리걸테크 관련 일본 변호사법의 현황과 쟁점 - 일본 변호사법 제72조를 중심으로 -

Abstract

This paper reviewed the related discussions focusing on Article 72 of the Japanese Lawyer Act, which prohibits the handling and mediation of legal affairs by non-lawyers among Japanese discussions on legal tech. Recently, in Korea, the position of the Ministry of Justice and the Korean Bar Association regarding the lawyer platform are divided. This paper has the character of providing data in terms of introducing the Japanese discussion, which was introduced individually in Korea, but was only a fragmentary introduction or relatively less introduced, and diversifying our discussion. Regarding Article 72 of the Attorney Act in Japan, the jurisprudence is based on the one criminal theory, which interprets that “the business is to ‘handle legal affairs or mediate for the purpose of obtaining remuneration’.” In other words, a non-lawyer activity is satisfied if all of these requirements are met : ① a person who is not a lawyer or a lawyer, ② the purpose of obtaining remuneration, ③ a legal case, ④ legal affairs, and ⑤ a business position to do so. On the other hand, with respect to arrangement under Article 72 of the Attorney Act, the lower court precedent refers to “the act of intervening between a party to a litigation case and a litigation agent upon receipt of an application to facilitate the establishment of a delegation relationship between the two parties, and no need to intervene by directly participating in the establishment of a delegation relationship”. In Japan, as the number of lawyers has increased in recent years, changes have occurred in the lawyer industry, and the methods of handling cases are diversifying. There are not a few lawyers or law firms who use Legal Tech in relation to the handling of cases. In response to this, in 2018, the Japan Bar Association passed the 「Guidelines for posting on websites that provide information on lawyers」 as a resolution of the board of directors. This guideline defined “arrangement” and “repair purpose” in more detail. ① When the information provider selects and processes lawyer information at the discretion of the information provider, ② When the information provider recommends the provision of legal services such as legal consultation and case handling, adjusts the interview date, ③ In case the content is processed by mediating communication between the viewer and the registered attorney through the website, except for cases where direct e-mail is sent, ④ In other cases, the website is actually sent to the viewer or the registered attorney by a lawyer or As an introduction to the handling of legal affairs, when it is judged that the provision of information on lawyers through the Internet is only a part of it, it is said that the mediation or reasonable grounds for suspecting the mediation are recognized. Article 34 (1) of the Korean Lawyer Act also stipulates that no one shall arrange a lawyer in relation to a legal case or the appointment of a legal service. Our jurisprudence states, “Arrangement refers to a mediation between a party to a legal case and the other party who handles legal affairs such as appraisal and representation, etc”. According to the theory, in order to rationally distinguish arrangement from introduction and inducement, it is argued that arrangement should be viewed as a specific act, such as mediating or mediating between the mediation client and the mediation target. In relation to legal tech, what is interpretatively important is how to view the “act of arranging or facilitating the convenience” in our case law or “concrete acts such as arranging or mediating” in theory. When developing a detailed interpretation of this, the Japanese discussion can be referred to some extent.