Professionalism and Quality

Recently, the Judicial Yuan, Examination Yuan, and legal scholars debated whether the threshold for the judicial officer and attorney examinations in the draft Judges Act should be lowered to allow participation upon completing merely "20 credits during the academic semester." Except for the Examination Yuan which proposed it, the Judicial Yuan, Judges Association, and scholars unanimously opposed it, worrying that under Taiwan's current cram-school education system, this provision would encourage a massive influx of candidates into cram schools to focus exclusively on subjects tested in the judicial and bar exams, negatively impacting the quality of future legal professionals.

However, when we turn to another corner of the news on the same day: "Judge mentor sets up trap, judicial trainees attend banquet hosted by businessman." It reported that a mentor at the Judges and Prosecutors Training Institute allegedly abused their authority by inviting judicial trainee students to attend an improper banquet, which almost led the students to accept bribes.

Comparing these two news stories, one cannot help but wonder: while the former concern over the quality of legal professionals is certainly valid, we must also acknowledge—how can the quality and professionalism of judicial officers be screened and filtered by an exam alone? Solid foundational legal training is indeed a condition society expects of legal professionals, yet there is no shortage of legal professionals who have undergone legal training but lack legal literacy.

If interpreted through the trend of judicial specialization, relaxing the threshold for law majors to take judicial examinations could attract more professionals with other areas of expertise to enter the legal field and take on judicial work, ensuring that legal professionals are no longer limited to top law students who know nothing outside of law. This might not be another way of thinking about specialization. The only concern, corresponding to today's prevailing cram-school culture, is whether anyone who is good at taking exams and easily completes 20 credits will become a legal professional in the future. Yet, if we use this same concern to examine the current judicial examinations, can we truly rest easy?

Given the current trend where university students in their third or fourth year and above are almost all attending cram schools (not to mention the absurd phenomenon of students starting cram school for the judiciary as early as their freshman year), the so-called "solid legal training" is likely just wishful thinking. For law students operating under the mindset of "success makes a king, failure makes a criminal," the allure of the laurel wreath of judges, attorneys, and prosecutors far outweighs dry foundational legal studies. While universities still hope students will "build their internal strength" through legal spirit and jurisprudence, students have long shrewdly realized that cram schools are the heavenly ladder leading to national examinations. Students who obediently sit in classrooms to comprehend foundational legalism are dwindling day by day; how to guess questions, answer them, and score high is the focus of this generation of law students.

Since legal education is already spearheaded by cram-school education, why worry that more cram-school students will flood in the future? If legal professionals must still be selected solely through examinations, how can the prevalence of cram schools be avoided? What we should truly be asking is whether we should seriously consider emulating the Anglo-American system, allowing only attorneys and prosecutors with 15 to 20 years or more of practical experience to become judges, and preventing exam-taking machines from becoming judges. Only after they have gained sufficient preparation in the practical field should we entrust them with the sacred mission of a judge. Would this not be a more fundamental solution to the problem?

※ Published in: Taiwan Daily