dutyattorney system still retains its own meaning and importance.

60,02363,106

67,711 67,826

63,396 64,70865,000

70,000

75,000

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

[Note]1. The number of Duty Attorney Requested Cases and the number of Duty Attorney Appointed Cases are based on calendaryears (from January 1 to the end of December each year).2. The number of Criminal Suspect Defense Aid Cases in 2007 is the sum of the cases for which aid was actually grantedby the JFBA from April to September 2007 (statistics taken as of the end of March 2008) and the number of cases in whichaid commencements were decided by the Japan Legal Support Center from October 2007 to March 2008. The number after2008 is that of completed cases of each fiscal year at the Japan Legal Support Center. The numbers before 2006 are thenumbers of cases for which aid was actually granted by the Japan Legal Aid Association.

22,91025,571

30,271

39,690

47,143

54,181

60,023

51,462

38,074 37,952

5,489 5,807 6,4938,519 9,684 10,269 10,537 10,900 12,237 12,524 12,438 13,808 14,250 13,050

14,901

2,787 3,144 3,5644,982 5,901 6,357 6,644 6,764 8,290 8,480 7,556

11,457

6,956 5,318 6,5650

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

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

66

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

Number ofAttorneysContracted

Percentage ofAttorneysContracted

19,566 64.1% 30,518 57,928 3.0

The table below shows the number of court-appointed attorneys contracted with the Japan Legal SupportCenter, the number of defendants with court-appointed attorneys, and the number calculated by dividingthe number of defendants by the number of contracted attorneys.In 2011, 64.1% of all attorneys were contracted as court-appointed attorneys. The number of defendantsper contracted attorney on average is 3.

I. Court-Appointed Attorney System, Court-Appointed Attorney Contracts, and the Number of Defendantswith Court-Appointed Attorneys

In the court-appointed attorney system, a defendant (a person who has been indicted for a suspicion ofhaving committed a crime) and a suspect (a person under a suspicion of having committed a crime) whohas not yet been indicted of ciminal cases can request the court to appoint an attorney, when a defendant ora suspect is unable to appoint counsel privately because of indigency or other reasons. Under a certaincondition, a court may appoint one ex-officio.

Formerly, the court-appointed attorney system was only for defendants, and bar associations maderegistration lists of court-appointed attorneys and courts appointed attorneys from the lists as negotiatedbetween bar associations and courts. On October 2, 2006, the system was reformed to also cover suspectsin certain types of serious cases. Under the reformed system, the Japan Legal Support Center nominatesattorneys 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 maximumof three years or more, for which trials require the presence of attorneys.

[Note]1. The number of attorneys contracted as court-appointed attorneys is from the statistics taken by the Japan Legal Support Center,as of 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 basedon 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.

Total

Number of Attorneys Contracted asCourt-Appointed Attorneys （2011.4.1） Number of

Attorneys（2011.4.1）

Number ofDefendants withCourt-Appointed

Attorneys(2011)

Number of Defendants perContracted Attorney

67

The total number of criminal cases handled at district courts peaked in 2004 at approximately 80,000, and hasgradually been decreasing. In these cases, almost 100% of defendants were with defense counsel. When observing thepercentage of defendants with privately retained counsel and those with court-appointed counsel, one can see thatthere 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%.

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

63,204

47,539

54,880

71,37975,370

57,968

97.6% 97.1% 97.1% 97.2% 98.1% 99.4%

35.5% 38.8%

30.0%25.9% 25.0%

17.0%

63.0%59.6%

68.4%

72.6%75.0%

85.1%

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

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

(Person)

(Percentage)

(Number of persons whose trials have been finalized)

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

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

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

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011(Year)

(Year)

(Number of defendantsfinalized)

15,398

9,383 9,541

11,489

13,646

9,142

95.1% 96.6%96.3% 97.1% 97.7%

98.7%

16.4%18.6%

12.4% 9.5% 9.0%5.5%

79.2%

78.9% 84.6%88.2% 89.3%

94.0%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

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

(Number of persons whose trials have been finalized)

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 tothe tendency seen at the district and summary court level.

6,139

4,762 5,282

7,629

9,344

7,005

92.3% 93.1% 94.0% 92.8% 93.3% 95.6%

49.2%

47.6%

34.0%27.6%

24.5% 22.4%

43.9% 46.6%

61.6% 66.8%70.4%

75.0%

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

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

(Person)

(Number of defendants finalized)

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

0 0%1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

(Year)

69

After juveniles have been referred to family courts, there is no system for appointing attorneys as defense councilfor juveniles unlike criminal trials. However, for juvenile cases, a juvenile may at any time appoint an attandantacting in the role of protecting his/her rights. In the Juvenile Act, attendants are not limited to attorneys, however,most attendants are attorneys.

Section 3 Defense Activities in Juvenile Cases

Since there was no system for appointing attorneys as attendants for juveniles with public money after they werereferred to family courts, the Juvenile Attendant Aid System financed by the JFBA has been used. The revisionof the Juvenile Act in 2000 introduced a system for providing court-appointed attorney attendants for juvenilesthrough public funds only in certain serious cases in which public prosecutors were involved, and the JuvenileAct was further revised in 2007 to enhance this system. Even so, however, in the current system, the juvenilecases in which court-appointed attorneys are able to attend are limited to certain serious cases such as the crime ofcommitting an intentional criminal act that caused death to a victim, and any crime punishable by the deathpenalty, life imprisonment with or without labor, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than twoyears, 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 representsonly 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 fromMay 2009, more juvenile suspects have been provided court-appointed defense councils. However, the casescovered by the court-appointed attendant system were not expanded and thus court-appointed attorneys forjuvenile 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 theirattendants after cases have been referred to family courts by using the Juvenile Attendant Aid System asnecessary. 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

[Note]1. The statistics are based on the "Annual Report of Judicial Statistics (Juvenile Section)."2. The total number of cases from 1999 excludes those cases referred to summary courts, those involving death or injurythrough negligence in the pursuit of social activities when driving vehicles, those transferred to other courts, or thosejointly tried that were not counted as completed cases (subordinate cases). From 2002, the number also excludes casesinvolving death or bodily injury through dangerous driving.3. A person other than an attorney may be an attendant. The statistics of "with attendant" and "without attendant" aboveinclude attendants other than attorneys.

The proportion of cases involving attendants has been increasing since 2000, but the percentage is still relativelylow in total.

290,870

250,239

188,683

79,998 63,630 48,886

5.5% 7.1% 16.8%

99.4% 99.2% 98.6%94.5% 92.9%

83.2%

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

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

(Year)

70

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

■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 appointedattendants, 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.

8,03351 60

35

151

289 196

149

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Attorneys Custodians Others(Cases) (Type)

1,583 1,9672,477

4,068 4,2325

547

51105

0

1,000

2,000

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

'(Year)

71

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).

72

■The Number of Prosecuted Cases per Offence for Crimes Subject to Saiban-in (Lay Judges) Trials■

（January 2011 - December 2011） (Unit: case) [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.

Crime Number of 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

73

Number ofpersonswhose

trials havebeen

finalized(Persons)

ConvictedConvicted,but partlyacquitted

Acquitted

Transfer-red to the

familycourt

Others(Note 3)

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

January 2011 to Decmber 2011

The following table shows the number of persons who have been subjected to lay judge trials overwhich 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 perattorney was calculated.

[Note]1. The above number of persons whose trials have been finalized is written in the "Materials relating to theactual practice status of lay judge trials in 2011," created by the Supreme Court of Japan, i.e., the actual numberof persons recorded in the sheet for criminal cases processed at courts of first instance over ordinary criminalcases.2. The calculation for the total number of persons whose trials have been finalized per attorney was made asfollows: The total number of persons whose trials have been finalized were divided by the total number of attorneys3. "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.

II. Actual Practice of Lay Judge Trials

Number ofattorneys（2011.4.1）（Persons）

Number ofpersons

whose trialshave been

finalized perattorney（Persons）

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

Total

1. The Number of Persons Whose Trials Have Been Tried by Judges Including Lay Judges andHave Been Finalized

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 persons whose cases have been finalized

Period of court deliberations

The average duration (months)

3 months or less

Over 3 months - 4 months



Over 6 months -

9 months

Over 9 months- 1 year

Over 1 year

Total 1,525 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 trials The average number of trials (times)

2 times or less 3 times 4 times 5 times 6 times 7 times

8 times or

more

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

75

■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 ■


The number of trials (times) The

average number of trials (times)

2 times or less 3 times 4 times 5 times 6 times 7 times 8 times

or more

Total 1,525 44 582 508 191 75 53 72 4.1

The A

ctua

l Per

iod

Take

n

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 or less 124 - - 6 20 31 34 33 6.8 More

than 20 days

70 - - 3 9 7 12 39 8.1

[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.

76

The total number of lawsuits had been decreasing since 2004, but it rebounded in 2006 and continued to rise until2010, however, it dropped again in 2011. Attorneys’ involvement is approximately 77% in total in 2011. Observingthe data by the purpose of the lawsuit, the percentage of appointment is high in lawsuits concerning labor andintellectual property.

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

Chapter 2 Representation in Civil and Other Lawsuits

Section 1 Civil Lawsuits

Representation in civil and other lawsuits is an important duty of attorneys. Regarding attorneys ’ representationbefore courts, the graph below mainly analyzes the percentage of attorneys’ involvement in civil, commercial, familyand administrative lawsuits based on the statistics of the “Judicial Statistics Annual Report.”

118,481 112,079

145,982 157,451

143,321

212,490 81.3%

86.1%81.0% 78.9% 78.8% 77.4%

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Total Number of Cases With AttorneysPercentage Cases

PlaintiffSide

DefendantSide

Personnel Affairs －－－－－－

Money 165,269 127,704 77.3% 50,814 69,261 7,629Payment for Contracted

Construction (1,790) (1,591) (88.9%) (1,055) (432) (104)

Damages throughConstruction Defects (451) (443) (98.2%) (392) (32) (19)

Damages through MedicalTreatment (770) (757) (98.3%) (635) (45) (77)

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 238Land 7,906 7,048 89.1% 3,342 3,489 217Labor （Except for LawsuitsConcerning Money） 844 819 97.0% 712 60 47

Intellectual Property （Exceptfor Lawsuits ConcerningMoney）

176 160 90.9% 135 22 3

For Injunction againstPollution 5 5 100.0% 5 －－

Other 11,616 10,302 88.7% 5,635 4,079 588Total 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.

One SidePurpose of Lawsuit Total

Number

Cases with AttorneysPercentage

ofInvolvement

TotalNumber Both Sides

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011Year

Attorneys' Involvement in Lawsuits (by Purpose) (2011)

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 increasingsince 2010. The percentage of appointed attorneys has been approximately 94% from 1980.

10,89912,712

15,58816,530

15,290

19,205

94.7% 94.8% 94.1% 94.2% 94.4% 92.1%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Total Number of Cases With AttorneysPercentage Cases

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 anappeal 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 recentincrease in the number of lawsuits is said to have been influenced by lawsuits relating to excessivepayments of interest (lawsuits related to requests for the return of excessive or usurious interestfiled against money lenders). However, the number of such lawsuits is likely to decline graduallyin the near future.Since April 2003, authorized Judicial Scriveners have been able to participate in lawsuits asrepresentatives. After 2007, the percentage of cases with representative attorneys is almost thesame as those involving the participation of authorized Judicial Scriveners.

303 927

386,833

550,798

87.0%

82.9%

90.5%89.6%

79.8%

58.9% 350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CasesPercentage (%)Total Number of Cases With Attorneys

With Judicial Scriveners' Participation Without Representatives

[Note]1. The statistics are based on the “Judicial Statistics Annual Report (Civil and Administrative Affairs Part).”2. It includes ordinary lawsuits which were transferred from actions on small claims.3. Statistics of lawsuits with judicial scriveners’ participation are taken from 2003.4. Summary courts have the jurisdiction over lawsuits claiming an amount of up to 1,400,000 yen raised from 900,000 yensince April 2003.5. “With Attorneys” and "With Judicial Scriveners" on the graph means lawsuits in which attorneys or judicial scrivenerswere appointed by one party or both parties.

218,937

107,151

266,673

303,927

13.0%

17.1%

9.5%

10.2% 12.4%

22.3%

8.2%

19.3%

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

,

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011Year

79

1. Changes in the Number of In-house Attorneys

Chapter 3 Expansion of Attorneys' Activities

I. Current Situation of In-house Attorneys

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

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

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

The number of in-house attorneys in Japan was 771 as of the end of June, 2012, while the number of publicofficers with fixed terms was 106 as of June 1, 2012. The number of public officers having fixed terms was184 when inquiry was made to related government agencies and autonomous bodies. The reason for thenumber of public officers having fixed terms being 106, as shown in the graph below, was because thenumber of public officers having fixed terms who have unregistered as attorneys was excluded from the totalnumber of 184

[Note]1. The number of corporate in-house attorneys was researched by the Japan In-House Lawyers Association based on a surveyconducted by the JFBA.2. The number of public officers with fixed terms was researched by the JFBA. Data collection dates were: Aug. 2004, May2005, Dec. 2006, and as of June of each year from 2007 to 2012.

122165 187

267

354

435

588

771

6040 50 61 81 89 86 106

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Attorneys

Year

Corporate In-House Attorneys Public Officers with Fixed Terms

80

<Ministries, etc>.Number ofAttorneys（Women)

< Local Governments > Number ofAttorneys（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）

3. Diet Member and Head of Local Goverments Registered as Attorneys

House of Representatives 20House of Councillors 11Heads of Local Governments 10

Number ofAttorneysOrganization

2. Public Officers with Fixed Terms

[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.

TOTAL: 106 (29)

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

The table below shows the number of diet members and heads of local governments registered as attorneys as at the endof September, 2012. As of September 2012, there were two attorneys in the Cabinet, Mr. Yukio Edano (Minister ofEconomy, 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).

81

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

548

2175

1163

1598

1004

213

599

47

577

205

1390

0 0

269

31

240 60

456

66 10

478

0 200 400 600 800

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 Number of Cases

Number of Complaints by Applicant (2011)From Clients From Opposing Parties Others

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

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

Dissatisfaction with Final Result

5.6%

Ways of Handling26.9%

Delay of Handling12.8%

Inappropriate Manner or Attitude

30.9%

Fees9.6%

Handling of Entrusted Money2.0% Others

12.1%

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

Changes in the Number of Complaints Received at Public Complaint Desks

Contents in 2011

Number of Complaints

Year

2,203 2,533 2,7913,224

5,050

6,646

8,112 8,2128,861 8,668

9,427 9,76410,807 11,129

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

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

82

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

534 496 506 505 512 504 512 619 717 641

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total numberof disputeconciliationcases per year

521 504 494 509 506 480 499 571 693 676

The graph below shows the details of how dispute conciliation cases were handled by all bar associations from 2002to 2011. The lower pie chart shows how cases were handled in 2011. These show that approximately one third of allthe dispute conciliation cases are settled.

2. Handling of Dispute Conciliation Cases (All Bar Associations) – 2002 to 2011 –

II. Dispute Conciliation1. Number of Dispute Conciliation Cases Newly Received

Year

Total

[Note] Data are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December).

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

Cases

<Number of dispute conciliation cases ＞

<Results of dispute conciliation cases>

[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."

147190 165 160 168 162 164 210 226 227

238187 228 230

206207

232223

313 302103 101 90 93 111 9383

124

131 133

33 26 11 26 2118 20

14

2314

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Settled33.6%

Not Settled44.7%

Withdrawals19.7%

Others2.1%

Handling Details for 2011

Yea

Settled

Not Settled

Withdrawals

Others

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

83

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.).

84

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

NoDisciplinary

Action

ProlongedDisciplinaryProceedings

beyond aReasonable

Period

Partially notAppropriate

IllegalObjections

Details of Newly Accepted Filings of Objections

Year Total

II. Operation of the Disciplinary System1. Cases Handled by Disciplinary Enforcement Committees of Bar Associations and the JFBA(1) Bar AssociationsIn 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 byDisciplinary Enforcement Committees were within 6 months in approximately 32.4% of the cases. 80% of the caseswere within 1 year.In recent years, approximately 10% of the cases on which Disciplinary Enforcement Committees investigated werereferred to Disciplinary Actions Committees for examinations. 137 cases were referred in 2011.

(2) JFBAIn 2011, 711 objections were filed with the JFBA. 682 of the objections were against investigations conducted by barassociations 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 committeeresolved that disciplinary examinations were appropriate and referred the cases to bar associations. 84.6% of the casesreached 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) ]

Period

2009 429 36 1 0 4662010 441 62 0 8 5112011 605 60 1 16 682

Rejections DismissalsDisqualificationor Termination

by Death

2009 3 531 17 5 17 572 882010 9 404 11 5 35 464 1352011 7 494 14 10 22 547 270

Order toPromptly

Proceed withDisciplinaryProcedures

Closed Cases

Year UnclosedCasesTotal

Examination Inappropriate

ExaminationAppropriate

[Note]1. Examination Appropriate: The JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee found it appropriate to refer the case back to theDisciplinary Actions Committee of the original bar association for investigation.2. Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures: The JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee found the objectionclaiming prolonged proceedings was reasonable and resolved to order the bar association to promptly proceed with disciplinaryprocedures.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).

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

86

Rejections Rescissions Modifications Dismissals Withdrawals

Order toPromptly

Proceed withDisciplinaryProcedures

Disqualification or

Terminationby Death

Total

2009 29 0 1 1 0 0 0 31 14

Closed Cases

Among the objections filed with the JFBA in 2011, 29 of them concern the cases referred to Disciplinary ActionsCommittees of bar associations for examinations (10 objections against “no disciplinary action,” 16 against “unjustlylenient disciplinary action” and 3 against “prolonged disciplinary proceedings beyond a reasonable period”). Thesecases 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.

Year UnclosedCases

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

(2) JFBAi. Objections

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

2009 29 0 1 1 0 0 0 31 142010 21 1 2 0 0 2 0 26 152011 20 3 0 0 0 1 2 26 18

Rejections

Rescissionsof Primary

DisciplinaryActions

Modificationsof Primary

DisciplinaryActions

Dismissals,Terminations

etc.Total

2009 25 0 2 4 31 152010 18 4 5 4 31 182011 20 2 3 3 28 19

Unclosed Cases

[Note]1. Order to Promptly Proceed with Disciplinary Procedures: The JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee found the objection claimingprolonged 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 cases3. 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 cases4. Data of this table and the below table are collected by calendar years (from January 1 to the end of December).

ii. AppealsIn 2011, 29 appeals were filed with the JFBA. In this year, the JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee resolved 28cases. Following are details of the resolutions from 2009 to 2011.

Year

Closed Cases

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

87

ExaminationsAppropriate

ExaminationsInappropriate(Rejections)

Dismissals WithdrawalsDisqualificationor Termination

by DeathTotal

UnclosedCases

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

Year

Closed Cases

NewlyAccepted

[Note]1. “Dismissals”: Because the valid period for filing an appeal has passed, etc. “Terminations etc.”: By withdrawal, disqualification, ordeath.2. Details of “Rescissions of Primary Disciplinary Actions (rescind the disciplinary actions of bar associations)” 2010: from “admonition” to “no discipline” in four cases 2011: from “admonition” to “no discipline” in two cases3. 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 withdrawfrom 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 “oneyear and six months” in one case, from “suspension of practice for six months” to “five months” in one case, from “suspension ofpractice 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 “twomonths” 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

[Details of Resolutions on Cases with Applications for Discipline Review (JFBA Board of Discipline Review)]

2009 312 0 281 10 1 0 292 902010 231 0 251 4 0 0 255 662011 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 theoriginal 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 ProcedureI. Statistics Regarding Disciplinary Actions

The graph below shows the number of newly accepted requests for disciplinary actions by all bar associations from 1995to 2011. In 2011, 1,885 requests were newly accepted.

1. Changes in the Number of Newly Accepted Requests for Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations) – 1995 to 2011 –

576 485 488 715 719 1,030 884 840

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

9,585

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

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Number of Cases

[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 requestswere made against the defense counsel of the Hikari City Mother-Child Murder Case.

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

Year

89

Less than 1Year 1 to 2 Years

1995 576 17 14 1 5 2 39 422 91996 485 16 6 1 3 1 27 402 71997 488 11 19 4 1 3 38 381 91998 715 19 16 4 2 2 43 440 41999 719 17 20 7 5 3 52 479 112000 1,030 17 12 4 7 1 41 690 252001 884 34 20 4 4 0 62 778 192002 840 28 22 10 3 3 66 674 22

Dismissals Terminations69 23

2004 1,268 23 19 2 3 2 49 1,023 1 192005 1,192 35 18 4 3 2 62 893 182006 1,367 31 29 4 2 3 69 1,232 242007 9,585 40 23 5 1 1 70 1,929 302008 1,596 42 13 2 2 1 60 8,928 372009 1,402 40 27 3 5 1 76 1,140 202010 1,849 43 24 5 7 1 80 1,164 312011 1 885 38 26 9 2 5 80 1 535 21

2. Number of Requests for Disciplinary Action and Details of Handling the Requests (All Bar Associations)This table shows the number of requests for disciplinary action and details of handling the requests by all barassociations from 1995 to 2011. In 2011, the number of disciplinary actions taken increased from that of the previousyear 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.

Disciplinary Actions

Admonitions

Suspension of Practice Order toWithdrawfrom Bar

Assoc.

27 23 2 3 42003 1,127

2638

YearNo

DisciplinaryActions

ExpiredStatute of

Limitations

Dismissals andTerminations

NewlyAcceptedRequests

Closed Cases

Disbarments Total

23

8052

59 822

49

4024

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, itis counted as one case per attorney.5. "Newly Accepted Requests" means the sum of the number of requests for disciplinary action and the number of cases in which barassociations made attorneys subject to disciplinary procedures through their own motions. The numbers of "No Disciplinary Actions" and"Terminations" reflect the total numbers at both the Disciplinary Enforcement Committee and Disciplinary Actions Committee levels.6. In the event that two or more resolutions and/or rulings are made in one case (eg. Partially discipline appropriate and partiallyinappropriate), they are all counted in the corresponding actions.7. "Dismissals and Terminations" has included the category of "Expired Statute of Limitations" since 2003.8. "Dismissals and Terminations" was divided to "Dismissals" and "Terminations" from 2003, and "Dismissals" has been included in "NoDisciplinary Actions" since 2005.

17 16 11 19 17 17

34 28 27 23

35 31 40 42 40 43 38

14 6 19

16 20 12

20 22 23

19

18 29 23

13 27 24

26

1

1

4 4

7

4

4 10 2

2

4

4 5

2

3 5 9

5

3

1 2

5

7

4 3

3 3

3 2

1

2

5 7 2

2

1

3 2

3

1

0 4

2 3

1

1

1 1 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

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

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

From the Bottom

Year

80

39

27

3843

52

41

626659

49

62

Changes in Numbers of Disciplinary Actions and their Details

Cases

69 70

60

807

2

3

90

3. Percentage of Disciplinary Actions (All Bar Associations)

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

The graph below shows changes in the percentage of disciplinary actions taken and the percentage of memberswho have had disciplinary actions imposed upon them in all bar associations from 1995 to 2011.

In 2011, the percentage of cases in which disciplinary actions were taken was 4.2%. The percentage declined to0.7% in 2007 because we received 9,585 requests in that year, approximately seven times the number of requestsin the previous year.

6.8%

4.2%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%Percentage

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

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

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

(2) Changes in Percentage of Members with Disciplinary Actions

0.0%1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0.25% 0.25%

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%

0.40%

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

Year

Year

Percentage

91

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

Request for Disciplinary Action

Anyone may request

Bar Association

Disciplinary Enforcement Committeeof Bar Association

Request Examination

No Examination

Disciplinary Actions Committee of Bar Association

Disciplinary Action

Unjustly Lenient

Appeal for Examination

No Disciplinary

Action Change Dismissal

Rejection Change

Grounds founded for Objection against

Prolonged Proceedings beyond Reasonable Period

Tokyo High Court

Order

JFBA Disciplinary Enforcement Committee

Dismissal

Rejection

Examination Appropriate

Failed to Proceed within Reasonable Period

Order

JFBA Board of Discipline Review

Dismissal Rejection

No Disciplinary Action

JFBA Disciplinary Actions Committee

Dismissal

Rejection

Grounds founded for Objection

against Prolonged Proceedings beyond Reasonable Period

Disciplinary Action

Dismissal

Rejection

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

Filing of Objection Filing of Objection

JFBA

Lawsuit for Rescission

Application for Discipline Review

Disciplinary System

Examination Appropriate

Failed to Proceed within Reasonable

Period

93

Based on Article 1 of the Attorney Act, “an attorney is entrusted with a mission to protect fundamental humanrights and to realize social justice,” the JFBA has been engaged in activities to support human rights relief forhuman rights violations for more than 60 years since its establishment in 1949, mainly through the JFBA HumanRights Protection Committee cooperating with local bar associations. Such activities to redress human rightsabuses, for which we follow a strict inner procedure until we take relief measures, have garnered praise fromJapanese society for past achievements and have gained the people’s trust. Our human rights relief does not havebinding power but practically exerts a strong influence on various sectors of society. This chapter explains thecurrent status of the JFBA’s activities for human rights relief.

I. Appeal System Procedures for Human Rights ReliefThe JFBA investigates and researches various issues on human rights. Especially, the JFBA Human RightsProtection Committee investigates facts of human rights infringements in response to appeals for human rightsrelief. Based on the results of the committee's investigation, the committee takes relief measures includingwarnings, recommendations, and requests against infringers or their supervising bodies, etc."In the event that the committee is to warn, request administrative agencies concerned to make rulings or rescindtheir rulings, or take measures of censure against relevant administrative agencies, the committee must requestthat the agencies provide an explanation or submit related materials in advance" (Article 9 of the aboveRegulations). Furthermore, in order to take proper and prompt actions for human rights protection, weestablished strict procedures by regulations on the organization of the committee and procedures to handleappeals for human rights relief. The chart on the next page shows the principle procedure flow of the JFBA’sappeal system for human rights relief.

Chapter 2 The JFBA's Activities involving Human Rights Relief

94

[Procedures]Summary Investigation: Determines the necessity of Preliminary Investigation in cases where redresses of

Appeal

No Transfer Discontinu

Discontinue

Start Preliminary Investigation

Transfer

PreliminaryInvestigation

No Preliminary

Start

Main

Take No Action Take Action (Warning, Recommendation, Requests,

etc.)

Summary

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

Summary Investigation: Determines the necessity of Preliminary Investigation in cases where redresses ofhuman rights abuses are appealed.

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

Main Examination: Examination of infringement of human rights or the risk of infringement as cases for humanrights 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 JFBAinclude judicial measures (accusations/requests for trial), warnings (which notice JFBA opinions and ask forreconsideration), recommendations (which ask for appropriate measures), requests (for realization of theirpurposes), advices/cooperation, and expression of opinions.

Start Preliminary Investigation: (1) Cases which supposedly have important influence on society, (2) casesinvolving details or interested parties that are nationwide or widespread and (3) cases which requireinvestigations into or requests to government organs.

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

Preliminary Investigation: Investigation to be conducted before the main examination.

No Examination: Cases in which, based on the Preliminary Investigation, there likely will not be any recognitionof 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 recognitionof 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.

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.

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450 Number of Cases

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

Fiscal Year

Category1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Infringements byPolice 16 11 18 7 13 13 15 24 19 8 17 16 21 22 32 34 30

Infringements atPrisons or Detention 17 12 16 18 28 41 27 68 89 143 267 197 237 269 249 233 220

Retrial Cases 10 10 3 4 6 7 9 12 26 27 26 24 24 22 39 34 48

Administrative Organsor Legal System 3 9 8 20 14 6 14 10 17 20 11 32 6 8 15 19 11

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."

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

Year

96

German Federal Bar (BRAK) 2008/6/24

American Bar Association (ABA) 2006/10/24

Paris Bar 2010/6/24

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.

Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA)

International Criminal Bar (ICB)

United Nations (UN) （Broad UN System: incls. Funds, Programmes, and UN Agencies） Human Rights Council (Geneva)

Economic and Social Council (New York)

Commission on the Status of Women (New York) Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Vienna)

[Treaty Bodies]

Human Rights Committee Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Committee Against Torture Committee on the Rights of the Child Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

International Criminal Court (ICC)

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

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

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE)

Korean Bar Association (KBA) 2004/12/4

Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (BAKC)

2000/4/20

<MOU, etc.>

Secretariat Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights (Geneva)

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Vienna)

Division for the Advancement of Women

(New York)

Japanese

Government

Japan Federation of Bar Associations

Officers

New York University University of California, Berkeley

University of Illinois University of Essex,

Human Right Centre at the University of Essex

International Bar Association (IBA)

Various Committees

Office of International Affairs/International Affairs Division

Law Council of Australia 1999/9/2

2009/7/28 (re-signed)

Japan International Cooperation Agency

(JICA)<Accession>

International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC)

<Overseas VisitingFellow Program>

Foreign Embassies in

Japan

<Member/ Council>

Organizations entered into MOUs

International Bar Organizations

Governmental Bodies, etc

<Agreement of Collaboration>


Date: Date of Signature

< Three-Bar Meeting>

International Activities of the JFBA (Correlation Diagram)

International Bar Association (IBA)


97

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 and Federation of Bar Associations

Overseas Bar Associations to which MOU is signed

Date of Signature

Bar Associations and Federation of Bar

Associations

Overseas Bar Associations to which MOU is signed

Date of Signature

Hokkaido Federation of Bar Associations

Bar Chamber of Sakhalin Region (Russia) 2008/11/07

Yokohama Bar Association

Suwon Bar Association (Korea) 2003/12/26

Sapporo Bar Association

Uijeongbu Bar Association (Korea) 2008/12/08

Shanghai Bar Association (China) 2009/04/28

Tokyo Bar Association

Chicago Bar Association (US) 2007/03/26

Saitama Bar Association

Incheon Bar Association (Korea) 2005/05/21

Paris Bar (France) 2010/06/24

Shizuoka-ken Bar Association

The Zhejiang Provincial Lawyers Association (China) 2012/04/01

Hong Kong Bar Association (China) 2012/02/20

Aichi Bar Association

Association of Mongolian Advocates (Mongolia) 2008/09/19

The Law Society of Hong Kong (China) 2012/02/20

Osaka Bar Association

Seoul Bar Association (Korea) 1993/10/04

Dai-ichi Tokyo Bar Association

The Law Society of England and Wales (UK) 2003/10/03

Nara Bar Association

Australian Capital Territory Law Society (Australia) 1995/06/29

Hawaii State Bar Association 2005/10/20

Hiroshima Bar Association

Deagu Bar Association (Korea) 1998/05/08Shanghai Bar Association (China) 2006/01/23

Fukuoka-ken Bar Association

Busan Bar Association (Korea) 1990/03/23International Law Section, the State Bar of California (US) 2007/04/30

Dalian Bar Association (China) 2010/02/27

Section of International Law, American Bar Association (US)

2008/07/09

Saga Bar Association

Ulsan Bar Association (Korea) 2006/04/21

Chamber of Lawyers Frankfurt am Main (Germany) 2009/07/01

Nagasaki Bar Association

Tainan Bar Association (Taiwan) 2003/03/25

Daini Tokyo Bar Association

Seoul Bar Association (Korea) 1989/08/11 Oita Bar Association Jeju Bar Association (Korea) 2010/02/27The Bar Association of San Francisco (US) 2007/03/08

Kumamoto Bar Association

Gyeongnam Bar Association (Korea) 2004/03/26

Czech Bar Association (Czech) 2007/01/10

Kagoshima Bar Association

Taichung Bar Association (Taiwan) 2006/03/11

Queensland Law Society (Australia) 2010/03/23

Jeollabukdo District Bar Association (Korea) 2012/02/22

Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan) 2010/03/31

Miyazaki Bar Association

Chungbuk Bar Association (Korea) 2009/06/12

Barreau de Toulouse (France) 2012/06/05

Okinawa Bar Association Taipei Bar Association (Taiwan) 1994/02/25

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 - Nov. 2008

Mongolia Enhancing the functions of the Association of Mongolian Advocates (provided 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 – Mar. 2009

Indonesia Enhancing the settlement and mediation system (amendments to the rules of the Supreme Court on its mediation system, provided advice to improve training curricula for mediators)

Apr. 2007 – Mar. 2009

Vietnam Assist in reforming the legal system (mainly laws on civil execution, real property registration, and security transaction registration), and advise on judicial reforms (establishment of a national federation of bar associations)

Sep. 2007 – Sep. 2008

Cambodia Legal technical assistance (with a focus on improving laws and regulations related to the Civil Code and coordination of donors engaging in drafting other related laws)

Apr. 2008 – Apr. 2010

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

May 2008 – Jun. 2010

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

Mar. 2009 – Mar. 2011

Cambodia Assist in drafting laws and regulations (mainly drafting laws and regulations related to the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code and coordination of other donors)

May 2009 – Mar. 2011

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

Mar. 2010 – Mar. 2012

Cambodia Assist in drafting laws associated with the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure

May 2010 – Nov. 2012

Mongolia Mediation System

Jul. 2010 – Jul. 2012

Laos The Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure

Jul. 2010 – Jul. 2012

Nepal Advisor on legal technical assistance

Jan. 2011 – Jan. 2013

China The Civil Procedure Law and laws related to Chinese civil affairs

Mar. 2011 – Mar. 2013

Vietnam Enhancing the capacity of lawyers/Assisting in drafting laws

Mar. 2011 – Mar. 2013

Cambodia Development of human resources/Assisting in drafting laws and regulations/ Conducting practical operations of civil law

100

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

China: 2

Vietnam: 7

Laos: 2

Mongolia: 3

Cambodia: 7

Indonesia: 2

Nepal: 1

101

1996-2000

Oct. 2000

2001-2002

2002-2005

2007-2012

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

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

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

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

The JFBA Conducted a seminar for Cambodian lawyers.

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

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

VietnamCooperating in the “Japanese Cooperation to Support the Formulation of Key Government Policies on the Legal System”conducted by the JICA, the JFBA members have been participating in a JICA supporting group in Japan and a total of sevenJFBA members have been sent to Vietnam as JICA long-term experts in the past ten years. In addition, many JFBA membersparticipated in JICA seminars in Vietnam and training programs in Japan as instructors.Projects in Vietnam are divided into two main categories, one focusing on legislation such as the Civil Code and the otherfocusing on training legal professionals. In May 2009, with the help of the JFBA, the first integrated national bar associationin Vietnam was established.

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

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

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

102

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

Nepal

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

103

Year Univ. Bar Assoc.Year ofAdm. to

BarStudy Theme

NYU Tokyo 2000U.S. Immigrant Law and roles of legal professionals and NGOs forprotecting immigrants

UCB T k 2000Measures against organized crimes in the USC t li

2005

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

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

The JFBA entered an agreement with New York University School of Law (NYU) (1997) and the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley (UCB) (1999) that they accept JFBA members recommended by the JFBA as their visitingfellows and has been sending its members who are engaged in public interest activities. In addition, a similaragreement was made in 2007 between the JFBA and the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign College ofLaw (UIUC), and also in 2011 between the JFBA and the School of Law at the University of Essex. (It is possible tostudy as an LLM student only at the University of Essex.)

[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, theyprovided information about legal issues and the roles of attorneys in Japan. They also gave presentations on their ownstudy themes. After they returned to Japan, their experiences and knowledge have been contributing to the JFBAthrough their activities in JFBA committees. The table below lists information of the members sent as visiting fellowsfrom 2005 through 2012.

I. JFBA Overseas Visiting Fellow Program

UCB Tokyo 2000 Corporate compliance

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

UCB Daini Tokyo 2000

Current status and issues of public defense system in the U.S. - Primarily onthe dissolution of uneven distribution of legal services-

NYU Tokyo 1992

International human rights lawLegal systems to eliminate racial discriminationEducational systems for children of foreign residents and ethnic minorities

UCB Aichi 1999

Interview with suspects, electronic recording of investigationsTreatment of criminalsDeath penalty system

NYU Aichi 2003

Individual Communications under the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical RightsPresent situation of law clinics in U.S. law schools and the possibility ofintroducing them into Japanese law schools

UCB Daini Tokyo 2004The Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy ActCurrent citizens’ movements for information disclosure

2006

2007

2008

104

Year Univ. Bar Assoc.Year ofAdm. to

BarStudy Theme

NYU Kyoto 2002Child abuse

UCB Tokyo 2004Roles of attorneys in assisting crime victims

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

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

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

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

NYU Daini Tokyo 1999

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

2009

2011

2010

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

UIUC Daini Tokyo 2009

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

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

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

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

Essex(LLM）

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

Essex(Visitingfellow)

Daini Tokyo 2000

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

2012

2011

105

II. Support for JFBA Members Interested in Working in International OrganizationsThe JFBA set up the “International Legal Technical Assistance Roster System” in 1999 in order to facilitate sharingand exchanging information among its members as well as to provide and promote sufficient and sustainableinternational legal technical assistance. Since its establishment, the JFBA is encouraging members to interact witheach other and share information.In addition, for those who are interested in working in international organizations, the JFBA launched the “AttorneyRoster 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 AssistanceRoster System in each year.

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

5370

83 91101

110123

136147

163177

196

233

0

50

100

150

200

250

（Person）

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

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

（Year)

106

Date post:	03-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

目次 Final Contents FINAL - 日本弁護士連合会：HOME

Documents