Empowering judicial scriveners as litigators in Japan: is it justifiable and of value?

Kay-Wah Chan, Takayuki Ii
{"title":"Empowering judicial scriveners as litigators in Japan: is it justifiable and of value?","authors":"Kay-Wah Chan, Takayuki Ii","doi":"10.1080/09695958.2020.1742720","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Japan, the quasi-legal profession of judicial scriveners (shihō-shoshi) traditionally prepared documents for litigants to file with courts but did not have the right to represent them in courts. As part of the justice system reform, from April 2003, shihō-shoshi who took an induction course, passed a certification examination and obtained the Justice Minister’s certification are permitted to represent litigants in Summary Court civil lawsuits. Such work used to be monopolised by the full-fledged legal profession of bengoshi. The reform aimed at enhancing the public’s accessibility to legal service. However, has the change really achieved this objective? Has the objective been attained by another change under the reform: a substantial expansion of the bengoshi population? To examine the justifiability and value of the expansion of shihō-shoshi’s permitted scope of practice, this paper empirically investigates the post-reform situation of the two professions, Summary Court civil litigation, and legal representation in such lawsuits.","PeriodicalId":43893,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Legal Profession","volume":"29 1","pages":"181 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09695958.2020.1742720","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of the Legal Profession","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2020.1742720","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT In Japan, the quasi-legal profession of judicial scriveners (shihō-shoshi) traditionally prepared documents for litigants to file with courts but did not have the right to represent them in courts. As part of the justice system reform, from April 2003, shihō-shoshi who took an induction course, passed a certification examination and obtained the Justice Minister’s certification are permitted to represent litigants in Summary Court civil lawsuits. Such work used to be monopolised by the full-fledged legal profession of bengoshi. The reform aimed at enhancing the public’s accessibility to legal service. However, has the change really achieved this objective? Has the objective been attained by another change under the reform: a substantial expansion of the bengoshi population? To examine the justifiability and value of the expansion of shihō-shoshi’s permitted scope of practice, this paper empirically investigates the post-reform situation of the two professions, Summary Court civil litigation, and legal representation in such lawsuits.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
日本赋予司法执行人诉讼权:是否正当、是否有价值?
摘要在日本,司法抄写员(shihō-shoshi)这一准法律职业传统上是为诉讼当事人准备向法院提交的文件,但没有在法庭上代表当事人的权利。作为司法制度改革的一项内容,从2003年4月开始,通过入门课程并通过资格考试并获得法务部长官资格证书的shihō-shoshi律师可以在简易法院民事诉讼中担任诉讼代理人。这类工作过去由成熟的法律专业人士垄断。改革的目的是提高公众获得法律服务的机会。然而,变革真的实现了这一目标吗?改革下的另一个变化是否达到了目标:本戈什族人口的大量增加?为了检验shihō-shoshi允许执业范围扩大的合理性和价值,本文对改革后简易法院民事诉讼和简易法院民事诉讼中的法律代理这两个行业的情况进行了实证调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Silent boundaries: exploring the limits of legal confidentiality in Poland New professional spaces and trajectories: tracing the evolution of legal professionals – introduction to special issue The authority of the elders or the colonisers? Customary law and culture – which legal skills? Assessing law students in a GenAI world to create knowledgeable future lawyers Navigating the legal landscape: large language models and the hesitancy of legal professionals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1