In 2025, the University of North Dakota (UND) launched an \u201cImmigration Law Clinic\u201d to address two pressing issues facing the state: a shortage of legal professionals with expertise in immigration law and a broader labor shortage across various sectors<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe clinic allows law students to work on real immigration cases under faculty supervision, offering hands-on legal training while also responding to community needs. At the same time, it aims to encourage these students to stay in the region after graduation, thus bolstering the local legal workforce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This initiative is both strategic and ambitious, serving to expand legal service capacity while supporting immigrants’ integration into society. Although there are considerable institutional and societal differences, this initiative holds valuable lessons for Japan\u2014particularly in how legal education, public service, and immigration policy can be interlinked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Below, we explore the potential insights this case offers for Japan, while also acknowledging the very real challenges that would need to be addressed to implement a similar approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n2. Practical Barriers in Japan: A Realistic Assessment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n(1) Differences in Legal Education and Institutional Design<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The UND clinic represents a strong example of clinical legal education, in which students gain direct experience handling real cases. In Japan, however, such practical legal training is still limited, and law school curricula are more strictly bound to preparation for the national bar examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Japanese law schools currently have little institutional flexibility to incorporate clinics on a wide scale, particularly ones that directly engage with immigration procedures. Implementing this kind of model would require significant structural changes to both legal education policy and professional training systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(2) Qualification Structures and Professional Scope<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In the U.S., the legal profession is relatively broad and deeply embedded in public service. In Japan, by contrast, the number of lawyers is limited and concentrated in urban areas, making it difficult to build sustainable support systems in rural or regional areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Additionally, legal support in Japan is not confined to lawyers (bengoshi). Administrative scriveners (gyoseishoshi)<\/strong> are legally authorized to handle immigration-related paperwork. While this diversifies the support base, the regulatory framework around these professionals is uneven\u2014there are issues of quality control, and in some cases, unauthorized or fraudulent practices have been reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\nNevertheless, many dedicated gyoseishoshi have been supporting foreign residents for years. With proper training and oversight, they could form a core part of a more inclusive legal support structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(3) Lack of Social Consensus on Immigration<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
While the U.S. has long embraced immigration as a driver of economic and social vitality, Japan remains hesitant. Officially, Japan maintains that it does not have a formal \u201cimmigration policy,\u201d even though it relies increasingly on foreign labor through programs such as Technical Intern Training and Specified Skilled Worker schemes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This ambivalence makes it difficult to openly discuss long-term immigrant integration or policy frameworks that would encourage regional settlement by foreign nationals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n3. Valuable Lessons Japan Can Still Draw<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Despite these institutional and cultural gaps, there are several takeaways from the UND model that Japan could adopt or adapt to its own context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(1) Expanding the Legal Support Base<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Given Japan\u2019s shortage of lawyers, a broader concept of “legal professionals” could include administrative scriveners, judicial scriveners, social workers, interpreters, and NGO staff<\/strong>. These actors are already involved in the day-to-day support of foreign residents and could play a more central role if brought into a structured legal framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\nRather than excluding these professionals, Japan should consider a system that ensures proper training, certification, and ethical oversight\u2014so that both the quantity and quality of legal support can be raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The UND article also warns against the risks of fraud by unqualified immigration consultants. Japan must strike a balance: expand the support base, but maintain professional accountability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(2) University\u2013Local Government Collaboration<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Japanese law schools and professional graduate schools could initiate programs in cooperation with local governments, immigration authorities, and regional businesses to support foreign workers and communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, universities could supervise community-based legal clinics or consultation centers staffed by law students and certified administrative professionals. They could also create joint projects with businesses to review employment contracts and visa paperwork to ensure legal compliance and fair treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(3) Combining Practical Education with Social Engagement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Although Japan has limited experience with clinical legal education, there is growing recognition of its importance. With some institutional support, Japanese law students could gain practical training through supervised clinics<\/strong>, including immigration cases or legal support for foreign residents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nUND\u2019s model shows the value of law students encountering the legal system not just through textbooks but by working with real clients. These experiences can cultivate the next generation of socially conscious legal professionals in Japan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(4) Securing Public Funding for Long-Term Operations<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The UND clinic is supported by stable public funding from the state legislature. In Japan, local governments are beginning to develop multicultural coexistence plans, but most initiatives rely on short-term, project-based funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A key lesson here is the need for multi-year, structural financial support<\/strong> from national or regional governments. This would allow clinics or legal support programs to operate with continuity and build trust with local communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n4. Conclusion: Not a Perfect Import, But a Meaningful Translation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Immigration Law Clinic at UND is a forward-thinking initiative that integrates education, community service, and immigration support. For Japan, directly replicating this model would be difficult due to differences in legal systems, educational structure, and social norms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, Japan can still take inspiration from the underlying philosophy: building a sustainable, inclusive support system using available resources and professionals<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nRather than limiting the concept of legal support to lawyers alone, Japan can broaden its definition to include competent administrative professionals like gyoseishoshi. Universities can play a role not only in education but also in regional revitalization and social inclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
UND\u2019s initiative is a reminder that even in a constrained environment, meaningful progress is possible if institutions work together toward common goals. Japan need not wait for a perfect system\u2014it can start by improving and connecting the support structures it already has<\/strong>, one step at a time.<\/p>\n\n\n\nJapan Immigration News<\/h2>\n\n\n