Developments and Challenges ofClinical Legal Education in Japan

Japan started the law school system in April 2004 with idealistic goals such as “bridging theory and practice” and transforming the legal education “from the point of testing knowledge at the bar examination to the process of developing lawyers,” and also started clinical legal education in the same year. However, the law school system has stagnated and not functioning as originally planned as the core institution for developing lawyers. Difficulties involved in law school education can be seen in the symbolic figures of the bar examination passage rate. It also is troubled with the lack of coordination between law school education and the judicial apprenticeship. Despite the difficult situation that Japanese law schools face today, the idea and the system of clinical legal education can be said to root in Japan. That is, there are several reasons for seeing a positive prospect such as (1) secure growth of clinical courses in Japan, (2) gradual increase of law-school-affiliated law office, (3) establishment of the Japan Clinical Legal Education Association. As for improving the law school system and clinical education in Japan, there should be a re-examination of law school curricula. Since Japanese law schools are currently under severe criticism from a variety of social sectors, those who are involved in clinical legal education must re-evaluate law school curricula, meet those challenges and improve law school education. In relation to this, the JCLEA (Japan Clinical Legal Education Association) proposed to make clinical courses required electives in the model curricula of law schools. A recent report by the Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Higher Education also points out the necessity of integrated pedagogy for legal education. “Immigration and Refugee Law Clinic” of Waseda Law School could be a good example. In this clinic, students can learn theories of constitutional law, administrative law, civil procedural law, and international law. They can also be trained in lawyer-client communication skills with the assistance of language interpreters. They can also learn the multi-dimensional nature of the legal system. They can develop a deeper understanding of the situation of foreigners and refugees. There is another kind of problem in Japan. Because there is no student practice rule, law students cannot directly provide legal services for real clients. For solving this matter, there have been some preliminary discussions between the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Ministry of Justice, and they continue their work to prepare for the adoption of a Japanese version of student practice rules. As another matter, law schools in Japan need the quality control of externship education. Externship training is the most prevalent clinical method that is being used at Japanese law schools. But many law schools just send students to law offices to have them experience legal practice on the job. They also need to develop a younger generation clinical teachers. Some law-school-affiliated law offices, such as Waseda University Legal Clinic Law Office, have begun to hire novice attorneys as clinical teaching assistants. It means there is a new entry of clinical teachers. So, senior clinical teachers are very much looking forward to seeing the new generation of clinical teachers contributes to the enhancement of legal education. Lastly, it is very important to use clinical pedagogy in the total process of developing lawyers. The involvement of law schools or university based institutes in judicial apprenticeship training and continuing legal education would make legal education a genuine “process of developing lawyers” from the outset to completion.