1

Pre-Proof Version,

Mayumi Nakamura, 2014, “Legal Reform, Law Firms, and Lawyer Stratification in

Japan,” Asian Journal of Law and Society, 1 (1), pp.99-123.

Legal Reform, Law Firms, and Lawyer Stratification in Japan/

The Effects of Gender and School Prestige on the Stratification of Japanese

Lawyers: Their Impacts on Initial Firm Sizes

Mayumi Nakamura*

Abstract

In many countries, the size of a law firm is closely related to the specialisations and

incomes of the lawyers it employs, and can be considered an index for disparities

among lawyers. Gender and school prestige may affect the size of the first firm that

lawyers join. Moreover, since the lawyer population has quadrupled over the last twenty

years in Japan, mainly due to judicial reform, I hypothesise that this population increase

has changed how gender and school prestige affect the size of the first firm law school

* Mayumi Nakamura is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Department of Economics, University of

Toyama, Toyama-shi, Japan. She has published articles on work and life balance and occupational

attainment of professional men and women, determinants of decreasing birth rate and marriage rate

, and gendered status attainment paths in Japan. She is currently editing a book on work and life

balance and occupational attainments of Japanese lawyers.

Direct correspondence to Mayumi Nakamura, Department of Economics, University of Toyama, 3190

Gofuku, Toyama-shi, Toyama-ken 930-8555, JAPAN. Email address is: mnakamur@eco.u-toyama.ac.jp. I

would like to thank Iwao Sato, the participants of Bengoshi Seido Kenkyukai, and anonymous referees

and editors for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank Japan

Federation of Bar Associations for kindly allowing us to analyze their Keizai Kiban Chosa data.

2

graduates decide to join. To test this, I conducted a secondary statistical analysis on the

effect of gender and school prestige on the size of the first firm that lawyers joined,

using survey data collected by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations in 2010.

Findings suggest that there were no significant differences in the size of women’s and

men’s first employer, but that school prestige was significant. Moreover, the importance

of school prestige has increased over the years.

Keywords: woman, gender, lawyer, work and life balance, stratification, education

I. Introduction

Does gender and school prestige contribute to the stratification of Japanese lawyers? If

so, do changes in the institutional environment, such as the vast increase in the lawyer

population and changes brought about by judicial reform, contribute to weakening such

stratification, providing more equal opportunities for various groups? Using census

data1 collected by the Japanese Bar Association in 2010, in this paper I conduct a

secondary analysis, examining the effect of lawyers’ gender and school prestige on the

size of the first law firms they decide to join,.

II. Background

In this section, I will provide an overview of basic information and theories of gender

and school stratification. First, I will present a basic picture of the career of Japanese

lawyers, judicial reform, and changes brought about by this reform. Second, I will

discuss the theories and previous findings on gender stratification both in Japan and

1 Sase (2011), p. 6-15.

3

overseas. Third, I will discuss the theories as well as the published literature on school

stratification in general and among lawyers. Finally, I will discuss why I focus primarily

on firm size (especially the size of the first employing firm) as an index of lawyer

stratification.

A. The Japanese Legal Profession and Education, Judicial Reform, and Changes to both

The Japanese legal profession and legal education have changed dramatically due to

judicial reform introduced in the 1990s and 2000s. This section begins with an overview

of the typical career path of Japanese lawyers, followed by a brief overview of the

judiciary reforms that changed legal education and the bar examination. This section

concludes with a discussion of the changes in the profession that were caused by these

reforms.

1. Careers of Japanese Lawyers

Legal professionals in Japan belong to one of the following three categories: lawyers,

judges, or prosecutors. There is a single entrance examination, the National Legal

Examination (NLE), for all three professions. Those who wish to become legal

professionals must pass the NLE and participate in a training program at the Legal

Training and Research Institute (LTRI), operated by the Supreme Court (Figure 2).

Upon graduation, graduates may choose to become judges, prosecutors, or lawyers; the

majority of LTRI graduates become lawyers (Figure 1).2 Before judicial reforms, the

number of people who passed the NLE was extremely low. From 1974 to 1990, the

2 Chan (2013), p. 322. Until recently, almost no one failed the graduation examination at the LTRI; the

number of entrants to the legal profession was determined by the number of people who passed the NLE.

4

passing rate of the second stage of the examination was approximately 2% or lower.3

As a result, the lawyer to population ratio in Japan was very small. In 1990, for instance,

the lawyer to population ratio was 1:7099 in Japan, 1:339 in the U.S., 1:811 in the UK,

and 1:2362 in France.4 Given the difficulty of the NLE and the paucity of attorneys, in

Japan the legal profession has garnered considerable respect.

In addition to the overall paucity of lawyers, this resulted in the uneven geographical

distribution of attorneys. They have traditionally clustered in big cities, especially in

Tokyo, creating a shortage of attorneys in other areas. Of all attorneys, in 2001 47%

practiced in Tokyo and 14% practiced in Osaka.5 Of all the areas under the jurisdiction

of the district and domestic courts, in 2001 seventy-one had one or fewer lawyers.6

Lawyers traveling from those cities, as well as other law-related professionals – such as

tax accountants, patent attorneys, judicial scribers, and administrative scribers –

partially made up for the scarcity of lawyers in these peripheral areas.7

All Japanese lawyers have or belong to a single office, and they are classified into the

following five categories: (1) employed lawyers, (2) office sharers, (3) solo practitioners,

(4) solo principals with employed lawyers, and (5) partners.8 Lawyers in the second to

3 Ministry of Justice (2012). Those who studied for two years at a university and obtained 32 credits were

exempt from the first stage of the examination.

4 Japan Federation of Bar Associations (2012), p. 81. In 2012, the lawyer to population ratio was: 1:3471

in Japan, 1:257 in the U.S., 1:417 in the UK, and 1:1051 in France.

5 Japan Federation of Bar Associations, supra note 4, p. 114.

6 Ministry of Justice, supra note 3.

7 Rokumoto (1995), p. 164.

8 Ibid., p. 167.

5

the fifth categories are called “employer lawyers”. The typical career path for Japanese

lawyers is the following: pass the NLE and finish training at the LTRI, join a

pre-existing law firm as an employee lawyer and receive on-the-job training, and

eventually become an employer lawyer, either through promotion to partner status

within the same firm or by founding (or cofounding) a new, independent office.9

“Partners” are a “new invention”, 10

introduced as the size of international law firms

have expanded rapidly after 2000, and the opportunity to work as associates and

partners for these firms has expanded.11

In 2000, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu, as

a result of e merger of two firms, became the first international law firm to have more

than one hundred lawyers.12

Because of recent increases in M & A and large-scale

finance cases – as well as the specialisation and internationalisation of the field of

business law – in the last ten years, large-scale international law firms have expanded.13

As of 2012, eight law firms with more than one hundred lawyers were operating in

Japan. With 465 lawyers, Nishimura Asahi is the largest of these firms, and all except

one are located in the Tokyo area.14

Fourteen firms have more than fifty lawyers, and

8% of all Japanese lawyers work at these firms.15

The percentage of lawyers who work

9 Ii (2011), p. 227.

10 Rokumoto, supra note 7, p. 164.

11 Yoshioka (2011), p. 59.

12 Ibid., p. 59.

13 Ibid., P. 59.

14 Japan Federation of Bar Associations, supra note 4, p. 122

15 Ibid.

6

at large firms (more than fifty lawyers) has increased from 4% in 2003 to 8% in 2013.16

The percentage of lawyers who belong to mid to large firms (eleven or more lawyers)

has increased from 13% to 22%.17

Over the course of their careers, the majority of lawyers work at a small number of

firms (experience 0.7 transfer on average)18

; they are most likely to work at one firm (no

transfer) as an employed lawyer and another as an employer lawyer (including

partner).19

Because most lawyers work at one firm as an employed lawyer, and because

16 Ibid.; Japan Federation of Bar Associations (2008), p. 108.

17 Ibid.

18 Ii (2011), supra note 9, p. 227.

19 Ishida (Forthcoming), According the survey conducted in 2008, among “employed lawyers” who work

in an office with one employer lawyer (master), those who worked at one firm (thus, no transfer) are

70.2% (male) and 83.0% (female), two firms 23.4% (male) and 11.3% (female), and three firms 6.4%

(male) and 5.7%(female). Among the employed lawyers who work in an office with more than two

(employer) lawyers, those who worked at one firm were 84.3% (male) and 68.5% (female), two firms

10.1% (male) and 21.2% (female), and three firms 4.5% (male) and 7.6% (female). Among employed

attorneys, those who worked at one firm were 84.3% (male) and 68.5% (female), two firms 10.1% (male)

and 21.2%, and three firms 4.5% and 7.6%. Although female attorneys are more likely to transfer as

employee attorney, those who stay with one firm as an employee attorney are still the majority. With

respect to employer lawyers, among those who are currently in solo practice, 16.3% of men and 4.3% of

women worked at only one firm, 63.8% of men and 61.0% of women worked at two firms, and 16.7% of

men and 24.1% of women worked at three firms. Of the employer lawyers with more than two (principal)

lawyers in the same firm, 20.3% of men and 20.9% or women worked at one firm, 46.4% of men and

53.1% of women worked at two firms, and 22.7% of men and 18.4% of women worked at three firms.

7

on-the-job training is conducted while they work as an employed lawyer, the type of

firms that lawyers join is crucial for their training. The transition from employee to

employer status occurs around the age of forty; of employee lawyers, 54.5% of men and

61.4% of women are in their 30s, and only 12.9% of men and 13.0% of women are in

their 40s.20

Lawyers are likely to transition from a larger firm (a firm with more than

two lawyers) to a smaller office (often solo practice).21

Moreover, the size of a firm is

closely related to the firm’s specialisation. For instance, those in solo practice, or small

firms, tend to specialise in family law, while those in very large firms tend to specialize

Although female lawyers are more likely than their male counterparts to work at more than one firm as

employee lawyer, those who work at only one firm as an employee lawyer remain the majority. Thus, the

majority of lawyers work at only one firm as an employed lawyer and one firm as an employer lawyer.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid. Among male employed lawyers, 20.9% belong to a solo practice (with one “master” and one

employed lawyer), 40.4% belong to firms with fewer than five lawyers, 16.4% belong to firms with fewer

than ten lawyers, 14.2% belong to firms with fewer than 50 lawyers, and 8% belong to firms with more

than fifty lawyers. Among the male employer lawyers, 55.3% are in solo practice, 24.6% belong to a firm

with fewer than five lawyers, 12.7% belong to firms with fewer than ten lawyers, 5.4% belong to firms

with fewer than fifty lawyers, and 1.3% belong to firms with more than 50 lawyers. Among female

employed lawyers, 12.5% are in solo practice (with one “master” and one employed lawyer), 33.7%

belong to firms with fewer than five lawyers, 21.9% belong to firms with fewer than ten lawyers, 19.0%

belong to firms with fewer than fifty lawyers, and 12.8% belong to firms with more than fifty lawyers.

Among female employer lawyers, 40.3% are in solo practice, 33.6% belong to firms with fewer than five

lawyers, 16.8% belong to firms with fewer than ten lawyers, 6.7% belong to firms with fewer than fifty

lawyers, and 2.6% belong to firms with more than fifty lawyers.

8

in international transactions.22

2. Judiciary Reforms and their Effects

The judicial reforms in Japan consisted of the following two key elements: increasing

the NEL pass rate and changing legal education. There were two waves of reforms: 1)

the reforms in the 1990s and 2) the justice system reform movement (late 1990s to

2001) and its implementation (post 2001).23

In the first wave of reforms, the number of

22 Nakamura (2009), p. 45. Among those who list “family” as their area of expertise, 40.3% are in solo

practice, 35.8% belong to a firm with fewer than five lawyers, 17.3% belong to a firm with five to nine

lawyers, 6.1% belong to a firm with ten to forty-nine lawyers, and only 0.5% belong to a firm with more

than fifty lawyers. Among those who list “family” as their area of expertise, 40.3% are in solo practice,

35.8% belong to a firm with fewer than five lawyers, 17.3% belong to a firm with five to nine lawyers,

6.1% belong to a firm with ten to forty-nine lawyers, and only 0.5% belong to a firm with more than fifty

lawyers. The following areas are common at solo offices: succession (44.0% are in solo practice), traffic

accidents (40.9%), environmental pollution (45.3%), real estate (41.4%), taxes (42.1%), criminal cases

(40.6%), and adult guardianship (41.3%). On the other hand, relatively larger firms are more likely to deal

with areas concerning corporate clients. The most conspicuous example is international business

transactions. Among those who specialise in international business transactions, only 9.7% work in solo

practice, 11.7% in a firm with fewer than five lawyers, 12.3% in firms with five to nine lawyers, 24.0% in

firms with ten to forty-nine lawyers, and 42.2% in firms with more than fifty lawyers. Although less

common, economic, company, intellectual property, and tax law are generally the specialties of attorneys

working for large firms.

23 Chan, supra note 2, p. 322. For a detailed discussion of factors involved in the judicial reforms in

Japan, please see Chan 2013.

9

people who passed the NLE gradually increased from 499 in 1990 to 994 in 2000.24

In

the second wave of reforms, the number of people who passed increased to 2133 in

2010.25

Thus, during the course of these two waves of reform, the number of people

who passed quadrupled. There reforms occurred because of various factors, including

changes in the role that law plays in Japanese society, the political environment, and its

economic development toward globalisation.26

In the course of the second wave of reforms, in 2004 the law school system was

introduced, and in 2006 the new NLE was introduced (Figure 2). Sixty-eight law

schools were established in 2004, followed by six more.27

Before the second round of

judicial reforms, in Japan law education was mostly carried out at the undergraduate

level. In the old system, people did not need a university or law degree, although the

majority of lawyers did have a university degree, leaving only 1.6% of lawyers without

a university degree in 1980.28

However, under the new law school system, two to three

years of graduate level education were required to qualify to apply for the new NLE

(Figure 2).29

24 Japan Federation of Bar Associations, supra note4, p. 119.

25 Ibid.

26 Chan, supra note 2, p. 332.

27 Ibid., p. 329.

28 Rokumoto, supra note 7, p. 165

29 The preliminary examination, which started in 2011, functions as a detour path to avoid the cost of

attending a law school. If a person passes the examination, he or she is allowed to take the new NLE

without attending law school (Nakanishi 2008, p.1). However, the pass rate for the preliminary

examination is quite low (1.78% in 2011, 2.40% in 2012), leaving attendance at law school the best

10

Due to the introduction of the new system and an increase in the number of lawyers,

competition among lawyers increased. The average income dropped from 17,010,000

yen in 2000 to 14,710,000 yen in 2010.30

Since lawyers no longer enjoy privileged

status and have difficulties finding jobs, the number of applicants to law schools

dropped from 72,800 in 2004 to 13,924 in 2013.31

Law schools are currently having

difficulties attracting sufficient numbers of students, and eight law schools have ceased

to – or plan to cease to – accept applications.32

On the other hand, the scarcity of

lawyers in peripheral areas has improved.33

In 2000, seventy-one district/domestic

court areas had one or fewer lawyers.34

In 2011, however, this figure dropped to two.35

To assess the judicial reforms, it is important to examine how they affected stratification

(increasing or decreasing disparities) among lawyers and law schools. Thus, this paper

focuses on not only the effects of gender and education on the size of a lawyer’s first

firm but also how the effects of gender and education on firm sizes change over

environmental changes such as increase in lawyer population caused by judicial reforms

B. Gender Stratification

option for becoming a legal professional (Ministry of Justice 2013).

30 Japan Federation of Bar Associations, supra note 4, p. 93.

31 Saitou (2013).

32 Ibid.

33 Ministry of Justice, supra note 3.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

11

In this section, I will briefly discuss a) theories on gender stratification, b) gender

stratification in Japan, and c) gender stratification among lawyers.

1. Theories on Gender Stratification

Theories regarding the sources of gender inequality in wages and status can be divided

between those that focus on supply and those that focus on demand. Human capital

theory represents the supply approach. Becker attributes gender inequality to how much

one invests in education and work experience.36

Women tend to invest more time and

resources into their homes and less into paid employment, which leads to differences in

wages and work status. On the other hand, the demand-side approach (gender

stratification theory) views “constraints and inefficiency in work structures and

employers” as the primary reasons for gender inequality. Women who are committed to

their careers are “penalised” because employers improperly evaluate their work.37

Women may also be willing to give up promotions, or are forced to do so, in order to

have flexible work hours.38

2. Gender Stratification in Japan

Japan is known as one of the most gender-stratified countries in the advanced world.

According to the Global Gender Gap Report, Japan ranked 105th

, due in part to its poor

representation of women among professionals.39

For instance, only a small percentage

36 Becker (1985), p. s33.

37 Kay and Hagan (1998), p. 729.

38 Ibid.

39 World Economic Forum (2013).

12

of female employees advance to administrative positions. Of companies with more than

100 employees, in 2013 only 8.1% of section chiefs and 15.3% of the subsection chiefs

were women.40

Gender stratification in Japan can be explained by both supply theory (human capital

theory) and demand theory (gender stratification theory).41

Under Japanese style

business management practices (e.g., life time employment), it becomes “rational” for

employers to employ more men and invest in more training for men than women.

Employers expect less long-term returns on their investment in the case of women,

since, on average, Japanese women work only intermittently, due to responsibilities

involving childcare. Since educational decisions are made early in life in Japan,

parents play a large role in their children’s educational decisions. Being familiar with

gender discrimination in the labor market, parents rationally invest more heavily in their

sons’ than their daughters’ education, which causes women to be less prepared for the

labor market than men.

Thus, for higher education, women are more likely to attend junior colleges than men

as well as major in humanities subjects.42

Known for its lifetime employment system, seniority wage system, and long working

hours, “Japanese style business management” structures the labour market and work

place. Due to statistical discrimination that results, this places Japanese working women

at a disadvantage.43

Companies that plan to hire invest heavily in their employees and

40 Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (2013)

41 Brinton (1993), p. 3.

42 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2013).

43 Satou (2012), p. 133.

13

expect to receive a long-term return on their investment. Thus, if women are expected to

have an intermittent working life due to responsibilities associated with child rearing,

companies are less likely to hire women. Since Japanese men work long hours, most

of the housework is left to their wives, which makes it difficult for Japanese women to

engage in full-time careers.

Working women worldwide bear a double burden at both work and home. However,

this situation seems to be even more difficult with Japanese working women.

Comparing time allocation for various activities among ten advanced countries shows

that, for dual career couples with a child under six, working wives spend more time on

household work and childcare than working husbands in all ten countries. Additionally,

in all ten countries, working wives work shorter hours than their working husbands.44

In Japan, the difference between the genders is more pronounced. Japanese men work

the longest hours and spend the least time on housework and childcare among husbands

from those ten countries, leaving most of the responsibilities for housework and

childcare to their wives.45

Japanese working husbands spend the longest hours at work

and commuting to and from work and the least time on housework and childcare.46

44 Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2006). International comparison of the time

allocation of working husbands and working wives with a child(ren) under six

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

Japan U.S. Belgium Germany France Hungary Finland Sweden U.K. Norway

Sleep 7.38 8.11 7.59 7.50 8.26 8.05 8.12 7.48 8.09 7.47

Work and Commute 7.30 6.37 5.04 4.58 5.29 5.23 5.48 5.11 5.56 4.57

HHC and Childcare 1.18 2.59 2.54 2.51 2.22 2.55 2.42 3.19 2.36 3.10

Free time 2.58 4.12 3.49 4.26 3.37 3.58 4.04 3.58 3.48 4.43

Sleep 7.37 8.32 8.23 8.06 8.40 8.23 8.21 8.08 8.17 8.02

Work and Commute 4.14 4.42 3.32 2.18 3.47 3.38 3.38 2.42 3.17 2.37

HHC and Childcare 4.57 5.02 4.53 5.14 4.48 5.35 5.08 5.21 5.20 5.21

Free time 2.22 3.33 3.17 4.15 2.46 3.05 3.22 3.53 3.22 4.44

Husbands

Wives

14

Thus, to avoid the double burden at home and at work, a considerable number of

Japanese women leave the labour force at childbirth. At childbearing age, participation

of Japanese women in the labour force declines (from 77.6% at age 25-29 to 67.7% at

35-39).47

In 2011, 63.7% of Japanese women left their jobs after marriage and the birth

of a first child,,48

resulting in the “dent” in the “M shaped curve” of the female labour

force participation rate across age groups for Japan.

3. Gender Stratification in the Legal Profession

The legal profession in other countries is stratified by gender. Women are

underrepresented among lawyers in almost all countries.49

There are gender differences

in terms of specialisation. Female lawyers tend to be less specialised than men and tend

to specialise in areas dominated by women, such as family law, and work with

individual clients from the lower to middle classes in a solo practice or in a small firm.50

The difference in pay between male and female lawyer ranges from 10 to 25 %.51

In

England and Canada, male lawyers are more successful in obtaining training at the place

of their choice, because men have greater support in social networks and share cultural

assets (cultural capital) with male partners at the firm, which can be advantageous in the

application process.52

The long working hours that law firms require (1,800 to 2,000

47 Cabinet Office (2013).

48 Ibid.

49 Schulz (2003), p. xxxvi. For instance, in the U.S., 27% of the lawyers were female in 2000.

50 Mather (2003), p. 36.

51 Shultz, supra note 49, p. xliv.

52 Ibid., p. xli.

15

billable hours on average in Canada) makes it difficult for female lawyers to raise a

family.53

Since the pre-war period, in Japan the legal profession has also been stratified by

gender. The old lawyer act introduced in 1893 only allowed men to be lawyers – until it

was reformed in 1933 – and universities did not accept female students until 1913.54

Limited access to higher education prevented women from obtaining a legal education.

In 1940, the first three women were admitted to the bar.55

The Japanese constitution

was developed in 1947, and the Fundamental Law of Education and the School

Education Law were introduced. Consequently, obstacles were lifted for Japanese

women, who were then allowed to attend a university law department. The NLE was

introduced in 1949, which opened the door for women to become not only lawyers but

also judges and prosecutors.56

However, the percentage of female lawyers remains low (Figure 1), and female

lawyers have a lower average income than their male counterparts. The percentage of

lawyers who were female was 0.1% in 1950, 0.7% in 1960, 2.1% in 1970, 3.7% in 1980,

5.6% in 1990, 8.9% in 2000, 16.2% in 2010, and 17.4% in 2012.57

The percentage of

female attorneys is growing steadily, especially since the reforms in the 1990s and

2000s.58

In 2010, the average income for male lawyers was 11,320,000 yen, and the

53 Kay and Hagan, supra note 37, p. 730.

54 Tsunoda (2007), p. 17.

55 Ibid., p. 19.

56 Ibid.

57 Japan Federation of Bar Associations, supra note 4, p. 113.

58 Ibid.

16

average income for female lawyers was 8,390,000 yen.59

Specialisations are different along gender lines.60

Except for international business

transactions and intellectual property, women are more likely to specialise in areas in

which they will address individual clients, while men are more likely to specialise in

areas that involve continuous work with company clients, which is more profitable.61

Moreover, the specialisation of Japanese female lawyers also differs by age.62

For

59 Ishida (2011), p. 27.

60 Nakamura, supra note 22, p. 42. Women are more likely to specialise in the following: family (45.8%

of male lawyers and 62.6% of female lawyers state that they specialise in this field), intellectual property

(5.0% of male lawyers and 9.7% of female lawyers state that they specialise in this field), international

transactions (6.5% of male lawyers and 12.7% of female lawyers state that they specialise in this field),

juvenile delinquency (12.9% of male lawyers and 19.9% of female lawyers state that they specialise in

this field) and adult guardianship (10.6% of male lawyers and 20.1% of female lawyers state that they

specialise in this field). Male attorneys are more likely to specialise in the following areas: traffic

accidents (38.9% of male lawyers and 25.0% of female lawyers state that they specialise in this field),

public administration (11.4% of male lawyers and 4.0% of female lawyers state that they specialise in this

field), company law (36.5% of male lawyers and 30.0% of female lawyers state that they specialise in this

field), bankruptcy law (3.1% of male lawyers and 21.4% of female lawyers state that they specialise in

this field), real estate law (44.8% of male lawyers and 22.9% of female lawyers state that they specialise

in this field), tax law (3.5% of male lawyers and 1.8% of female lawyers state that they specialise in this

field), and criminal law (30.0% and 20.4%). Respondents are allowed to declare more than one area of

specialisation.

61 Ishida, supra note 59, p. 28.

62 Nakamura, supra note 22, p. 43. For instance, older female lawyers are overrepresented in fields such

17

instance, older female lawyers are overrepresented in fields such as family law, while

younger women are overrepresented in international business transactions, intellectual

property, and company law.63

The size of law firms and the types of practice in which they engage are related to

gender stratification. Older female lawyers in Japan tend to practice family law,64

which is more likely to take place in solo practices or small law firms, which entails

relatively low income.65

On the other hand, the field of intellectual property contains a

as family law (44.6% of women in their 20s, and 80.7% of women in their 50s), while younger women

are overrepresented in international business transactions (18.5 of women in their 20s, 5.3 of women in

their 50s), intellectual property (12.0% of women in their 20’s, 6.1% of women in their 50s) and company

law (34.8% of women in their 20s, 25.4% of women in their 50s).

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Nakamura, supra note 4. Among female lawyers, the percentage of those who specialize in family law

by age are: 44.6% in their 20s, 54.5% in their 30s, 64.1% in their 40s, 80.7% in their 50s, and 84.2% in

their 60s. (The respondents were allowed to specify multiple areas of specialization) (p. 43). As shown

in another section, family law is more likely to be practiced in small firms (among those who specialize in

family law, 40.3% belong to a solo practice and 35.8% belong to firms with fewer than five lawyers) (p.

45). Those who specialize in family law tend to have a lower income, where 15.8% earn less than

5000000 yen, 40.4% earn 5010000 to 9990000 yen, 22.2% earn 10000000 to 15000000 yen, 11.2% earn

15000000 to 19990000 yen, and 10.4% earn more than 20000000 yen. Those who specialize in family

law have the highest percentage of lawyers in the lowest earning category (15.8% in the less than

5000000 yen category), followed by those who specialize in criminal law and juvenile delinquency

(19.9% and 17.8%). In contrast, among those who specialize in economic law, 6.3% earn less than

18

relatively high proportion of female lawyers in Japan.66

Additionally, young female

Japanese lawyers appear in relatively high proportions in extremely large firms.67

Thus,

there seem to be two contrasting tendencies for female Japanese lawyers. In addition,

Kaminaga suggest that there used to be open discrimination at the time of hiring,

including “low initial salaries, discouragement by interviewers, or priority being given

to male candidates”, and “one third of the recruiting firms had advertised posts as for

‘men only’”, although such practice was prohibited in the Equal Opportunity Act in

1999.68

Thus, it is important to investigate the effects of gender on lawyer stratification. This

hypothesis was made because of gender discrimination; female lawyers in older

generations faced more gender discrimination at the time of hiring than younger women,

and were unable to work for larger law firms in their first jobs, while female lawyers in

the younger generation are free from such discrimination. Thus, by examining the size

of the first firms at which lawyers work, this paper investigates whether there were and

5,000,000 yen, 26.8 earn 5,010,000 to 9,990,000 yen, 19.6% earn 10,000,000 to 14,990,000 yen, 13.4%

earn 15,000,000 to 19,990,000 yen, and 33.9% earn more than 20,000,000 yen.

66 Among all female lawyers, 9.7% specialize in intellectual property, while among all male lawyers,

5.0% specialize in that field (Nakamura, p. 42).

67 Nakamura, supra note 4. For instance, in the study conducted in 2008, among women in their 20s,

22.9% worked for firms with 11 to forty lawyers and 19.8% worked for firms with more than fifty

lawyers (p. 41). On the other hand, among women in their 50s, 46.7% belonged to a solo practice, 32.5%

were in firms with two to four lawyers, 11.7% were in firms with five to nine lawyers, 7.5% were in firms

with eleven to forty-nine lawyers, and 1.7% were in firms with more than fifty lawyers.

68 Kaminaga (2003), p. 473.

19

still are signs of gender discrimination at the time of hiring, and whether such a gender

gap has changed (improved) over the years.

C. School Stratification

1. Theories on School Stratification and School Stratification in Japan

In addition to gender, school stratification is another possible source of stratification

among Japanese lawyers. The sociology of education has long paid attention to

stratification across schools and elucidated the possible effects this stratification on the

future of students. For instance, “tracking” is a concept within the sociology of

education. Tracking means that the “school a student attends” can determine the range

of possible future career paths.69

Graduates from high schools of the highest

educational calibre are, for example, more likely to enrol in prestigious universities than

graduates from high schools of a lower educational calibre. The rank (or track) of a

school affects the educational and career aspirations, personalities, and determines the

future opportunities of those students.70

Moreover, according to signalling theory,71

attendance at prestigious schools can function as an index for those who have higher

abilities, and those who graduate from such institutions have advantages in the job

search. In addition, the alumni network of one’s alma mater can function as a type of

social capital, useful in the job search. In the search for jobs of new college graduates in

Japan throughout the 1980s, the network of OGs and OBs functioned as a “node”

69 Fujita (1980), p. 118.

70 Ishido (1985), p. 121-5.

71 Fukuda (2012).

20

between job applicants and companies, and provided opportunities for preliminary

semi-informal job interviews for job applicants.72

Thus, the type of institution one

attends can affect (and thus limit) possible job entry paths.

2. School Stratification in the Legal Profession

A similar tendency is evident among U.S. lawyers. In their analysis of Chicago lawyers,

Heinz et al.73

show that stratification is determined among lawyers by the prestige of

the law schools they attended, with those who graduated from prestigious law schools

tending to work for larger law firms. In the U.S., the American Law School Review

publicized the ranking system as early as 1902.74

Starting in 1990, the U.S. News and

World Report ranked law schools.75

Large law firms make hiring decisions based on

these rankings, which specifically help those from elite law schools.76

Moreover, the

types of law schools students attend and the size of law firms lawyers join are related to

class.77

Those who enter elite law schools are more likely to be from privileged

backgrounds, while those who attend low-tier law schools are more likely to be from

disadvantaged backgrounds.78

In Japan, rankings among universities (at the undergraduate level) are also public;

72 Kariya et al. (1993), p. 97.

73 Heinz, supra note 2, p. 57.

74 Jewel (2008), p. 1181.

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid., p. 1173.

78 Ibid.

21

hensachi is a detailed index indicating academic competitiveness of the entrance

examination for the individual departments of each university. Because law schools are

mostly affiliated with universities (at the undergraduate level) and share their

undergraduate law faculties, the hensachi of the undergraduate level also reflects the

academic competitiveness of affiliated law schools. Moreover, the rankings of each law

school – in terms of the percentage of people passing the NLE – are available publicly.79

As indices that evidence stratification among universities and law schools are made

available, it is possible to observe similar stratification among Japanese lawyers as well,

based on school prestige. This article attempts to illustrate such stratification among

Japanese lawyers based on school prestige.

Moreover, if stratification exists among lawyers, it can be affected by institutional

changes, especially changes in the supply and demand for the lawyers. In their analysis

of Chicago lawyers, Heinz et al.80

show that the percentage of lawyers from local

schools in large law firms increased over a twenty-year period (1975 to 1995),

attributing this rise to increases in the size of law firms during that period and the

increased demand for lawyers. Thus, with regard to the Japanese system, vast changes

in the supply and demand for lawyers caused by institutional changes (especially

judicial reforms) can be identified as causes for stratification among lawyers.

D. Why Do We Care About the Size of Law Firms?

As discussed in previous sections, the size of law firms is closely related to lawyers’

79 Shikakuseek (2013).

80 Heinz, supra note 2, p. 58.

22

specialisations and income, and is, therefore, an important factor in the stratification of

lawyers. According to a study on Chicago lawyers, for instance, Heinz et al. contend

that “the distinction between lawyers who represented large organisations and those

who represented individuals or the small businesses owned by individuals” were like

“two hemispheres.”81

Law firm size is strongly related to lawyers’ income and the types

of practices in which they engage. Lawyers in large law firms tend to engage in fields

related to business law, which entail higher income, while lawyers who are solo

practitioners tend to engage in fields dealing with personal clients that entail lower

income.82

A similar tendency has been observed among Japanese lawyers. As discussed in

previous sections, the average income differs based on specialisation, and specialisation

is related to the size of the firm. In Japan, the average income for lawyers differs based

on specialisation as well. Those fields that represent personal clients (such as family

law) tend to have a lower average income, while those fields that represent enterprises

tend to have higher average income. Extremely large law firms with more than fifty

lawyers are particularly likely to deal with international law.83

Thus, law firm size is

closely related to the types of practice in which lawyers engage, the levels of income

they earn, such that law firm size can be considered a significant factor in lawyer

stratification in Japan.

E. Why Do We Focus On The Size Of A Lawyer's First Law Firm?

81 Ibid., p. 6-7.

82 Ibid., p. 100-5.

83 Nakamura, supra note 22, p. 45.

23

In this paper, the focus will be on the size of lawyers' first law firms. In the normal job

trajectory for Japanese lawyers, after passing the bar, they take legal training at LTRI

and then join a law firm as an employed lawyer, to engage in on-the-job training. As

discussed in previous sections, the majority of employed lawyers work for only one

firm as an employed lawyer. Thus, the size of a lawyer’s first firm determines the type

of OJT training he or she receives, which additionally determines the types of practices

and range of work available to that lawyer in the future. Thus, the size of a lawyer’s first

firm determines his or her future career opportunities and becomes, therefore, an

important indicator of lawyer stratification.

III. Hypothesis

How do gender and education affect stratification among lawyers, and how does their

effect change over time? Shavit and Blossfeld84

claim that gender disparities tend to

decrease over time, whereas disparities across class are harder to change. In Japan, a

strong correlation exists between the prestige of the universities students attend and

their socioeconomic backgrounds. A disproportionate number of students at Japan’s

most competitive academic institutions, such as the University of Tokyo, come from

families with the highest average incomes.85

Thus, school prestige is strongly

84 Shavit and Blossfeld (1996), p. 233.

85 Kariya (2001), p. 136. Kariya shows that students from families of the highest socioeconomic strata

are overrepresented among students at the most competitive academic institutions, such as the University

of Tokyo. The families of students at the University of Tokyo, for instance, have very high average annual

24

correlated with social class. Most likely, such a correlation between school prestige and

social class also applies in the case of the education of Japanese lawyers, with the

prestige of one’s school reflecting the social class of one’s family.

Thus, it is predicted that structural changes (e.g., the vast increase in the lawyer

population due to judicial reforms, and intensified competition among lawyers) lead to a

decrease in gender disparity, while they either have no effect on or lead to an increase in

socio-economic disparity by educational background. Thus, the following hypotheses

are tested using data regarding Japanese lawyers.

Hypotheses regarding gender:

Hypothesis 1-a: The size of the lawyer’s first firm is related to a lawyer’s gender.

Female lawyers tend to start with smaller firms than male lawyers.

Hypothesis 1-b: The effect of gender has decreased over time.

Hypothesis 1-c: The effect of gender has decreased since the introduction of the

judicial reforms.

Hypotheses regarding school prestige:

Hypothesis 2-a：The size of a lawyer’s first firm is related to the prestige of a lawyer's

school. Lawyers from prestigious institutions are more likely to join large firms than

lawyers from less prestigious institutions.

Hypothesis 2-b: The effect of school prestige has increased over time.

Hypothesis 2-c: The effect of school prestige has increased since the introduction of the

judicial reforms.

incomes (more than 10,000,000 yen).

25

IV. Data and Variables

The data used in this analysis comes from a survey titled “Bengoshi gyomu no keizaiteki

kiban ni kansuru jittai chosa hokokusho (Keizai Kiban Chosa),” which was conducted

in 2010 by the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations.86

This survey, which is

conducted every ten years, is the most inclusive and most authoritative survey

concerning Japanese lawyers. The data is based on a stratified random sampling of

lawyers listed as full members. (Those listed as semi-members as well as those who

registered after 2009 were excluded from the analysis). A questionnaire was sent to one

thousand lawyers (two thousand women and eight thousand men, with women being

oversampled). The return rate was 15.7%. Although the return rate seems low, the rate is

actually above average for mail surveys of lawyers in Japan.

The dependent variable for analysis is the size of lawyers' first firms. Independent

variables include the gender and educational institutions of respondents. I examine

whether gender and school prestige affect the size of lawyers’ first firms, and whether

such disparities change (or do not change) over time, especially after the introduction of

the judicial reforms.

V. Educational Institutions Included in the Analysis

For the institutional category, the seven individual universities (and affiliated law

schools) that had a considerable number of graduates (more than fifty) in the data are

86 For more detailed information on the data, refer to Japan Federation of Bar Associations (2011).

26

included in the analysis. Among those seven universities, two universities (A and B) are

former imperial universities, one university (C) is a pre-war public university (kanritsu

daigaku), and four universities are private (D, E, F, and G). Other universities are

categorised for inclusion in the analysis according to the following characteristics: 1)

other former imperial universities (besides Universities A and B), 2) other national

universities (besides Universities A, B, and C), 3) municipal universities (founded by

local governments), 4) private universities (besides Universities D, E, F and G), and 5)

foreign universities. Moreover, because most large law firms are located in Tokyo,

universities were also categorised in terms of location: whether they are in the Kanto

(Tokyo metropolitan) area.

To present the “tracks” for the seven individual universities included in this analysis,

descriptions of the schools from the law school guidebook, as well as the percentage of

their graduates who pass the bar, are shown in Table 1.87

Table 1 shows that the descriptions for universities A, D, and F emphasise

cutting-edge subjects. Cutting-edge subjects are mostly in the area of corporate law, and

therefore, these schools better prepare their students to find jobs in large-scale

international law firms. Thus, it is expected that graduates from these schools are more

likely to work for large firms.

VI. Analysis

A. The Effect of Gender on First Firm Size

87 For the analysis of school “tracks,” I followed the method used by Nakanishi (1993) p. 135-137 for

classifying “school tracks and charters” using information from guidebooks for Japanese high schools.

27

Table 2 shows the result of the OLS analysis of gender on first firm size. In Models 1 to

4, none of the coefficients for the main effect of gender were significant. Thus,

hypothesis 1-a (“Gender affects first firm size”) was not supported. Gender was not a

significant factor in determining first firm size at the outset.

B. The Effect of Gender on First Firm Size over Time

Next, is there a “change over time in the effect” of gender on first firm size? The results

in table 2 suggest that neither of the interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 were

significant. This outcome suggests that changes over time, including the introduction of

the reformed system, did not affect (i.e., did not improve or worsen) the equality or

inequality between genders, as far as first firm size is concerned.

Thus, at least as far as first firm size is concerned, no significant gender disparity was

found, nor were significant changes found over time, including possible changes caused

by the introduction of the reformed system. None of the gender-related hypotheses (1-a,

1-b, 1-c) were supported.

The fact that the effect of gender was not significant suggests that the gender gap

does not occur at the time of joining the first firm but sometime before or after that

period. The percentage of lawyers who are female remains low (Figure 1). This means

that the gender gap occurs prior to taking the NLE. Japanese women are more likely to

attend junior colleges than men (89% of junior college students are women), and

Japanese women traditionally select majors in humanities over the social sciences or

natural sciences; among university students, in 2013 66% of humanities students, 34%

28

of social sciences students, and 12% of Engineering students were women.88

Thus,

Japanese women are less likely to major in law (in Japan law belongs to the social

sciences). The gender gap also occurs after the first job. Women are more likely than

men to leave firms, citing “family (marriage, childbirth, childcare, and elderly care)” as

the main reason.89

Female lawyers work fewer hours than male lawyers (males work an

average of 2684.6 hours per year and females work an average of 2371.1 hours per

year).90

Moreover, the specialisations of lawyers differ by gender, as shown in a

previous section (Section B-3). Thus, constraints and inefficiencies most likely present

themselves “after” joining the first law firm.91

C. The Effect of Education on First Firm Size

In this section, the effects of education on the size of lawyers’ first firms are examined.

In Tables 2 and 3, seven individual universities (Universities A to G) and four categories

are contrasted with the base category (“other private universities”), in terms of their

effect on first firm size.

Models 1 to 4 suggest that the effects of “University A,” “University D,” and “foreign

88 Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 2013.

89 Asaoka (2009), p. 31. For those under thirty nine, among males who leave firms, only 1.5% cite

“family” as the main reason, and among females who leave firms, 12.6% cite “family” as the reason; for

those over forty, among males who leave firms, 0% cite “family” as the reason, and among females who

leave firms, 12.5% cite family as the reason).

90 Ishida supra note 59, p. 28.

91 More discussion of this point will follow in the discussion section.

29

universities” on first firm size differ significantly from the base category. In Model 1,

“University F” is also significantly different from the base category. Thus, compared to

the base category “other private universities,” those lawyers who graduated from

Universities A, D, and F, and foreign universities tend to join law firms of significantly

different sizes. For instance, in Model 1, those who graduated from University A tended

to join larger law firms than those who graduated from “other private universities,” with

a difference of approximately forty-six lawyers. Those who graduated from Universities

D and F tended to join larger law firms than those who graduated from universities in

the base category (with a difference of approximately twenty-five and twelve lawyers,

respectively). Universities A, D, and F are located in Kanto (the Tokyo metropolitan

area) and emphasised their strengths in cutting-edge subjects (sentan kamoku) in their

school descriptions from the law school guidebook. These factors may have contributed

to their graduates finding jobs at large-scale international law firms. Those who

graduated from foreign universities (or foreign law schools) also tended to work for

large firms.92

Large-scale law firms are international, and it is understandable that those

who had studied law in foreign countries would be overrepresented in law firms of this

type. In fact, as Rokumoto notes, most international firms send their young associates to

study abroad in Western countries as well as to obtain a legal education and training”.93

Thus, it is understandable that those who graduate from foreign universities are

overrepresented in the population of people working for large-scale, international law

92 Lawyers who attended foreign universities (law schools) tended to do so after graduating from

Japanese universities.

93 Rokumoto, supra note 7, p. 168.

30

firms.

D. The Effect of Education on First Firm Size over Time

Has the effect of a lawyer’s alma mater on the size of his or her first firm changed over

time? Models 5 and 6 of Table 3 show the results of the analysis addressing this

question. Model 5 examines long-term changes in the effect of one’s alma mater across

different cohorts of legal apprenticeship. Model 6 examines changes over time

surrounding the introduction of the law school system associated with the legal reforms.

In Model 5, which examines long-term effects, the interaction effects for University

A, University D, and foreign universities are significantly different from the base

category (“other private universities”) in terms of the size of the first firms, and the

coefficients are positive. Thus, for every younger cohort (using ten-year cohort groups),

the average size of the first firm for University A graduates becomes larger by

twenty-six people than that of graduates from the base category (“other private

universities”) every year. For University D graduates, the average size of the first firm

becomes larger by eighteen people, and for foreign university graduates, fifty-six people.

Thus, the gap between most elite schools and “other” schools widens every year.

In Model 6, which examines changes surrounding the introduction of law schools and

the bar exam system, the interaction effects for Universities A and F are significantly

different from the base category (“other private universities”), and the coefficients are

positive. After the introduction of the reformed system, graduates of Universities A and

F joined firms that are significantly larger (156 lawyers and fifty-six lawyers on average,

respectively) than the base category (“other private universities”).

31

Thus, the disparity in first firm size between graduates from elite schools and those

from other schools has widened over time, in the long term and since the introduction of

the reformed system.

VII．Discussion

The effect of gender did not significantly affect first firm sizes, while the effects of

one’s school were significant. Thus, gender does not initially stratify Japanese lawyers,

at least at the time of entry into an attorney’s first firm. Entry into one’s first firm is

decided more by merit than gender. This is in agreement with the finding that, among

Harvard law school graduates, women were more successful at obtaining a job in large

elite firms than men, although more than one half of men became partners within ten

years, while only one quarter of women did so.94

During the old NLE era, Japanese

lawyers belonged to an extremely elite occupation; from 1974 to 1990, approximately

2% or fewer of applicants passed the NLE.95

The extreme selectivity of that process

may have spared women from encountering discrimination at the time of their entry into

the job market, which is similar to the data reported on women from Harvard. Moreover,

the fact that law firms do not follow “typical” Japanese style employment practices (e.g.,

lifetime employment) and the majority of employed lawyers leave their firms to become

independent, facilitates law firms in hiring women as lawyers.

Thus, with regard to the two approaches that purport to explain gender stratification,

supply theory (human capital) and demand theory (gender stratification theory), the

94 Kay and Hagan, supra note 37, p. 729.

95 Ministry of Justice (2010).

32

former has more explanatory power, at least in terms of the size of first firms. Female

lawyers have excellent human capital, are chosen on merit, and do not seem to face

outright discrimination at the time of entry into their first firms.

This does not mean, however, that gender stratification among Japanese lawyers does

not exist. Differences exist in average incomes and specialisations, as was shown in

previous sections. These findings suggest that gender differences occur “before” and

“after” entry into one’s first firm. As discussed in previous sections, the percentage of

women who major in social sciences is lower than men. In 2012, among those who

applied for the NLE, only 24.3% were women, and among those who passed the NLE,

only 25.9% were women.96

Thus, women are less likely to attend a four-year university

than men, are less likely to study law than men, and are less likely to take the NLE than

men. Therefore, gender stratification occurs “prior to” entry into one’s first firm.

Moreover, gender stratification also occurs “after” the time of entry into one’s first

firm. As was shown in the previous section, women are more likely than men to leave

their firms, citing “family” reasons. In addition, in response to the question “Have you

ever thought about quitting your job?” 43.2% of women answered yes, while only

27.2% of men answered in the affirmative.97

Thus, after women embark on their first

job, they seem to encounter severe enough difficulties that they consider leaving their

jobs significantly more than men. Women who stated that “demonstrating one’s abilities”

is a reason for becoming a lawyer, and those who stated that they experienced “gender

discrimination in terms of the job content and distribution of work,” were more likely to

have thought about leaving their jobs (odds ratios of 1.401 and 1.813, respectively,

96 Eru Paaku Sendai (2012).

97 Matsuda (2009), p. 86.

33

which are both significant at 5%).98

Thus, the "constraints and inefficiency in work

structures and employers”, as described by gender stratification theory, do play a role in

generating gender stratification in Japan, “after” entry into one’s first firm.

Future research is required to investigate what occurs “prior to” and “after” entry

into one’s first firm, which causes the gender gap among lawyers.

On the other hand, school prestige did affect the size of one’s first firm, and this

effect is increasing, but in an unexpected way. The differences were expected to occur

across different school types according to prestige and history (e.g., that former imperial

universities would do better than the reference category). However, the difference did

not occur in terms of school types, and only occurred between a limited number of elite

individual institutions (e.g. Universities A, D, and F) versus the rest. University A was

the most striking example, where its graduates are overrepresented as new entrants to

very large institutions, and this trend has increased. There were even differences

between elite former imperial universities A and B. Although school prestige appears

to be important, other factors are also involved. A curriculum emphasising cutting edge

subjects is one such factor affecting the success of a graduate to secure a position at a

large elite firm. Thus, human capital seems to play a role in being hired by large firms.

However, there is also evidence that a signalling effect is at work. A partner from one

of Japan’s big four law firms said, “Due to the introduction of the new bar exam system,

the role of alma mater has increased. Before the judicial reform, a very limited number

of people passed the bar. The fact that someone passed the bar could provide assurance

of her/his ability. However, as the number of lawyers increases rapidly, passing the bar

in itself can no longer ensure the ability of the person. Thus, school prestige became

98 Ibid., p. 92.

34

more important at the time of hiring as an index for ability.” This suggests that one’s

school can be used as a marker of innate abilities. Further investigation is required to

explain the factors involved in this phenomenon.

VIII. Conclusion

This paper examined the effects of gender and alma mater on the size of Japanese

lawyers' first firms and changes in such effects over time. The results of the analysis

showed that gender has no significant effect on the size of one’s first firm. Thus, none of

the hypotheses regarding gender were supported.

However, it is too early to determine that gender does not matter in the career tracks

of Japanese lawyers. Although no significant gender differences were found in terms of

one’s first firm size, there is a significant gender disparity in terms of current overall

specialisations and incomes for Japanese lawyers, as was discussed in previous sections.

The findings of this paper suggest that gender disparity does not arise mainly at the

beginning of one’s career (affecting first firm size) but during stages in the middle of

one’s career, during child-rearing years. A considerable percentage of female Japanese

lawyers list “family-related reasons” as an explanation for job changes, while few male

lawyers do so.99

Thus, although young female lawyers in Japan do not start out their

careers differently than their male counterparts, their careers change as they approach

child-rearing years.

According to Japanese lawyers I interviewed, female lawyers commonly change their

specialisations and work settings to make their careers more compatible with family life.

99 Asaoka, supra note 89, p.31.

35

One female lawyer said she began to specialise in high-interest issues (cresara

mondai)100

because this field does not require continuous education in new knowledge

and skills, thus allowing her to spend more time caring for her family. Another female

lawyer who formerly worked for a large-scale international law firm was loaned out to a

public institution after she gave birth to her first child. Moreover, female lawyers who

work for large international law firms tend to specialise in “research jobs,” which allow

for a more flexible work schedule. Yet, specialising in such research jobs deprives

female lawyers of opportunities in dealing with clients directly and in developing the

connections and skills required to obtain new clients, experiences that are necessary if

they wish to remain in a firm and become partners. Thus, the findings in this paper point

to the importance of focusing on mid-career stages to elucidate the mechanisms of

gender disparity among Japanese lawyers.

Regarding the effects of one’s alma mater, disparities were found between a limited

number of elite schools and the base category in terms of first firm size, and this

disparity is increasing over time, both in the long term and since the introduction of the

reformed system.

Regarding disparity across schools, I expected that a disparity would be widely

observable across different categories of establishments (e.g., former imperial

universities, other national universities, municipal universities, and private universities)

and across schools with different levels of academic calibre. Yet, the disparity was only

observed between a limited number of individual elite schools and the rest of the

100 A high interest issue refers to an issue related to and caused by credit card companies and consumer

loan companies, such as multiple debts, severe collection, illegally high interest rates, illegal firms, and

reimbursement of overpayment.

36

schools, rather than across categories. For instance, Universities D and E are often

considered to have the same overall academic calibre and are often compared. Yet,

regarding first law firm size, graduates from University D worked for larger firms

significantly more than graduates from universities in the base category, while graduates

from University E did not. At those universities, the emphasis on cutting-edge subjects

may have helped their graduates to secure positions at large-scale international firms.

The most striking finding concerned University A. Its graduates seem to secure the most

jobs at the largest firms by far. This tendency is increasing over time, as well as since

the introduction of the reformed system.

The introduction of the reformed system appears to be an equalising process. It has

increased the number of law schools throughout Japan and opened the door to a wider

range of people with a wider range of backgrounds. However, under this seeming

process of equalisation, hidden inequalities and disparities among lawyers may be on

the rise.

37

References

Asaoka, Makoto (2009) “Hoso Shoku ni okeru Nyushoku Keiro to Chiitassei no Gendaa

kan Hikaku,” in M. Nakamura, ed., Iryo Hososhoku Josei no Kennkyu: Shokuba to

Katei ni okeru Seibetsu Yakuwari Bungyo to Kaisou. Reports submitted for

Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research. 25-37.

Becker, Gary (1985) “Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor.” 3

Journal of Labor Economics. S33-58.

Cabinet Office (2013) “Danjo Kyodo Sankaku Hakusho”

http://www.gender.go.jp/about_danjo/whitepaper/h25/zentai/index.html (accessed

28 October 2013).

Eru Paaku Sendai (2012) “Sankaku no Heya,”

http://www.sendai-l.jp/chousa/data05.html (accessed 28 October 2013).

Fujita, Hidenori (1980) “Shinro Sentaku no Mekanizumu” in Yamamura Ken & Amano

Ikuo, eds., Seinenki no Shinrosentaku.,Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 105-29.

Fukuda, Mitsuhiro (2012) “Kyouiku to Keizai Shakai wo kangaeru Dainikai Kyouiku

Keizaigaku no Kihon: Jinteki Shihonron, Sigunaringu riron, Kyouiku Seisan

Kansuu,” http://www7.ocn.ne.jp/~mfukuda/edec02.pdf (accessed 28 Obtober

2013).

Heinz, John, & Edward O. Laumann (2005) Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of

the Bar, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 467-82.

Ii, Takayuki (2011) “Jimusho Iten no Keikou to Karia Pasu.” 62 Jiyu to Seigi 227-8.

Ishida, Kenji & Miwa Satoshi (Forthcoming) “Bengoshi no Kyaria Ido ni mirareru

Gendaasa,” in M. Nakamura, ed., Bengoshi no Waaku Raifu Baransu, Tokyo:

Akashi Shoten.

38

Ishida, Kyoko (2011) “Josei Bengoshi no Tokuchou.” 62 Jiyu to Seigi 27-8.

Ishido, Noritsugu (1985) “Gakko soshiki no shakaiteki kinou” in Shibano Shozan, ed.,

Kyoiku Shakaigaku wo Manabu Hito no tameni, Tokyo: Sekaishisosha, 111-27.

Japan Federation of Bar Associations (2011) 62(6) Jiyu to Seigi.

______________________________ (2012) Bengoshi Hakusho 2012 nendoban.

Tokyo: Japan Federation of Bar Associations.

Jewel, Lucille A. (2008) “Bourdieu and American Legal Education: How Law Schools

Reproduce Social Stratification and Class Hierarchy.” 56 Buffalo Law Review

1155-224.

Kaminaga, Yuriko (2003) “Women Lawyers in Japan: Contradictory Factors in Status”

in Ulrike Schultz & Gisela Shaw, eds., Women in the World’s Legal Professions,

Oxford-Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing, 467-82.

Kariya, Takehiko, Yuki Okitsu, Keiko Yoshiwara, Hisashi Kondou, & Takayasu

Nakamura (1993) “Senpai Kohai Kankei ni Umekomareta Daisotsu Shushoku.” 32

Tokyo Daigaku Kyoiku Gakubu Kiyou. 89-118.

Kariya, Takehiko (2001) Kaisoka Nihon to Kyoikukiki, Tokyo: Yushindou.

Kay, Fiona M. & John Hagan (1998) “Raising the Bar: The Gender Stratification of

Law-Firm Capital.” 63 American Sociological Review. 728-43.

Mather, Lynn (2003) “Gender in Context: Women in Family Law,” in Ulrike Schultz &

Gisela Shaw, eds., Women in the World’s Legal Professions, Oxford/Portland

Oregon: Hart Publishing, 33-47.

Matsuda, Noriko (2009) “Bengoshi no Shigoto wo Yametai Keiken no Youin Bunseki:

Bengoshi no Rishoku Koudou no Danjo Hikaku,” in M. Nakamura, ed., Iryo

Hososhoku Josei no Kennkyu: Shokuba to Katei ni okeru Seibetsu Yakuwari

39

Bungyo to Kaisou. Reports submitted for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research.

81-94.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2013) “25 nendo-ban

Gakko Kihon Chosa Sokuhou),”

http://www.estat.go.jp/SG1/estat/NewList.do?tid=000001011528 (accessed 20

October 2013).

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2006) “Seikatsu Jikan Haibun no

Kakkoku Hikaku,”

http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001009957&cycode=0

(accessed 28 October 2013).

Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (2013) “Danjo Koyou Kikai Kintou Kankei

Shiryou (Kaiteiban),”

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000002nc3d-att/2r9852000002nc93.pdf

(accessed 28 October 2013).

Ministry of Justice (2010) “Kyu-Shiho Shiken Dainiji Shiken Shutuganshasuu

Goukakushasuu no Suii,” http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000054973.pdf (accessed

28 October 2013).

_______________ (2011) “Heisei 23nen Shin-Shihoshiken no Kekka ni tuite,”

http://www.moj.go.jp/jinji/shihoushiken/jinji08_00030.html (accessed 1 September

2013).

____________ (2012) “Hoso Jinko ni kansuru Kisoteki Shiryou”

http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000108947.pdf (accessed 28 October 2013).

____________ (2013) “Shiho Shiken Yobi-shiken no Kekka ni tuite,”

http://www.moj.go.jp/jinji/shihoushiken/jinji07_00027.html (accessed 28 October

40

2013).

Nakamura, Mayumi (2009) “Hoso no Senmon Bunya to Gendaa” in M. Nakamura, ed.,

Iryo Hososhoku Josei no Kennkyu: Shokuba to Katei ni okeru Seibetsu Yakuwari

Bungyo to Kaisou. Reports submitted for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research.

39-52.

Nakanishi, Kazuhiro (2008) “Shiho Shiken Yobishiken wo meguru Shomondai.” 3 Hoso

Taisaku Shitsuho 1-16.

Nakanishi, Yuko (1993) “Jendaa Torakku: Seiyakuwarikan ni motoduku Shinro Bunka

Mekanizumuni kansuru Kosatsu.” 53 Kyoiku Shakaigaku Kenkyuu 131-54.

N publisher (2012) gaido 2012 nendo ban.

Rokumoto, Kahei(1995) “The Present State of Japanese Practicing Attorneys: On the

Way to Full Professionalization?,” in Richard L. Abel and Philip S.C. Lewis, eds.,

Lawyers in Society: An Overview, Berkeley: University of California Press, 160-99.

Saitou, Takeshi (2013) “Houka Daigakuin no Nani ga Mondai data noka,”

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/life/news/130722/edc13072216260000-n1.htm

(accessed 28 October 2013).

Sase, Masatoshi (2011) “Chosa no Gaiyo. ” 62 Jiyu to Seigi 6-15.

Satou, Hiroki (2012) “Seikatsu Jikan Haibun: Seikatsu to Shigoto no Chowa wo

motomete,” in H. Satou & A. Satou, eds., Shigotono Shakaigaku: Henbousuru

Hatarakikata (kaitei-ban) Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 131-48.

Shavit, Yossi, & H.P. Blossfeld (1996) “Equalizing Educational Opportunity: Do

Gender and Class Compete?” in Robert Erikson & J.O. Jonsson, eds., Can

Education Be Equalized?: The Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective,

Boulder: Westview Press, 233-53.

41

Shikakuseek (2013) “Shin-Shihoshiken Kakushu Rankingu Deeta,”

http://laws.shikakuseek.com/data/index.html (accessed 28 October 2013).

Shultz, Ulrike (2003) “Introduction,” in Ulrike Schultz & Gisela Shaw, eds., Women in

the World’s Legal Professions, Oxford/Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing, xxv-lxii.

Tsunoda, Yukiko (2007) “‘Danshi tarukoto’ ni Ketsubetsu shite,” in Japan Federation of

Bar Associations Ryosei no Byodou ni Kansuru Iinkai, ed., Josei Bengoshi no

Ayumi: 3 nin kara 3000 nin he, Tokyo: Akashi Shoten, 1-20.

World Economic Forum (2013) “Global Gender Gap Report,”

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2013.pdf (accessed 28

October 2013).

Yoshioka, Suzuka (2011) “Daikibo Horitsujimusho Bengoshi Hojin no Tokuchou.”

62(6) Jiyu to Seigi 59-60.

Notice: To avoid identification of universities included in these analyses, I changed the

name of the publisher of the law school guidebook.

42

Table 1: Descriptions of seven individual universities101

101 N publisher (2012); Ministry of Justice (2011). Translation is mine.

U nivers ity

N ameA B C D E F G

Founder National (imperial

un iversity in

prewar period)

National (imperial

un iversity in

prewar period)

National (national

un iversity in

prewar period)

Private Private Private Private

R eg ion Kanto Kinki Kanto Kanto Kanto Kanto Kanto

B old tex t from

the top of the

description of

each s chool in

the g u idebook

Top-quality

education with a

long term

perspective .

Cu ltivation of a

lawyer's core skills

and train ing for

leading ro les in a

variety of cutting-

edge fie lds.

Train ing creative

lawyers who will

defend the

foundations of a

free and fair

soc iety.

Train ing h igh ly-

skilled lawyers with

a strong sense of

public duty, who

will strive to enrich

c ivil soc iety.

Train ing lawyers

who will assume

leading ro les in the

21st century.

Promoting the

continued

evolution of

education , and

train ing capable

lawyers who will

rise to the

challenges of the

times.

Fu lly prioritizing

our students, we

train lawyers who

will be able to

practice

successfu lly in

various fie lds.

Train ing spec ialized

lawyers who

respect human

rights, value

individuality, and will

play leading ro les in

the 21st century.

3-yea r cours e

(未修者）75 35 25 70 120 70 80

2-yea r cours e

（既修者）165 125 60 160 150 200 90

P as s ra te of

the new ba r

ex am

50.5 54 .6 57 .7 48 31.9 38 .2 24

Responding to the

demand for both

" legal generalists"

who can practice

successfu lly in

various areas as

well as for legal

spec ialists, we

offer a variety of

deve loping and

cutting-edge

courses.

Promoting our

mottos of "rights

and freedom" and

"independence

and se lf-

government" as

qualities that are

indispensable for

lawyers in the 21st

century...we

continue to bu ild

on our princ iples

of "respect for

human rights" and

"valu ing

individuality" .

Lead ing

pa rag raphs f rom

the descrip tion

of each s chool

in the

gu idebook

We aim to train

h igh ly skilled

lawyers who are

motivated to

contribute to c ivil

soc iety, have a

strong sense of

responsibility and

eth ics, and will

practice in

international and

cutting-edge

fie lds.

The main purpose

of our course is to

enable our

students to

deve lop a

systematic

understanding of

the princ iples of

the legal system,

and to cu ltivate a

fine ly-tuned

faculty for logical

th inking and the

strong sense of

responsibility

requ ired by

lawyers, in a free

and open-minded

educational

We aim to train

lawyers who will

strive to enrich

c ivil and legal

soc iety as h igh ly

cu ltivated and

imaginative

professionals with

a strong sense of

the public good.

In order to enable

our graduates to

assume leading

roles in areas such

as corporate ,

financ ial,

international and

inte llectual

property law, we

train our students

to acqu ire both

broad-based and

in-depth

knowledge in

developing and

cutting-edge

fie lds .

We accept

students from a

wide variety of

backgrounds, and

have educated

many lawyers who

have risen to the

challenges of

successfu l

practice in various

fie lds.

43

Table 2: Results of the analysis (Models 1 to 4)

** p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<0.5; †p<.10

44

Table 3: Results of the analysis (Models 5 to 6)

*** p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<0.5; †p<.10

Note: The interaction effect for foreign universities with the reformed system was

excluded from the analysis due to the lack of cases in that category after the

introduction of the new system.

45

Figure 1: The number of people who became judges, prosecutors, and attorneys, and the

percentage of attorneys who are females after the completion of training at the LTRI.

Source: Japan Federation of Bar Association (2012) Bengoshi Hakusho p.80

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500 1

98

5

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

Judges Prosecutors Attorneys

Other Judges (%female) Prosecutors (%female)

Attorneys (%female)

46

Figure 2: Education and Training in the Old and New Systems