Japan: A Dispute Resolution: Domestic Overview

Litigation System Reforms Continue

Japan’s civil justice system is undergoing a historic digital transformation. The initiative, often termed the “3E Initiative” for e-Filing, e-Court, and e-Case Management, is aimed at modernising how cases are filed, heard, and managed by leveraging IT tools. This overhaul was set in motion by a landmark legislative amendment in May 2022 (Act No 48 of 2022) that revised the Code of Civil Procedure to enable electronic civil court procedures. The courts started implementing these changes in 2023 and they are expected to be completed by around May 2026. Over the course of 2025 and into 2026, the courts have been working to introduce an e-Filing system for all civil courts in Japan. The expectation is for mandatory e-Filing to launched by May 2026. Under this mandatory e-Filing system, online filing/submission of all new civil lawsuits and civil court documents will become the default nationwide. Attorneys will be required to file complaints, motions, and evidence digitally in civil litigations except in extraordinary situations. Courts will also begin electronic service of summons and notices to lawyers via the online system. In addition to the e-Filing system, e-Case management is expected to become available around May 2026, which means that there would be online access to case dockets and court filings for parties. These “3E Initiative” for e-Filing, e-Court, and e-Case Management are expected to apply to not only general civil courts but also to family court as well as bankruptcy courts and execution courts.

Arbitration

With respect to arbitration, Japan has been attempting to position itself as an arbitration hub in Asia. As part of these efforts, Japan ratified the Singapore Convention on Mediation, which took effect in 2024 as well as amending its Arbitration Act in order to align with global standards. In 2025, the practical impact of these amendments started to be felt as certified arbitration settlements became directly enforceable, and arbitration providers had to comply with stricter certification standards for transparency and fairness. In 2026 Japan is expected to continue its push to become a more prominent arbitration hub in Asia, building on the legal and institutional reforms introduced in the last couple of years. Key developments likely include further expansion of Japan International Arbitration Week (from 25 November 2025 to 29 November 2025) as well as increased use of expedited and emergency arbitration procedures.

Use of Generative AI

Generative AI is increasingly used by law firms for various purposes. At the same time, we have observed cases where per se plaintiffs themselves use Generative AI to draft legal documents for court proceedings.

Under Japanese law, there is no prohibition against using Generative AI in litigation. In certain types of cases, such as employment-related disputes, employees sometimes represent themselves without legal counsel. Recently, these self-represented parties have begun using Generative AI to prepare legal documents, although it should be noted that this does not mean that there is a trend for parties not wanting to retain counsel and using Generative AI as a substitute tool for legal proceedings in Japan.

Currently, Japanese courts are not equipped to use Generative AI on their own. However, it is anticipated that Generative AI could be helpful in handling simple cases. As long as a judge reviews and confirms the contents of an AI-generated document, that document can be accepted as an official court record. The Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Japan stated that “The idea of AI completely replacing the function of judgment is a world that is close to science fiction, so there is the question of whether such a concept would be acceptable to the public. Setting that aside for the moment, I think it is not entirely unrealistic to imagine a scenario where AI becomes involved in the function of judgment”.

Statutory Trial Period Litigation Proceedings

As part of the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure outlined above, the so called “Statutory Trial Period Litigation Proceedings” were newly introduced. This is a procedure that begins when both parties make a request, or when one party makes a request and the other party agrees. It limits the trial period to within six months from the commencement of the procedure (the court may shorten this period). When the court decides to adopt this procedure, it sets a date within two weeks and, on that date, determines: (i) the date by which oral arguments must be concluded (within six months from that session), and (ii) the date for rendering judgment (within one month after the conclusion of oral arguments).

Because this procedure carries the risk of restricting claims and evidence, it cannot be used in consumer contract cases or individual labour disputes.

This procedure allows either party to request a transition to ordinary litigation at any point during the process. The judgment in this procedure is simplified compared to a judgment in ordinary litigation. Specifically, before the deadline for submitting arguments and evidence expires, the court will confirm with both parties the matters that need to be decided. The reasoning section of the judgment will only include “the content of the court’s determination on the confirmed matters”.

It is important to note that an appeal cannot be filed against this judgment; only an objection may be lodged. If an objection is filed, the case reverts to its pre-closure state, but the same panel of judges continues the proceedings. This raises concerns about how much new arguments and evidence will be allowed and whether the judges’ impressions, having already drafted a judgment, can realistically change. However, an appeal is permitted against the decision rendered in the objection proceedings.

Although the law does not explicitly exclude self-represented litigants from this procedure, the Ministry of Justice explains that if no attorney is appointed, the case will generally not be accepted because it would fall under the category of “hindering the realisation of proper proceedings”.