This paper is a comparative discussion of the attorney disciplinary systems in Washington State and Japan. By comparing the two disciplinary systems, this paper addresses one hypothesis about the dynamics of an attorney disciplinary system in a society.
A review of both disciplinary systems shows that the two systems have several points in common. However, the two systems are significantly different in terms of their relationship to the public. I propose two models derived from the distinctive characters of two disciplinary systems: a "Public Collaboration Model" and a "Public Persuasion Model." The Public Collaboration Model uses citizens to operate the attorney disciplinary system with attorneys, whereas the Public Persuasion Model uses only attorneys to do so. An attorney disciplinary system is not a fixed system in a society. It dynamically changes according to the number of attorneys and public awareness from Public Persuasion Model to Public Collaboration Model. The attorney disciplinary system in Washington State is close to Public Collaboration Model whereas the disciplinary system in Japan today is rather close to Public Persuasion Model. However, it is doubtful that Japan will maintain the current disciplinary system in the future because there are sufficient factors which may shift current system toward the Public Collaboration Model.
Regardless of the jurisdiction, an attorney discipline system is not just a matter that ends with the relationship between a respondent attorney and a client, but involves the whole society where a respondent attorney practices law. The structure of the disciplinary system reflects not only the view of attorneys in the society but also the attitude of the general public.