Lawyers Must Not Be Absent from Reform—National Mobilization for Judicial Reform "Voices for All Series"

In recent years, judicial trial procedures have been delayed, the quality of judgments has been uneven, and rumors of corruption and interference have been incessant, leading to a lack of credibility in the judiciary. Consequently, calls for reform targeting the litigation system, as well as the systems for judges and prosecutors, are unceasing. However, lawyers must not be excluded when discussing reform, because the practice of law also suffers from illegal conduct such as perfunctory handling of cases, delays, dual representation, and even defrauding clients. In view of this, the Judicial Reform Foundation's "Blueprint for Judicial Reform" includes a dedicated chapter on the "attorney system," and the recent official National Conference on Judicial Reform also listed "attorney system reform" as an agenda item. This is believed to be a recognition that the quality of the attorney system has a significant impact on the judiciary. This article argues that the reform of the attorney system must be thoroughly reviewed from both the systemic perspective and the perspective of public use.

From a systemic perspective, since attorneys are "independent/unofficial" legal practitioners, their self-governance and self-regulation should be strengthened. To achieve attorney self-governance and self-regulation, the organization of bar associations must first be sound. Currently, the national bar association organization is merely a "federation" of various local bar associations; this is a relic of the authoritarian era that weakened the representativeness of bar associations and made them easy to manipulate. In the future, to cope with heavy tasks such as self-governance, self-regulation, continuing education, legal aid, and participation in legislative drafting, members of the national bar association should include individual attorneys nationwide in addition to local bar associations (corporate members). Meanwhile, to strengthen cooperation between the national bar association and local bar associations, the presidents of local bar associations should serve as ex officio directors of the national association. Only then can local issues be promptly reflected to the national association, and only with the trinity of all attorneys, local bar associations, and the national association can the pace of reform be unified.

Secondly, from the perspective of users, it is about enabling the public to find suitable attorneys. Efforts should be made in the following directions:

First, a continuing education and specialization review system must be established: The rapid changes in laws and regulations create an urgent need for attorney continuing education, enabling clients to receive "correct" assistance. Furthermore, the diversified development of law makes it increasingly necessary to establish a "specialization" mechanism step by step. Because only through "division of labor" can there be "specialization," and the assistance provided to clients will be more "precise." Specific practices regarding these two aspects should be vigorously promoted by the restructured national bar association.

Second, no matter how hard the majority of attorneys strive to pursue continuing education and establish specialization, improperly behaving attorneys will still inevitably appear. To prevent clients from being harmed—similar to eliminating unqualified judges—there is also the issue of eliminating unqualified attorneys. While market mechanisms naturally exist for this elimination, the free flow of information is a prerequisite for market mechanisms. Currently, there is almost no appropriate information when choosing an attorney. Therefore, it is necessary to establish an attorney evaluation system, coupled with the public disclosure of continuing education and specialization review information, to provide clients with a basis for judgment when selecting or even changing attorneys.

Finally, regarding the core of elimination—namely the disciplinary system—based on the requirement of attorney self-regulation, bar associations should be responsible for it themselves, at least during the preliminary review stage. At the same time, to avoid miscarriages of justice and protect the rights and interests of attorneys, disciplinary procedures should be judicialized, meaning they should adopt direct hearings and oral arguments. In fact, in recent years, the number of disbarred attorneys has far exceeded the number of dismissed judges; it is just that ordinary people and even attorneys do not understand this. How disciplinary procedures can be used for attorneys to engage in self-reflection and self-discipline, thereby enhancing the protection of clients' rights and interests, should be a major issue in attorney training—whether it is pre-employment training for new attorneys or in-service training for practicing attorneys. Its core content is, of course, the reinforcement of attorney ethics and conduct!

In addition, from the perspective of the public, current legal aid in our country is clearly insufficient. In the future, the law should be amended to explicitly mandate that attorneys engage in a certain number of hours of pro bono service. Not only mandatory defense and mandatory consultation, but even the promotion of legal education is a mission that attorneys owe to this society and cannot shirk. When attorneys fail to meet the minimum hour requirement for pro bono service, a public service levy should be imposed as a substitute. This public service levy can then be used to promote legal aid projects, legal education, and so on...

Without good attorneys, there will be no good judiciary. A lack of judicial credibility is not only the shame of judges, but also the shame of all legal professionals. Therefore, judicial reform must never omit the attorney system!