"Profession" or "Business"? How the "Bengoshi Model Ronso" (Lawyer Model Debate) Shapes Japanese Attorneys' Social Responsibilities

The identity and societal role of lawyers, or bengoshi (弁護士) as they are known in Japan, have been the subject of a long-standing and evolving discussion often termed the "bengoshi moderu ronsō" (弁護士モデル論争 – lawyer model debate). At its simplest, this debate often appears to pose a fundamental question: Is the practice of law in Japan primarily a noble "profession" (seishoku, 聖職) imbued with a distinct public calling, or is it more accurately characterized as a "business" (bijinesu, ビジネス) providing specialized legal services in a competitive market?

While this "profession vs. business" dichotomy is a common starting point, a deeper examination reveals that the true substance of the debate—and its most significant impact—lies in how Japanese lawyers conceptualize and endeavor to fulfill their broad social responsibilities (shakaiteki sekinin, 社会的責任).

The Traditional Models in the Japanese Context

Historically, several "models" or ideal types have framed the understanding of the Japanese lawyer:

1. The "In-the-Field Spirit" Model (Zaiya Seishin Ron, 在野精神論): This traditional model emphasized the lawyer as an independent advocate, often standing "in the field" (i.e., outside of government or established power structures) to champion human rights and challenge authority. While embodying a spirit of courageous independence, this model faced conceptual difficulties. For instance, lawyers also support the judicial system—a form of state power—which itself is a primary mechanism for protecting rights. Furthermore, in a democracy founded on popular sovereignty, opposing "power" could, at times, be misconstrued as opposing the will of the people. While the overt rhetoric of this model has somewhat receded, its emphasis on independence remains a valued trait.
2. The "Profession Model" (Purofesshon Moderu, プロフェッションモデル): This model, historically influential worldwide, views law as one of the classic learned professions, alongside clergy and medicine. It posits that lawyers possess specialized knowledge and skills, adhere to high ethical standards, are self-regulating through their bar associations, and, most importantly, have a primary public calling—in Japan, this is articulated in Article 1 of the Lawyers Act as "protecting fundamental human rights and realizing social justice." This model acknowledges that lawyers must earn a livelihood, thus incorporating a business aspect, but sees the public service mission as paramount.
3. The "Legal Service Model" (Hō Sābisu Moderu, 法サービスモデル): Emerging more prominently with economic development, the rise of complex corporate law, and the diversification and increasing scale of legal practices, this model places greater emphasis on efficiently and effectively meeting the legal needs of clients. It tends to view legal practice through a lens that incorporates market principles and conceives of lawyering as the provision of a sophisticated service. Proponents of this view often critique the "Profession Model" not for denying a public role, but for potentially using the "profession" ideology to shield the bar from market competition and accountability, thereby, ironically, sometimes hindering broader access to justice. Professor Takahiko Tanase, a notable voice in this debate, has argued that an overemphasis on the traditional "profession" ideal, without adapting to modern needs for accessibility and efficiency, might inadvertently prevent the legal field from fully serving the public.

Beyond the Dichotomy: Reconciling Dual Responsibilities

The "profession OR business" framing, while a common shorthand, can be an oversimplification. In reality, few would argue that Japanese lawyers have no public responsibilities, nor could they realistically deny that running a law practice involves business operations. Both the "Profession Model" and thoughtful articulations of the "Legal Service Model" implicitly or explicitly recognize that lawyers operate with two fundamental sets of responsibilities:

• Public Responsibility (kōkyōteki sekinin, 公共的責任): This is the mission-driven aspect, rooted in the Lawyers Act, focusing on upholding human rights and achieving social justice.
• Business Responsibility (gyōmu sekinin, 業務責任): This encompasses the practical necessity of managing a law practice in an economically viable manner, ensuring the lawyer can sustain their work, support their staff, and provide for their families.

The real and enduring question for the Japanese legal profession is not which of these labels applies, but rather: How can lawyers effectively integrate and reconcile these two sets of responsibilities, ensuring that their public mission guides their actions while maintaining a sustainable practice? This very challenge of integration and reconciliation is what can be understood as the core of a lawyer's "social responsibility" (shakaiteki sekinin).

The Lawyer's Triple Role in Fulfilling Social Responsibility

To navigate this complex interplay, the contemporary understanding of a Japanese lawyer's role often extends to a third dimension:

1. Collective Responsibility (shūdanteki sekinin, 集団的責任): This refers to the lawyer's obligations as a member of their self-governing bar association (bengoshikai, 弁護士会). The bar association plays a crucial role in creating and maintaining the systems and ethical frameworks that enable individual lawyers to fulfill both their public and business responsibilities effectively. This includes establishing ethical codes, providing training, overseeing discipline, and advocating for lawyer autonomy (bengoshi jichi, 弁護士自治)—all of which are essential supports.

In this view, the often-demanding task of balancing public duties with practice realities is not solely an individual burden but one that the organized bar collectively helps its members to manage. This "triple role" underscores the systemic nature of legal ethics and social responsibility in Japan.

Defining "Social Justice" within the Lawyer's Mission

The call to "realize social justice" can seem abstract, and some lawyers may question how their daily work—handling, for example, commercial disputes for well-established companies or defending individuals in routine cases—directly contributes to such a lofty goal. However, within the Japanese legal tradition, "social justice" in the context of a lawyer's mission is often interpreted in a practical, rights-based manner.

It is not necessarily about pursuing only "heroic" or visibly transformative cases. Rather, it is about the diligent, day-to-day work of ensuring that clients' legitimate rights are protected and upheld through the legal system. This aligns with the classical Roman law understanding of justice as suum cuique tribuere—giving to each their due. From this perspective, ensuring that the party who is legally in the right prevails, regardless of whether they are perceived as "weak" or "strong," is itself an act of realizing social justice. The consistent and fair application of the law to protect individual rights forms the bedrock of a just society. Pro bono activities and broader law reform efforts are then seen as important, but often supplementary, means of fulfilling this mission.

How the "Model Debate" Shapes Social Responsibilities

The ongoing bengoshi moderu ronsō is more than an academic exercise; it has tangible implications for how lawyers perceive and act upon their social responsibilities:

• Emphasis on Public Service and Pro Bono: A strong adherence to the "Profession Model" tends to foster a greater emphasis on direct public service, including pro bono publico activities, participation in human rights advocacy, and efforts towards law reform. It encourages a broader interpretation of what "social justice" entails beyond individual client representation.
• Focus on Client Service, Efficiency, and Access: Perspectives aligned with the "Legal Service Model" often drive innovation in how legal services are delivered, prioritizing client satisfaction, efficiency, and responsiveness to market needs. This can lead to new approaches to making legal services more accessible and affordable to a wider segment of the population.
• Interpretation of Ethical Rules: The prevailing understanding of the lawyer's role influences how ethical rules—concerning advertising, fee structures, conflicts of interest, and client communication—are interpreted and applied. There is a constant balancing act between traditional notions of professional dignity, the demands of a competitive service environment, and the overarching public interest.
• The Role and Activities of Bar Associations: The "model debate" significantly impacts how bar associations define their own functions. This includes their approach to regulating the profession, promoting and sometimes mandating public interest work among members, ensuring the quality and ethical standards of legal services, and addressing issues of access to justice.
• Responding to Modern Challenges: The Japanese legal profession, like those in many other countries, faces challenges from an increasing number of lawyers, the globalization of legal practice, rapid technological changes, and increasing specialization. The "model debate" provides a framework for discussing how the profession should adapt to these changes while remaining true to its core values and social responsibilities. For example, does the rise of large, business-oriented law firms necessitate a re-evaluation of traditional professional norms, or does it call for a reaffirmation of the public service aspect of the profession to counterbalance commercial pressures?

Conclusion: An Evolving Synthesis

Ultimately, the "Profession vs. Business" debate in Japan is less about choosing one exclusive model and more about finding a sustainable and ethically sound synthesis. It is a dynamic discussion that reflects the legal profession's ongoing efforts to define its identity and purpose in a changing society.

The core of a Japanese lawyer's social responsibility lies in successfully integrating their public mission—to protect fundamental human rights and realize social justice—with the operational necessities of practicing law. This involves not only individual commitment but also robust support from an autonomous and public-spirited bar association. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, so too will the understanding and execution of these multifaceted responsibilities, always aiming for a legal profession that is both deeply principled in its pursuit of justice and effectively responsive to the needs of its clients and society at large. The ongoing bengoshi moderu ronsō is a testament to this continuous effort to ensure the legal profession remains a vital and trusted institution.