Question from Readers:
What do you think about Masahiro Nakai’s lawyer requesting the third-party committee to “disclose evidence supporting the allegations of sexual violence”? It seems the deadline is set for May 26, but isn’t it fundamentally information that shouldn’t be disclosed in the first place? Since all members of the third-party committee are lawyers, they are bound by confidentiality obligations
under the attorney law, meaning they cannot legally or ethically disclose any personal privacy or hearing content obtained during the investigation. Nakai’s lawyer should understand this, yet it seems they are exerting pressure by saying, “Produce it” and “Not producing it is insincere.” I can’t help but feel that this is a setup to imply, “See, there is no evidence,” based on the premise that it won’t be disclosed. Does this approach of requesting information that is known not to be disclosed come across as a sincere attitude? Or does it seem like there’s an intention to manipulate public opinion? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Thoughts on Masahiro Nakai’s Case
Recently, I’ve been quite curious about the reactions surrounding Masahiro Nakai’s lawyer’s request to the third-party committee to “disclose evidence supporting allegations of sexual violence.” As someone interested in law, I think there are several points to consider. First, let’s talk about the confidentiality obligations under the attorney law. Lawyers are prohibited from leaking information obtained through investigations to outside parties. This fact is particularly significant because all members of the third-party committee are lawyers. It is only natural that they cannot disclose the information they hold, both legally and ethically. So why has Nakai’s lawyer made such a request?
Intent of Pressure and Manipulating Public Opinion
It appears that his lawyer is exerting pressure by saying, “Produce it” and that “not producing it is insincere.” This action seems like a strategy to appeal to public opinion, implying, “See, there is no evidence,” based on the assumption that nothing will be disclosed. In reality, public opinion is very influential. If the public perceives that “there is no evidence,” it could work to Nakai’s advantage. However, I question whether this strategy genuinely appears to be a sincere attitude. In our society, pursuing the truth is important, but the stance of trying to protect one’s own position by concealing it can seem like an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
My Memories and the Legal World
In fact, my impressions of such situations have changed while studying law. When I worked part-time at a judicial scrivener’s office, there was a case where a client told me, “This is definitely information that will not be disclosed.” At that time, I was anxious, thinking, “What if it actually gets disclosed?” But ultimately, thanks to confidentiality obligations, nothing was revealed. Moreover, the legal world is full of interesting anecdotes. For example, I remember a senior saying, “Legal texts are like codes.” Indeed, the language of law can be complex, and sometimes it can be challenging to understand. So, what do you all think about Nakai’s case? If you have opinions on such disclosure requests or experiences from the legal world, I would love for you to share them in the comments. I’m looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts!
