EDITORIAL: Judicial apprentices

Judicial apprentices who will go through the Supreme Court's training program after passing bar exams this year are likely to receive salaries for one year--a system that has been just replaced with a no-interest loan program.

The ruling Democratic Party of Japan has agreed with the main opposition Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito on a one-year salary plan and will work together to draft a bill, possibly by the weekend, to revise the current court organization law for this purpose. The move comes less than a month after an amendment to overhaul the system came into effect on Nov. 1.

The amendment has replaced pay and allowances worth more than 200,000 yen ($2,400) per month with no-interest loans to cover their living expenses.

Reversing the system indicates confusion.

Most new judicial trainees have already applied for this loan program, but nearly 300, or 15 percent, have not.

The plan crafted by the three parties will pay salaries retroactively to all the trainees, including those who can do without such support. Their salaries and allowances will be financed entirely by taxpayer money.

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations called for continued payments of the salaries, and New Komeito actively displayed a willingness to back the federation on the issue.

Both the DPJ and LDP apparently joined to curry favor with New Komeito, which can represent a crucial vote in the divided Diet.

That's the political background to the sudden change of plan. The move doesn't reflect any principle or philosophy concerning how to train legal experts or how to improve efficiency in using taxpayer money.

That is not to say such funds should not be used to vitalize the legal community.

We understand the argument that society should shoulder part of their training, given the socially important roles they play. But that should not mean spending nearly 10 billion yen to pay all their salaries.

We have argued for more efficient and focused ways to use public funds. One idea would be to allow new lawyers to fully work off their loans by providing legal services in areas of public need, such as depopulated areas.

Increasing fees paid to court-appointed defense lawyers would be another good way to use public funds. There should also be more budgeted for programs to financially support legal aid for low-income citizens.

The parties apparently realized the difficulty of winning public support for a complete revival of the salary system. They decided instead to delay the shift to the new loan plan by a year in order to have fresh debate on the legal training program itself.

The question is what the debate will focus on. Some federation members are trying to protect vested interests by campaigning for restraining growth in the number of lawyers. Simply increasing lawyers, of course, is not enough. The original purpose of the judicial reform, intended to make the system more accessible and dependable for ordinary citizens, must not be forgotten.

An overhaul of the system to compensate legal trainees was proposed as part of the reform, which includes an expansion in legal experts and the establishment of a law school system. The plan was worked out through careful and open debate.

This spring, however, the federation turned against the measure, arguing that the loan program would make the legal profession an exclusive preserve for the well-to-do.

In calling for continuing the payment system, the federation resorted to alarmist rhetoric, saying debt would provide a strong disincentive for engaging in human rights activities, as the lawyers would be forced to focus on profit to run their legal practices.

The federation's campaign is now about to pay off in the one-year extension, but at a large cost. The organization has lost the trust of law schools, legal experts and the general public, who have been involved in the reform from their respective positions.

In the past, the judicial community kept damaging its own social value as it was hardly able to reform itself or make progress amid mutual distrust among members. It must not return to that era.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 24