The pass rate for the Administrative Scrivener Examination is said to be around 10% each year. However, based on my own experience of actually taking the exam, it was such a difficult examination that I found myself thinking, “How does anyone manage to get into that 10%?”

On the internet, there are various explanations for why the pass rate is as high as 10%, including the claim that candidates who are primarily aiming to pass the bar examination are raising the overall pass rate. I cannot say whether this is true, but at least from the perspective of someone with no prior legal education, I felt that getting into that 10% would be extremely difficult without a serious commitment to studying.

I come from a science background and had received virtually no formal education in law, so I was starting completely from scratch. I therefore decided to enroll in a correspondence course that allowed students to listen to lectures online.

The Reality Behind the “50% Pass Rate” Advertised by a Correspondence Course

One of the reasons I chose that particular course was that it advertised a pass rate of approximately 50% among its students. I thought, “If one out of every two students passes, surely I have a good chance of being among that 50%.”

However, after the Administrative Scrivener Examination was over, the only email I received from the course provider was a promotional message saying, “Let’s work hard again next year! We are offering a discount on the course fee.” I did not receive even a single email asking whether I had passed or failed.

I do not know what the situation is with other course providers, but at least in the case of the course I took, this was what was behind its advertised “50% pass rate.” Since there is a possibility that such figures are calculated using only favorable data, I would advise against putting too much faith in the pass rates advertised by exam-preparation courses.

Why “Pattern Memorization” and “Just Treating It as a Qualification Exam” Do Not Work

That said, the problem sets provided by the course itself were quite sophisticated and very easy to study with. (I did have some concerns about the quality of the explanations, which I will discuss later.)

Throughout the course, the instructor repeatedly emphasized:

“After all, this is just a qualification examination, so it is important not to get too deeply involved and to know when to draw the line.”

Unfortunately, however, I believe that if you simply follow this advice and study accordingly, your chances of passing are not very high. The reason is that most questions on the Administrative Scrivener Examination are not recycled questions from previous examinations, but are closer to entirely “new” questions.

Therefore, trying to solve the actual examination by using “pattern recognition”—essentially memorizing the answers to past questions—will not get you very far.

The Essence of Studying Past Questions Lies in Understanding Supreme Court Precedents

Does this mean that there is no point in studying past questions? Absolutely not.

In the Japanese judicial system, the interpretation of law is ultimately guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Lower courts cannot simply issue decisions that contradict Supreme Court precedents, and when the Supreme Court itself intends to overturn one of its previous precedents, the case must be carefully considered by the Grand Bench.

In other words, although the individual disputes brought before the courts change from case to case, the decisions concerning them are ultimately based on precedents established by the Supreme Court. Conversely, if you properly understand past precedents, you should be able to deal with even entirely new cases or questions by applying the principles established in those precedents.

That is precisely why, when working through past questions, it is essential not merely to check whether your answer is right or wrong, but to read the relevant precedents as much as possible and develop a deep understanding of their substance. There is no need to study every single precedent that has never appeared in a past examination question. In my view, it is sufficient to study in depth the important precedents that actually appear in past questions.

This brings me back to the issue I mentioned earlier regarding the quality of the explanations in the problem sets.

In many commercially available problem books and correspondence courses, the relevant precedent is simply cited, without providing a detailed explanation of how the precedent should be interpreted or why the court reached that conclusion. Personally, I often found myself unable to understand why a particular judgment had been reached.

For someone without a legal background, trying to research the reasoning behind such judgments on their own can require a tremendous amount of effort. However, that very depth of knowledge and understanding is precisely what the Administrative Scrivener Examination demands.

Points to Keep in Mind When Using Commercially Available Problem Books

As mentioned above, commercially available problem books often provide the relevant precedents without explaining how they should be interpreted. Therefore, when you encounter something you do not understand, you generally have no choice but to research it yourself using the internet and other resources. In many cases, someone has already provided an explanation online, so it is important to search patiently until you find a useful source.

There is one other point that needs to be kept in mind: commercially available problem books contain far too few questions on commercial law to provide sufficient preparation.

For this reason, I worked through one relatively thin problem book designed for the multiple-choice section of the bar examination, focusing on commercial law. Since the scope of the Administrative Scrivener Examination is narrower than that of the bar examination, I think it is sufficient to work through only the relevant sections.

Perhaps as a result, I got four out of the five commercial law questions correct on the actual examination.

A Simple Strategy for the Written-Answer Questions

Finally, I would like to briefly discuss how to approach the written-answer section.

Since the answer space is only around 40 Japanese characters, people often say that “the key is to pack in as many keywords as possible.” However, I think it is better to first clearly identify “who,” “to whom,” and “what is being done” before constructing the answer.

A lawsuit is a procedure in which someone makes a claim against someone else. Therefore, it is not only the “what” (the action) that constitutes an important keyword. The identity of the plaintiff—the “who”—and the defendant—the “to whom”—are also extremely important.

If the parties involved, such as the plaintiff or defendant, are omitted, there is a high possibility of substantial deductions. I therefore recommend paying close attention to this basic structure and making sure not to leave it out of your answer.

Conclusion

1. Be cautious about advertising claims: The “pass rate among students” published by exam-preparation courses may not accurately reflect reality, depending on how the course provider tracks and follows up with its students.
2. Do not memorize answers mechanically: Simply memorizing the answers—the conclusions—provided in problem books, including commercially available ones, is not sufficient preparation for the examination.
3. Understanding precedents is essential: Unless you deeply understand the interpretation and reasoning behind past precedents, you will not be able to deal effectively with the new questions presented on the actual examination.
4. Commercial law requires additional preparation: Commercially available problem books do not provide sufficient preparation, so it is useful to supplement them with problem books designed for other legal examinations.
5. Do not lose sight of the basic structure in written answers: Rather than simply listing keywords, focus on accurately stating who does what to whom in your written answer.