Editorial/Introduction

This special issue brings together five papers, earlier versions of which were presented at the workshop “Regulating Lawyers through Disciplinary Systems” (Workshop) held at the International Institute for the Sociology of Law (IISL), Spain in April 2018, or a panel on the same theme at the International Legal Ethics Conference VIII held in Melbourne, Australia in December 2018. The contributors study the lawyer disciplinary systems in different jurisdictions and from different perspectives. In addition to enriching the literature on legal ethics, they also highlight areas for future research regarding the legal and other professions in different jurisdictions and the methodologies that may be applied.

Helena Whalen-Bridge analysed the “coherence” of “pro bono discourse in professional misconduct” in Singapore and found that the discourse may “complicate or enlighten” an analysis in the context of professional misconduct. Similar investigations can be conducted on the coherence of other discourses in relation to legal ethics, as well as the coherence of the professional ethics discourse in other disciplines.

Andrew Boon and Avis Whyte empirically analysed solicitors’ disciplinary cases to investigate the effect of regulatory and demographic changes on the outcomes of disciplinary regulation in England and Wales. Their work may serve as a model for exploring the question of whether regulatory and/or other changes in the legal profession in other jurisdictions have an impact on their disciplinary systems or other aspects of the profession. A similar study may also be conducted in relation to other professions.

Kay-Wah Chan conducted an empirical analysis on cases of disciplinary sanctions and found the Japanese disciplinary system ineffective in deterring at least some of the bengoshi who had been disciplined from committing further misconduct. His empirical methodology may be adopted for similar studies on the legal profession in other jurisdictions as well as other professions. Empirical analyses, however, depend on the availability of relevant data. Because of the difficulty in obtaining relevant data for empirical analysis, Jonathan Liljeblad focused on textual analysis. “Extensive publication” of data, as Selene Mize pointed out (albeit in the context of New Zealand), facilitates researchers’ assessment of the lawyer disciplinary system.

Mize found issues of concern in the New Zealand lawyer disciplinary system. They include delays and limited publicity regarding decisions. Mize argues that more extensive publication of data regarding disciplinary cases will “enhance public confidence” in the system. A lawyer disciplinary system may, however, be used in some jurisdictions in order to serve the interests of the ruling authority. In this respect, independence of the regulatory system from the state will be of paramount importance. Liljebald analysed the transplant of international standards to Myanmar’s legal profession and found it to be hindered by the structure of the disciplinary system. His work extended beyond the legal ethics discourse and tested legal transplant theories. This shows that studies on lawyer disciplinary systems may also contribute to scholarship in other disciplines beyond legal ethics. It is hoped that the articles in this special issue will encourage and facilitate future research and scholarship in lawyer disciplinary systems as well as other disciplines.

Finally, the guest editors would like to thank the IISL and its staff, in particular Professor Vincenzo Ferrari and Ms Malen Gordoa Mendizabal, for their tremendous support on the organisation of the Workshop. Without their support, the Workshop would not have had the vigorous and fruitful intellectual exchange that it had. The guest editors are also grateful to Professor Avrom Sherr, the editor of the International Journal of the Legal Profession, for his patience and support for this special issue.