^NOTES

^* Associate Professor, Kansai Gaidai University.

^** Assistant Professor, College of Business Administration, North Dakota State University.

^3. Richard Kanter, Small-Firm American Lawyers Could Help Small American Companies in Japan, but the Door is Still Shut. 21 LAW IN JAPAN 49, 54 (1988), U.S. Trade Representative, National Trade Estimates Report on Foreign Trade Barriers 167 (March 1989).

^6. Harri Ramcharran, Trade Liberalization in Services: An Analysis of the Obstacles and Opportunities for Trade Expansion by U.S. Law Firms, 7 MULTNAT'L BUS. REV. 26, 29 (1999).

^7. Orlando Flores, Prospects for Liberalizing the Regulation of Foreign Lawyers Under GATS and NAFTA, 5 MINN J. GLOBAL TRADE, 159, 160 (1996).

^8. Koichiro Fujikura, Administering Justice in A Consensus-Based Society, 91 MICH. L. REV. 1529, (1993) 1539.

^11. Specifically, the following changes were made.

(a) Reciprocity: Compulsory reciprocity was revised to discretionary reciprocity. The requirement of granting reciprocal rights of practice was eliminated for GATT members.

(b) Professional Experience: The five year home country professional experience requirement was relaxed to permit work experience as a trainee or clerk at a bengoshi or gaikokuho jimu bengoshi's office within Japan, to be applied to the five-year professional experience requirement. The Japan experience component, however, was limited to a total of two years.

(c) Office Name: Foreign law firms are no longer required to include the name of the gaikokuho jimu bengoshi heading the office. Under the amendment the use of the name of the law firm to which a gaikokuho jimu bengoshi belongs, the geographical location, or a common noun etc. may be used. However, the name of an office must still include the title "Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi-Jimusho."

(d) Introduction the of Specific Joint Enterprise Scheme (Tokutei Kyodo Jigyo): Before the 1994 amendment, joint enterprises between gaikokuho jimu bengoshi and bengoshi were prohibited. Due to the request from the U.S. and European countries to allow all types of joint enterprises, this prohibition has been relaxed to permit gaikokuho jimu bengoshi and bengoshi who possess separate and respective offices to co-handle in the same facilities all matters, other than certain prohibited areas such as litigation cases, and to share revenues and profits derived therefrom. This form of a joint enterprise must be called a "Specific Joint Enterprise".

^15. See Leonardo Ciano, Foreign Companies and their Legal Representation in Japan: Isn’t the Customer Always Right?, 13 RITSUMEIKAN L. REV. 17 & nn.1-2.

^16. Toshiro Nishimura, The Relational Contract and Japanese Legal Consciousness, UNITED STATES/JAPAN COMMERCIAL LAW AND TRADE 696, 698 (Valerie Kusuda-Smick, Ed.) (1990). See also: Yoshiuki Noda, Introduction to Japanese Law (1976) (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press).

^17. Takeyoshi Kawashima, The Legal Consciousness of Contract in Japan, 7 LAW IN JAPAN 1 (Stevens trans., 1974); Eichi Hoshino, The Contemporary Contract, Law in Japan 1 (Haley trans., 1972); Hoishiki no Kenkyu (Research on Legal Consciousness), 35 HOSKAKAIGAKU 1 (1983); Gendai Nihonjin no Ho Ishiki (Contemporary Legal Consciousness of Japanese) (Nihon Bunka Kaigi, Ed.) (1982).

^19. Sawada’s analysis was based on Macaulay’s work done in the US. See, Stewart Macaulay, The Use and Non-Use of Contracts in the Manufacturing Industry, 9 THE PRACTICAL LAWYER 13 (1963); Stewart Macaulay, Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study, 28 Am. Soc. Rev. 55 (1963).

^21. Arthur T. Von Mehren, Some Reflections on Japanese Law, 71 HARV. L. REV. 1486 (1958)

^22. Marc S. Galanter, Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) About Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society, 31 UCLA L. REV. 4, 57 (1983). In this work, Galanter actually questions the existence of a "litigation explosion" in the U.S.

^24. See, e.g., John O. Haley, The Myth of the Reluctant Litigant, 4 JOURNAL OF JAPANESE STUDIES 349 (1978); John O. Haley, Legal vs. Social Controls, 17 LAW IN JAPAN 1 (1984); John. O. Haley, AUTHORITY WITHOUT POWER: LAW AND THE JAPANESE PARADOX 83-119 (1991)[hereinafter Haley, Japanese Paradox].

^27. J. Mark Ramseyer, The Costs of the Consensual Myth: Antitrust Enforcement and Institutional Barriers to Litigation in Japan, 94 YALE L.J. 604, 608 (1985).

^29. Koichiro Fujikura, Administering Justice in A Consensus-Based Society, 91 MICH. L. REV. 1529, 1539 (1993).

^31. See, e.g., Kazuto Yukizawa, Shotorihiki ni Okeru Seijitsu Gimu no Kino [The Function of the Duty of Good Faith in Commercial Transactions], 55 SHIHO 263 (1993).

^32. Curtis J. Milhaupt, A Relational Theory of Japanese Corporate Governance: Contract, Culture, and the Rule of Law, 37 HARV. INT'L L.J. 3, 8 (1996).

^33. Robert W. Gordon, Macaulay, Macneil, and the Discovery of Solidarity and Power in Contract Law, 1985 WIS. L. REV. 565, 569 (1985).

^35. Macaulay, Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study, 28 AM. SOC. REV. 55 (1963).

^36. Survey respondents had the option of selecting "do not know" as an answer. A binary variable was created to compare respondents having an opinion about changes in the regulations with those that do not. For respondents with an opinion about recent changes in the foreign lawyer law, 60% (329) feel the changes have resulted in a better range of services. Of particular interest is only two-thirds of respondents (n=548) have any opinion about the recent law changes. A chi-square test was used to compare awareness between Japanese and foreign companies. Statistically significant differences were found (X2 = 32.12, p<.001). This finding suggests that there may be an awareness gap between foreign and Japanese companies on legal service regulations. Comparing the expected to the actual values for this test, Japanese companies are more likely to have an opinion regarding recent changes in the foreign lawyer regulations.

^38. See, e.g., John O. Haley, The Myth of the Reluctant Litigant, 4 JOURNAL OF JAPANESE STUDIES 349 (1978); John O. Haley, Legal vs. Social Controls, 17 LAW IN JAPAN 1 (1984); J. O. Haley, AUTHORITY WITHOUT POWER: LAW AND THE JAPANESE PARADOX (1991).

^42. Translated from the original Japanese (emphasis added).