What is the Taiwan National Bar Association's Judicial Reform Policy? A Statement of Questions for Taiwan National Bar Association Candidates

On December 13 last year (2019), the Legislative Yuan passed the third reading of the amendments to the Attorney Regulation Act (hereinafter the "New Act"). This reform renews attorney self-regulatory organizations, safeguards the freedom of attorneys to practice, strengthens attorney participation in public interest activities and continuing education, and reforms the attorney disciplinary system. It aims to elevate the standards of legal practice, weed out unqualified attorneys, and ensure the service quality of attorneys appointed by clients, thereby striving to build a judiciary worthy of public trust.

One of the significant meanings of attorneys forming self-regulatory organizations is to act as "officers of the court" who, based on the spirit of self-discipline and self-governance, perform their duties with integrity and fidelity in order to uphold social justice and improve the legal system. Furthermore, the "Taiwan National Bar Association" (hereinafter the "TNBA") established pursuant to the New Act also aims to promote the development of a rule-of-law society, improve the practicing environment for attorneys, implement attorney self-discipline and self-governance, cultivate legal talents, elevate the quality of legal services, and protect human rights.

This year (2020), the TNBA will hold its inaugural elections for "Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson," "Directors," "Supervisors," and "Member Representatives." The candidates have publicly presented their platforms and will hold a platform presentation for the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson in mid-July. However, upon review, the Judicial Reform Foundation (hereinafter the "JRF") found that the platforms of various candidates lack substantial focus on "promoting judicial reform" and "implementing attorney self-discipline and self-governance."

To this end, the JRF publicly raises the following questions, calling upon all candidates to seriously examine and prudently respond to them, and to work together to promote the development of democracy and the rule of law in our country.

1. From the perspective of the TNBA, what are the most pressing issues for future judicial reform? How should efforts be made to promote the development of the rule of law and protect human rights?

2. What role should the TNBA play in social reform issues other than judicial reform in the future?

3. Article 37 of the New Act stipulates that attorneys shall participate in legal aid, ordinary legal services, or other social public interest activities, and authorizes the TNBA to prescribe the types, minimum hours, methods, and handling of violations regarding attorneys' participation in social public interest activities. In this regard, how should the TNBA define "other social public interest activities" apart from legal aid and ordinary legal services in the future? What is their scope? How can attorneys be encouraged and strengthened to participate in "other social public interest activities"?

4. What problems exist in the current attorney self-governance, self-discipline, and disciplinary systems? Following the implementation of the New Act, how should they be improved and strengthened to unleash the proactive nature of self-regulatory mechanisms?

5. Article 75 of the New Act stipulates that the TNBA shall establish an Attorney Ethics and Discipline Committee to handle requests for reconsideration of cases concerning the Code of Ethics for Attorneys. At least one-third of the members shall be socially impartial individuals who are currently not practicing attorneys. It also authorizes the TNBA to prescribe the number of members, qualifications, selection methods, term of office, generation of the chairperson, organizational operations, reconsideration procedures, resolutions, and other related matters of the Ethics and Discipline Committee. In this regard, by what standards and methods should the members of the Ethics and Discipline Committee be selected? How can the diversity of opinions in the reconsideration deliberation process be ensured?

※ Special Note: Members of the JRF who have registered as candidates for this election have all recused themselves from the discussion and drafting process of this press release.

Contact Person

Hsiao I-min / Office Director, Judicial Reform Foundation