Opinion Consultation on the Amendment to the Attorney Regulation Act Is Now Underway!

The draft amendment to the Attorney Regulation Act drawn up by the Ministry of Justice is currently under review by the Executive Yuan. However, the Executive Yuan deems it necessary to broadly solicit opinions from all attorneys and the general public to further refine the bill. To collect everyone's input and improve the attorney system, the Executive Yuan, vTaiwan, and the Judicial Reform Foundation have partnered to use an online platform to inquire about the thoughts of attorneys and the general public regarding the attorney system, which will be followed by physical and online meetings addressing these opinions.

The Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF) has long focused on judicial reform issues and believes that the attorney system has reached a point where reform is imperative. This time, we have submitted ten major categories of issues to the Executive Yuan, and the Ministry of Justice has also proposed five issues, hoping that all of them can become agenda items for the questionnaire and meetings. However, constrained by the impending presidential transition on May 20, the content of this questionnaire initially focuses on three directions when consulting attorneys and the public: "single bar admission with nationwide practice," "whether attorneys should provide pro bono service hours," and "how to maintain the quality of attorneys." Among these, regarding the third issue, we will also gather the thoughts of the general public to understand their perspectives and viewpoints.

As a component of the judiciary, the reform of the attorney system is also a crucial issue in judicial reform. Many issues have been discussed for a long time and supported by many, yet remain bitterly contested in their details. Taking "single bar admission with nationwide practice" as an example, the majority of attorneys and some bar associations support it. However, how should the organizational structure of bar associations be adjusted once the system is modified? Many people hold differing views.

The JRF is very pleased to have this opportunity to cooperate with the Executive Yuan and vTaiwan by opening a discussion thread on vTaiwan to jointly discuss the detailed issues regarding the amendment to the Attorney Regulation Act.

vTaiwan is a project by g0v.tw, maintained by three teams. The proposing party is the relevant ministry or agency of the Executive Yuan in charge of the regulation, which raises various policy-modification-related questions on the platform. The editorial team compiles the questions to facilitate netizen discussions. The discussion content is jointly maintained by a group of moderators consisting of contributors from the vTaiwan.tw project community.

On vTaiwan, discussions have successfully taken place on issues such as the amendment of the Company Act for closed companies and crowdfunding. It has also publicly consulted on opinions regarding Uber, collating views from all sectors and identifying why Uber has thus far failed to be brought under regulation in Taiwan. The issue of whether Uber should be legalized—previously marked by divergent views among all parties—was successfully focused on the core controversy through this platform's opinion collection, the seating of stakeholders, and joint discussions by concerned parties, thereby assisting the Executive Yuan in making a decision. Currently, the Executive Yuan's "Five Digital Convergence Acts" are under heated discussion on vTaiwan.

This opinion solicitation will have its discussion status compiled by the JRF. As the moderator of this Attorney Regulation Act consultation, the JRF must compile the questionnaire results and netizens' insightful remarks from a neutral standpoint. Subsequently, at the meeting on May 4, discussions will be held based on the questionnaire results and insightful netizen comments, with invitations extended to various bar associations, the Taiwan Bar Association, and netizens with notable remarks to attend. At that time, the meeting will be live-streamed and text-broadcasted throughout. Any questions raised by netizens during the live stream will also be presented collectively at the meeting for attendees to reference or for various agencies to respond to.

The meeting on May 4 may not necessarily yield a definitively actionable conclusion, but it will certainly present differing opinions, help everyone understand diverse viewpoints, and identify common ground agreed upon by all.

We anticipate that through such an open, transparent, and participatory discussion method, we can help hear more voices from attorneys and the general public. In the future, all this data will be permanently archived online; if any doubts arise regarding the conclusions at that time, anyone can return to the scene to understand the compromises and trade-offs among various viewpoints. These opinions will serve as a reference for the Executive Yuan in subsequently promoting legislative amendments, and we also welcome all legislators to refer to the discussions on the vTaiwan forum and in meetings before amending the Attorney Regulation Act.

This is the JRF's first attempt. The JRF invites you to participate and speak up together, to try a different method of discussion, build a bridge of communication, and foster the reform of the attorney system.

Start the Questionnaire— If you cannot fill it out from below, please click here to open the questionnaire. (This opinion collection has concluded)

※View the report immediately: Attorney Regulation Act Amendment Opinion Collection Questionnaire Report

vTaiwan Discussion Forum— After filling out the questionnaire, come discuss a better plan together!

Enter Discussion Forum

Regarding Attorneys

• Do you support implementing the "single bar admission with nationwide practice" system for attorneys?
• If single bar admission with nationwide practice is implemented, how would you like to adjust the bar association organization?
• If the current attorney admission system is maintained, do you think there is a need to adjust the bar association organization?
• Should attorneys be required to provide pro bono service hours?
• What types of pro bono services should attorneys provide?
• How should cases be handled if an attorney refuses to provide pro bono service hours without justifiable reasons?

Regarding the General Public

• What attorney information would you like the Ministry of Justice to make public?
• If you need to find an attorney, what information do you require?