With over three decades of professional experience, including working at a top Japanese law firm and his current position as the head of the Japan practice at the Australian national law firm Clayton Utz, Hiroyuki Kano has developed a comprehensive understanding of how a country’s legal practices are influenced by its distinctive culture, history, and societal needs.

Kano’s comprehensive understanding of the legal systems of both Australia and Japan allows him to uncover and illustrate the intricate details of practising law in these two countries, pinpointing the critical differences between them.

The number of lawyers

One of the most prominent differences that Kano has observed is the contrast between the legal professions in Australia and Japan, which is the sheer disparity in the number of lawyers practising in each country.

Reflecting on his time practising in Japan, Kano noted the scarcity and relatively limited number of lawyers in the country.

“Going back to 22 years ago when I was in Japan, the largest law firms in Japan had less than 100 lawyers; between 50 to 60 lawyers were at the largest law firms,” he said.

Kano observed that the relatively small number of lawyers in Japanese law firms can be attributed to the limited number of law graduates pursuing legal careers in Japan.

“Japanese law firms also don’t have as many lawyers in Japan as it used to be only that 500 law graduates would become a lawyer,” he said.

VIEW ALL

This is in comparison to the 1,560 law graduates who began working at Australian law firms at the start of 2022, according to the Australian Financial Review Law Partnership Survey.

However, since he ceased practising in Japan, Kano noted how there has been substantial growth and expansion in Japanese law firms.

“But having said that, Japanese law firms for the last 20 years have been expanding quite rapidly, and now the largest law firm has about 600 lawyers in it,” he said.

Kano also revealed that the number of law students pursuing careers in the legal profession after graduation has increased substantially. However, he mentioned that this figure is still relatively small.

“There are now 2,000 people becoming lawyers in Japan, which is a four times increase. But it is still a very small number,” he said.

“It’s a very specialised, very exclusive, and very small talent of people becoming qualified Japanese lawyers over there.”

Working hours and work culture

Kano highlighted the significant differences in work culture and working hours between Australian and Japanese law firms.

He revealed that the work culture in Japan is characterised by exceptionally long hours, with his experience often extending to working until midnight nearly every workday.

“Another big difference is that they work quite hard and long hours, as when I was in Japan, I would work until midnight almost every day,” he said.

Kano recounted how, even on his first day at the firm, it became evident that long working hours were standard practice in Japanese law firms.

“I remember the first day I worked at [‘big four’ Japanese firm] Anderson Mori & Tomotsune as a first-year lawyer. I worked until midnight, and on that floor, every lawyer was there at midnight,” he said.

He stressed that this rigorous work culture was due to Japan’s status as the world’s second-largest economy at the time, combined with a shortage of legal professionals to manage the extensive volume of legal work.

“There was lots of work to be done because, at the time, Japan was the second-largest economy after the US 25 years ago,” he said.

In contrast, Kano revealed that Australian law firms prioritise a healthier work/life balance, emphasising personal wellbeing through a growing focus on sustainable working hours and mental health.

“But now, the work/life balance in Australia is more apparent, and I can say it’s a healthier working environment,” he said.

Sophistication and specialisation

Another key difference that Kano identified between the two countries was the sophistication and specialisation of their law firms.

Kano revealed that, compared to Japanese law firms, Australian law firms exhibit a high level of sophistication in all aspects.

“Frankly, Australian law firms are much more sophisticated in terms of the systems and practice groups, structures and management structures, decision making by the partners, etc. Every single thing is very sophisticated,” he said.

“I would say that Australian law firms are more specialised and more well structured.”

Conversely, Kano underscored how Japanese law firms in the late ’90s were less specialised and structured, as exemplified by his experience as an associate.

“Whereas in Japan 20 years ago, it was less sophisticated. When I was an associate in the late ’90s, even though my expertise was in merger and acquisition transactions, I also had to do litigation work, IP work, employment law advisors, etcetera. You were expected to [do] all those areas,” he said.