한국 로스쿨(법학전문대학원)제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구-일본 로스쿨(법과대학원)제도의 운영 경험을 중심으로-

Abstract

Both Korean and Japanese Government decided to introduce the ‘law school system’ for reforming the long-debated problems such as the education system in the college of law, the bar-examination and the training system of the future legal professionals. While Korean government approved only small number of law schools by establishing the high criteria which were very difficult to reach. Japanese government approved many law schools if they passed the certain low criteria which were very easy to meet. Twenty-five law schools with 2,000 students in Korea started in March of 2009, while sixty-eight law schools with 5,600 students in Japan started in April of 2004. There are many similarities between Korean law school system and that of Japanese in that two systems are one of modified American-style law school. However, we can find more differences than we think, if we compare them in detail. During the five-year-experiences of operation, Korean law schools found some problems. We can separate the problems of Korean law school into two categories. One group of problems is short-term problems which are necessary for the soft landing of Korean law school system. The other group of problems is fundamental problems including the assertion of abolition of law school system itself. Short-term problems of Korean law schools are as follows, excessive financial burden of students because of expensive tuition, abnormal operation phenomena of law school curriculum because of the over-heated competition for good GPA and for the preparation of bar-examination, the criticism on the lack of law-related knowledge of law school graduates because of the shortage of learning time within 3 years of law school system, serious financial difficulties of each law school, the serious difficulties in finding the lawyer-jobs for the law school graduates and so on. From the opening of law school system, Japanese law schools have been in difficult situation because of fundamental problems such as imbalance between the number of law school(students) and number of successful applicants in Japanese Bar-examination. For example, only 26.8%(2,049) of applicants(7,653) could pass the Japanese Bar-exam. in 2013. Because of the above-mentioned problems, Japanese law schools have suffered from the shortage of applicant in entrance examination. In 2013, 64 law schools(93%) could not fill the entrance exam. quota of each law school, and only 2,698 students(63%) entered 69 law schools with the total quota of 4,261 students. The on-going process of reforming the Japanese law schools could be expected from the start of law school system. And the problems of Japanese law schools have been deteriorating from the opening year. Finally in August of 2012 the Central Government of Japan decided to establish ‘Committee of Ministers for the Reform of the Legal Professionals’ Education and Training’. And it was expected to finalize its duty in August of 2013. The Committee disclosed its final report in July 16th of 2013. According to the report, the Committee decided to maintain the current law school system for the time being. It decided to reform some easy problems of law school system, however it delayed its final decision regarding the difficult tasks such as the optimum number of lawyers in Japan in the future, the methods of reforming the low-performance law schools, preliminary-exam. system for the regular bar-exam.Japanese Government decided to create and operate the new special Committee composed of 6 related-Ministers and the Advisory Group composed of experts under its jurisdiction. The newly established Committee will deal with the fundamental reform of the Japanese law school systems including the fore-mentioned difficult tasks. The new Committee was established in September of 2013 and it will last for 2 years. From the lessons of the Japanese law school reform experience, there can be two approaches for Korean law schools. In the short term, Korean law schools have to improve the urgent problems arising from the 5 years of operation. In the long term, Korean law schools and Government had better wait and see the Japanese reform of law school system. Lastly, it is advisable that Korean Central Government and Korean Association of Law Schools should be prepared to learn from the Japanese law school reform experiences. And it is also advisable that Korean Central Government and National Assembly should establish the ‘Joint Committee’ to discuss the ‘Reform Plan’ of the Korean law schools.