Attorney System Reform

The work of attorneys is to protect the lawful rights and interests of their clients, and the role and responsibility of attorneys in society is to safeguard human rights, advance social justice, and promote democracy and the rule of law. From the Formosa Incident trials under martial law, when attorneys defended those who stood up to the authoritarian regime, to today, when volunteer legal teams have defended the students of the 318 Student Movement (the Sunflower Movement) who sought to hold the legislature accountable, attorneys have served as the last line of defense for democracy and freedom, giving legal protection to people who resist state violence. All of this shows how much attorneys contribute to modern democracy and the rule of law. Yet whether attorneys are resolving individual disputes through law or keeping those in power from abusing their authority against the people, a sound Attorney Regulation Act is needed to guarantee their independence. Only then can attorneys remain free from interference by the State or other powers and fulfill, through self-governance and self-regulation, the mission entrusted to them by the people.

Before 2020: The Controversy over Reforming the Attorney Regulation Act

Twenty-four years passed between the comprehensive overhaul of the Attorney Regulation Act in 1992 and the passage of the amendments at the end of 2019. The outdated Act became a major obstacle to the goals described above. Its shortcomings included:

1. Bar associations had no power to review membership applications

   Article 11 of the former Act provided: "An attorney may not practice without joining a bar association, and a bar association may not refuse an attorney's membership." Because bar associations could not reject applications, and the Act did not set reasonable entry requirements for the profession as advanced democracies do, corrupt judges and prosecutors with final convictions for corruption could still become attorneys after their release from prison, so long as they had not previously been disbarred by the Attorney Disciplinary Committee. Such cases repeatedly dismayed the bar. The legal profession is not a recycling bin for the judiciary; under the principle of professional self-governance and self-regulation, bar associations should have the right to refuse membership to judges and prosecutors who have been convicted by final judgment.

2. Attorneys and their organizations were supervised and controlled by the Ministry of Justice

   Under the former Act, the competent authorities for bar associations were the Ministry of Justice and the local district prosecutors office. Attorney certificates were issued by the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry set the rules for pre-practice training; bar associations had to file their charters and any amendments with the local district prosecutors office, which forwarded them to the Ministry; and the Ministry drew up the attorney disciplinary procedures (see Articles 6, 7, 12, 15, and 52 of the former Act). In criminal proceedings, attorneys stand opposite prosecutors, yet the Ministry of Justice—the authority in charge of prosecutors—was also the authority in charge of the legal profession and had the power to revoke or annul attorneys' qualifications. With every aspect of their practice and of bar association operations supervised and controlled by the Ministry, attorneys had virtually no independence. If the Ministry of Justice could manipulate who is allowed to practice law, how could attorneys fulfill their mission of safeguarding human rights, advancing social justice, and promoting democracy and the rule of law when state agencies abuse their power?

3. The national bar association lacked the resources of the local bar associations, making professional self-governance and self-regulation difficult

   As the bar examination pass rate rose sharply, the practice environment for attorneys changed dramatically. The organization and structure of the national bar association at the time clearly no longer met the profession's needs, and pre-practice training for new attorneys suffered from insufficient resources and was largely ineffective. Pre-practice training is the responsibility of the Taiwan Bar Association, yet the Ministry of Justice provided only meager funding. Compared with advanced countries such as Germany and Japan, the government paid remarkably little attention to the "defense" side of the judge–prosecutor–defense triangle. Insufficient resources inevitably affected the quality of legal services and, more seriously, the rights and interests of the public.

The soundness of the legal profession affects not only the quality of the justice system but also the preservation of democracy and the rule of law. For years, civil society groups repeatedly called for reform and submitted various drafts to the Ministry of Justice for consideration. However, the Ministry's 2015 draft amendment to the Act would have given the Ministry the power to substantively review whether applicants were disqualified from practice, empowered the Ministry and the district prosecutors offices to remove bar association directors and supervisors or order bar associations dissolved, and required attorneys to accept any assignment made by prosecutors. All of this ran counter to the norms of modern democracies governed by the rule of law. Civil society argued strongly at the time that the Ministry's draft would seriously erode attorneys' public-interest role. Fortunately, the Act was finally amended at the end of 2019.

After 2020: Challenges Following the Reform

The amended Attorney Regulation Act passed its third reading in the Legislative Yuan in December 2019. In addition to major reforms to the organization of bar associations and attorneys' freedom to practice, the amendments introduced requirements for pro bono work and continuing legal education and reformed the attorney disciplinary system. The aim was to raise professional standards, remove unfit attorneys, ensure the quality of legal services the public receives, and improve the image of the justice system.

Previously, there were no statutory provisions on continuing education or pro bono work for attorneys. In the United States, by contrast, although state bar rules vary in strictness, most require attorneys to keep up their professional knowledge and to take part in pro bono activities. Continuing education helps attorneys keep their knowledge up to date, while pro bono hour requirements ensure that the profession devotes effort to clients with fewer resources and fulfills its social obligations. The new provisions are a major legislative step forward.

Nevertheless, a steady stream of attorney ethics cases in recent years has led the public to question the profession's integrity. In December 2025, JRF co-hosted a forum titled "Diverse Forms of Judicial Accountability: The Next Ten Years of Attorney Ethics and Discipline" together with the Taiwan Bar Association's Judicial Reform Committee, Committee on the Interpretation of the Attorneys' Code of Ethics, Committee on the Revision of the Attorneys' Code of Ethics, Attorney Ethics and Discipline Committee, and Committee on Legal Professional Examinations and Institutional Development, as well as the Keelung, Taipei, Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Taichung, Changhua, Nantou, Chiayi, Tainan, Kaohsiung, Pingtung, Taitung, and Hualien Bar Associations. Former members of the Attorney Disciplinary Committee and the Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee were invited to share the practical experience and difficulties of local bar associations in handling disciplinary cases. The forum also provided an opportunity for in-depth exchange with representatives of bar associations across Taiwan on the most urgent and critical issues for reforming and strengthening the attorney ethics and disciplinary system over the next decade. Sidelights from the forum will be released, and related reform efforts will begin in 2026.