Reform of the Attorney System: The Attorney Regulation Act Must Also Keep Pace with the Times

Since its amendment in the 81st year of the Republic (1992), the Attorney Regulation Act has been in place for over 25 years. Amid rapid social changes and a significant increase in the bar examination passing rate, it can no longer meet public needs. Issues such as opaque attorney information and inadequate self-regulatory mechanisms have long been criticized.

In light of this, the JRF formed the "Attorney Regulation Act Amendment Working Group" in 2016 to conduct a year-long discussion on amendments, covering ten major aspects of the attorney system. Having reached consensus on several issues, this will serve as the foundation for future advocacy on attorney system reform. We will continue to gather opinions from all sectors to propose appropriate amendment recommendations for the attorney system, as outlined below:

1. Requirement for Attorneys' Continuing Education

   Attorneys possess professional capabilities that should be continuously maintained throughout their careers so that the public can receive accurate assistance. Therefore, attorneys should be required to pursue continuing education during their practice. However, grounded in the spirit of attorney autonomy, flexibility in continuing education should be retained. Matters concerning the hours, methods, hour credits, exemptions of continuing education for attorneys, and the handling of failures to comply shall be delegated to the Taiwan National Bar Association after consulting with the Judicial Yuan.

2. Acquisition of Certification in Specialized Fields of Practice for Attorneys

   To respond to social changes, public legal needs tending toward greater complexity and specialization, and a substantial increase in the number of newly admitted attorneys, the public should have the right to choose attorneys based on their specialized fields. Referring to the German legal system, provisions are added allowing attorneys who take continuing education courses in specialized fields to obtain a specialized field certification. While this does not restrict attorneys from practicing, the public can choose specialized attorneys based on such certification. Attorneys who obtain the certification must periodically renew it to ensure that their professional capabilities keep pace with the times. Regulations governing the issuance of specialized field certifications are intended to be delegated to the Taiwan National Bar Association.

3. Pro Bono Requirements for Attorneys

   Attorneys should proactively and actively participate in social public interest affairs, such as providing legal aid and grassroots legal services. To prevent the requirement for attorneys to participate in public interest work from becoming merely a declarative provision, it is explicitly authorized that the bar association shall establish specific measures for participating in social public interest affairs. Nevertheless, the means of participation should be flexible, and these measures should also include credit and exemption mechanisms to balance the varying circumstances of individual attorneys.

4. Empowering Attorneys with Investigatory Powers

   To enable attorneys commissioned to handle cases to fully understand and conduct preliminary verification of case facts, reduce the time spent by courts in investigating evidence, and promote the progression of judicial proceedings, referring to the Japanese legal system, attorneys are empowered in commissioned cases to submit requests to their local bar association, asking the bar association to request government agencies or non-governmental agencies to provide necessary documents. However, to balance the attorney's investigatory power with the protection of the client's right to privacy, and to prevent attorneys from abusing obtained documents and causing damage to the client's rights, it is explicitly stipulated that documents obtained by attorneys through the bar association must not be used improperly; otherwise, it shall constitute grounds for attorney disciplinary action.

5. Attorney Advertising and Its Restrictions

   To meet the actual business promotion needs of attorneys, it should be recognized that attorneys may conduct advertising regarding their names, law firm names and contact information, practice contents, or other objective information related to their practice. However, restrictions must apply: if the content and scope of an attorney's advertisement involve the substantive content of a client's commissioned case, personal privacy, commercial secrets, or if specific clients can be identified from the advertisement content, there is a necessity to specially protect consumer privacy and other rights. In such cases, the client's consent must be obtained, and specific case details must not be recorded. Furthermore, when the opposing party or an interested party is a natural person, the name of the opposing party must not be publicized.

6. Transparency of Attorney Information

   The practice of law is closely related to the rights and interests of the public and the operation of national judicial proceedings. Information such as an attorney's name, law firm name, disciplinary records, and records of violating attorney ethics norms are all important determining factors for the public when choosing an attorney. To strengthen market mechanisms, such information should naturally be made public for public inspection so that the most suitable attorney can be retained. The Judicial Yuan should establish an "Attorney Inquiry System" on its website for the public to check attorneys' practicing qualifications and related practice information.

   Furthermore, in response to the aforementioned allowance for attorneys to advertise their practiced services, attorneys may also independently choose to publish other information on websites, such as educational background, continuing education records, professional certifications, service items, and fee standards, to provide the public with opportunities for diversified choices according to their needs.

Note: The Foundation also presented the aforementioned amendment opinions regarding the Attorney Regulation Act at the public hearing on the "Draft Amendment to the Attorney Regulation Act" held by the Legislative Yuan on December 15, 2016.