First of all, we would like to get your overall view on the reform of
the judicial system.
|
The discussion on the future of the judicial system had only been debated
within the
Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice and the Japanese Federation of Bar
Associations. Although I was a member of the three-party discussion, I
felt there was a need to consider the perspective of users. I think we
should identify the good and bad points of our system. As the Council has
been created, its role now should be to discuss how to train the legal
profession and how the public can benefit from the system. Simply stated,
reform should be based upon what the Japanese public demands of its
judicial system. If they want a judicial system which is useful, reform
should be based upon how to speed up trials and make appropriate judgments.
For out-of-court procedures, reform should be based upon how to quickly
deal with the problems faced by society and how to secure additional legal
affairs personnel to prevent legal problems from occurring.
|
Do you think the core problem of the judicial system is the lack of legal
professionals?
|
Yes, I would say so. However, an automatic increase in numbers will not
necessarily
solve the problem. Quality is also an important issue we must consider.
Even when discussing unifying the legal profession, quality and quantity
are important issues. To actually unify the legal profession, we need five
to ten times more practicing attorneys than we currently have in Japan. It
would be easier if we had a system whereby the top five percent of the Bar
Association become judges. Nevertheless, if we create an ambiguous
system, it will only create additional problems. Thus, it is necessary for
the Council to discuss and create an unified judicial system. However, I
think that two years is too short a time for the Council to deal with these
issues.
|
As for quality, one of the topics to be discussed by the Council will
be the reform of the legal professional training system. The focus
especially seems to be on creating law schools. What is your opinion on
this?
I agree with the general idea of law schools. To achieve both
quality and quantity in the legal profession, we must consider education
rather than a simple increase in numbers. However, we cannot rely on the
present undergraduate law departments to fulfill these needs. Thus, we need
to create law schools. Nonetheless, the problem lies in the fact that the
Council does not have enough time to create such a system. To consider
reforming the judicial system itself is a huge project. On top of this, if
the Council includes creating law schools, it may well be over extending
itself.
Do you think it would be possible for a faculty meeting to decide
whether or not they should abolish the law department in the upcoming year?
We must take into consideration that the present circumstances surrounding
the Japanese judicial system represent a crisis. What we need to do is to
reform the system quickly. We do not have the luxury of time to endlessly
debate these issues.
The easiest steps to take are to review the National Legal Examination and
to expand the legal apprenticeship system. Frankly speaking, since the
Legal Training and Research Institute is only located in Tokyo, we should
create another in Osaka. Additionally, if we increase the number of
acceptances, both in Tokyo and Osaka by one thousand each, the number of
possible candidates will automatically increase. Moreover, with two years
comprehensive training, we would not lower the quality of the legal
profession. Therefore, with this method, by pouring money into the system,
we can automatically increase the numbers.
|
|
What's New
Index
Next