我國律師懲戒制度之檢討─以律師自律機制之建構為思考方向

Abstract

本論文共計六章，主要結構如下： 第一章為緒論，概述撰寫本論文的研究動機、目的、方法及範圍，並提出問題。 第二章主要係探討我國律師之角色定位。除自律師職業之源起及發展先予探究外，並探討長久以來，幾與律師一詞畫上等號之「在野法曹」及「自由業」兩名詞概念究有無不同；繼而比較中外制度律師所扮演的角色定位，同時檢討我國現行相關法令規定律師執行職務之權利義務，以確認我國律師現今的角色定位。 第三章則係藉由檢視現行國家對於律師的課責機制，進而歸納得知律師懲戒的目的係為嚴整律師職業團體之秩序及紀律，因此，對於違反團體紀律之律師而得行使懲戒權之主體，自宜由律師公會為之。再者，本論文亦就日本、德國及美國行使律師懲戒權之主體及程序為一概況之介紹，期能藉由比較分析後，尋求他山之石以為改進我國律師懲戒制度之參考。 第四章係承續第二、三章之論點，除探討為何律師懲戒制度應採自律機制的理由及依據外，並分析自律之懲戒（紀律）罰與他律之行政罰、司法懲戒罰有何不同。 至本論文第五章則針對現行我國律師懲戒制度之問題，就現行律師懲戒罰係由國家為行使懲戒權主體，採行司法懲戒罰時，與律師自律自治精神是否有違？再者，未來行使懲戒權之主體如設於律師公會，有無違反司法院釋字第378號所指述之懲戒組織應朝審判機關化的意旨？另擬議未來我國律師懲戒制度之變動方向及相關法制建議，並就外界可能對該變動方向產生之疑慮，亦於本章中針對該問題點提出相關釋疑及解決方法。 最後，於本論文第六章，就前述各章的重點綜合歸納作為本論文之結論。

There are six chapters in this thesis. The main structure of the thesis is as follows: Chapter 1 is an introduction, which gives the objectives, methodology and scope of the study and points out the problems. Chapter 2 discusses mainly the role of Taiwan’s lawyers. Besides exploring the origin and development of the profession, it explores the difference of two almost like terms –lawyers and liberal professions. Thereafter, it compares the lawyer system of this country with those of foreign nations. At the same time, the thesis reviews the rights and duties of this country’s lawyers in order to define the role they play. Chapter 3 analyzes the responsibilities this country has imposed on lawyers and draws a conclusion that the current disciplinary system is aimed at strictly maintaining the order of law practitioners. And, therefore, the thesis advocates that the power to discipline lawyers that breach the rules of an organic body should be placed in the hands of the bar association. In addition, this thesis compares the disciplinary system of this country with those of Japan, Germany and America. This is intended to draw a lesson for the improvement of this country’s disciplinary system for lawyers. Chapter 4 carries on the arguments of Chapters 2 and 3 and explains the reason and legal basis for changing the disciplinary system for lawyers into a self-disciplinary system. In the mean time, it points out the differences between self-discipline, administrative penalty, and judicial penalty. Chapter 5 deals with the problems of the current disciplinary system, which is exercised by the government. It also studies whether this system contradicts with the spirit of lawyer self-discipline. If the disciplinary power is passed to the bar association, will this go against the intention of the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 378? The Judicial Yuan Interpretation maintains that the disciplinary power shall be shifted gradually to the hands of an organization. As the direction of the change may cause suspicions among the public, this thesis offers legal proposals and solutions for the issue. Chapter 6, also the last one, draws a conclusion from the discussions made in the foregoing chapters.