請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16992
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 趙義隆 | |
dc.contributor.author | Ji-Yang Zheng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 鄭積揚 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-07T23:52:26Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2014-01-27 | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2013-12-17 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文部分
王進喜,美國律師業:歷史與現狀,中國律師,第9期,頁28-41(2005)。 王進喜,律師業廣告問題研究,中國司法研究第10期,頁33-35(1997)。 台北律師公會,倫理風紀案例選輯,頁150-152(2003)。 石毅,中外律師制度綜觀,群眾,頁124-135(2000)。 考試院保訓會,考試院公務人員保障暨培訓委員會委託研究計畫,法官、檢察官、律師考試錄取人員訓練之研究,主持人:蔡宗珍教授、李建良教授,頁11、36,(2011)。 余慕德,淺論台灣加入WTO後法律服務業之開放與律師法修正,萬國法律,第121期,頁10-25(2002)。 林子儀,言論自由導論,臺灣憲法之縱剖橫切,頁117~133(2002)。 林利芝,律師業務—律師廣告與招攬行為之探討,月旦法學雜誌,第188期,頁135-164(2011)。 林秋琴,從律師錄取人數的增加談律師服務品質,律師通訊,第176期,頁15-17(1994)。 林孟儀,付三千元 律師變成你的7-ELEVEn,商業周刊,第904期,頁33-37(2004)。 姜世明,律師廣告之限制,全國律師,第12卷第1期,頁122-134(2008)。 孫誠偉,台灣的律師人口真的夠嗎?從市場經濟研究看律師總量的需求,司法改革雜誌,第64期,頁34-35(2007)。 張長樹,簡介美國律師廣告之法制及其經濟分析(上),律師通訊,第162期,頁16(1993)。 張柏峰,中國的司法制度,法律,頁164-181(2004)。 張福森,中華人民共和國法律制度概覽,法律,頁142-163(2004)。 黃旭田,律師大量增加對律師職業及台北律師公會之影響,律師雜誌,第251期,頁90-99(2000)。 黃昭元,憲法權利限制的司法審查標準:美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析,台大法學論叢,第33卷第3期,頁83~85(2004)。 傅若婷、陳鋕雄,律師服務電子媒合平台之倫理問題——以法易通事件為中心,月旦財經法雜誌,第27期,頁87-121(2011)。 黃瑞明,寧效伯高,不效季良—評我國應否允許律師廣告,律師通訊,第162期,頁1-3(1993)。 黃盟祺、洪雅慧、周巧絃,關鍵字廣告效果之研究─搜尋產品類型、認知需求與知覺風險之影響,傳播與管理研究,第11卷第2期,頁39-78(2012)。 葉匡時,論專業倫理,人文及社會科學集刊,第12卷第3期,頁459-526(2000)。 褚寧,淺析當代英國律師制度之現狀,法制與社會,第2期,頁11-13(2008)。 蔡宗珍、李建良,法官、檢察官、律師考試錄取人員訓練之研究報告,考試院公務人員保障暨培訓委員會委託研究計畫,頁14、110、127(2010)。 劉靜怡,政治性言論與非政治性言論,月旦法學教室,第30期,頁56-65(2005)。 戴世瑛,中國大陸律師制度的現況與發展,中律會訊,第10卷第6期,頁91-101,(2008)。 簡榮宗,事務所的組織及經營型態,律師事務所營運手冊—台北律師公會叢書(十),頁8-17。 英文部分 Abel-Smith, Brian & Stevens, Robert, Lawyers and the Courts, 204 (1967). Attanasio, John B., Lawyer Advertising in England and the United States, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 32(3), 493-541 (1984). Beder, Sharon, The Electricity Deregulation Con Game, PR Watch (Center for Media and Democracy), 10 (3), 13-42 (2009). Birks, Michael, Gentlement of the Law, 272 (1960). Black, Bill, 2011 Will Bring More De facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud Next New Deal: Blog of the Roosevelt Institute, 145-172 (2010). Black, William K., The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One, 113-157 (2003). Brazier, Margaret, Medicine, Patients and the Law, 147 (1987). Buchanan, J.M., The public Choice Perspective, 65-72 (1983). Cali, Massimiliano et al., Dirk The Contribution of Services to Development: The role of Regulation and Trade Liberalisation London: Overseas Development Institute, 122–142 (2008). Chadwick, Ruth, Professional Ethics. In E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (1998). Denning, Peter J., ACM President's Letter: Electronic Junk, Communications of the ACM, Association for Computing Machinery, 25(3), 39-42 (1982). Dietrich, Dean R., Rules for Marketing with Social Media, Wisconsin Lawyer, 84(4), 22-25 (2011). Furlow, Nancy., Find us on Facebook: How Cause Marketing has Embraced Social Media, Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 5 (6), 61-64 (2011). Gibb, Frances, Law Society May Allow Solicitors to Advertise Their Charges, The Times (London), 3 (1984). Gibson, Mathias, History of Online Display Advertising, http://www.vantagelocal.com/author/mathias/ (2012). Gosh, Jayati, Too Much of the Same, 212-245 (2013). Hall, Edward T., How Cultures Collide, Psychology Today, 66-97 (1976). Internet Advertising Bureau & PricewaterhouseCoopers, IAB internet advertising revenue report: 2012 full year results, 5-13 (2013). Joskow, Paul, Comment on Power Struggles: Explaining Deregulatory Reforms in ElectricityMarkets, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 251–264 (1996). Magee, Stephan P., The Optimun Number of Lawyers and a Radical Proposal for Legal Change, conference paper on An American Illness:Essays on the Rule of Law, (2010). Michael, Alex & Salter, Ben, Marketing Through Search Optimization: How People Search and How to Be Found on the Web, 331-398 (2012). Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Services of Solicitors in England and Wales: A Report on the Supply of Services of Solicitors in England and Wales in Relation to Restrictions on Advertising, 37-38 (1976). Nelson, Sharon D. & Simek, John W., What to Know Before Taking the Plunge into LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and Lawyer Referral Websites, Family Advocate, 35(3), 24-30 (2013). Pakštas, Algirdas, Problems and Realities of Internet Governance and Regulations (and a Role of the IEEE ComSoc), conference paper on The First Mamoun Conference for Computer Science, Communications Technology and their Applications (2007). Peltzman, Sam, Toward a More General Theory of Regulation, Journal of Lawand Economics, 19, 109-148 (1976). Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services in England and Wales, Cmnd. No. 7648, (1978). Rose-Ackerman, Susan, Deregulation and Reregulation: Rhetoric and Reality, 43-77 (1990). Rosenthal, Howard et al., Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting, 137-175 (1997). Stigler, George J., The Theory of Economic Regulation, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2, 3-21 (1971). Templeton, Brad, Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Spam, http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/spam25.html (2008). The Government Response to the Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, Cmnd. No. 9077 (1983). Zubcsek, Peter Pol & Sarvary, Miklos, Advertising to a Social Network, Springer Science+Business Media, 72-107 (2011). | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16992 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 我國律師業究竟得否及應否進行廣告,可謂係一爭論已久之大哉問,台北律師公會固以「律師業務推展規範」草案限制律師所得採取之廣告型式,但由於並未受到會員大會承認之故,因此並不具有實質之法律拘束力。然而,此草案昭示著公會對於律師業廣告議題之傾向,而台北律師公會之會員人數又為全台灣之冠,其影響力自不容小覷,可合理推測倘若無另以立法肯認,受公會管制之律師會員似不致於冒然以身試法,此亦解釋了為何我國律師制度發展至今,卻從未於電視、廣告及報紙上看到律師廣告之奇特現象。值得注意的是,依日前報導,立法院將於本會期,以「全面開放律師業進行廣告」作為律師法之修法重點,而台北律師公會亦受到許多來自於會員之改革呼聲,因而開始有修改前開「律師業務推展規範」草案之想法與討論,於此變革之際,當係研究此一議題之妥適時點。
本研究將以情境分析分與比較法兩大支柱作為研究主軸,先以情境分析法檢討我國律師業過去與未來情境內容與意涵是否已生有變遷。若然,是否有必要透過開放律師業進行廣告之方式來回應該等變遷。再以法學上之比較法作為另一研究觀點,以他國之實踐經驗與法制發展作為佐證,探究我國之律師業廣告管制是否與世界潮流相符,如否,又是否有何正當理由或本土上之特色原因造成台灣律師業有必要針對律師業廣告議題為不同之管制。 研究結果顯示,我國律師業發展之情境內容,已隨近年律師錄取員額之大幅放寬產生了重大之變遷,無論是社會大眾對於律師角色之期待或律師業成員間競爭之態勢與程度均與過往大不相同,因此持續禁止律師業從事廣告活動可能將與未來之情境變遷格格不入,甚而發生理論基礎自相矛盾之情形,亦使執業律師缺少正當競爭之重要手段。又,自比較法上觀點切入,無論是律師制度發展源遠流長之英美二國,或是律師制度較為短淺但與我國同文同種之中國,皆不約而同的針對律師業廣告議題採取開放之管制態度,此一國際潮流甚值正處於管制十字路口之我國參考。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Whether lawyers in Taiwan could or should advertise their service is a long debated issue. Though Taipei Bar Association has announced “The Regulation of Promotion of Legal Service”, which forbids certain types of advertisement including television and radio, it is not recognized by the council and therefore has no binding force. However, The regulation still clearly represents the attitude of the Taipei Bar Association on this issue, so few lawyer would like to “test” where the line is, which explain the reason why we’ve never seen any TV commercial of lawyer service in Taiwan before. According to the recent news, Legislative Yuan has announced that during this session, the issue of lawyer advertising will be listed as an priority on their working agenda, and Taipei Bar Association has also received lots of complaints, calling for deregulating the control of lawyer advertising. As a result, it would be a proper time for us to discuss the issue whether we should allow lawyers in Taiwan to advertise their service.
This essay is conducted by both contingency analysis and comparative approach, and will firstly decide whether the scenario of Taiwan legal service industry has changed, and if so, whether that kind of change should lead to the conclusion of allowing lawyers in Taiwan to advertise their service in order to adapt the new scenario. This essay will then uses the comparative approach by legal researching of the regulation of lawyers advertising in United States, United Kingdom, and China, in order to decide whether regulations in Taiwan are following international trend, and if not, is there any legitimate ground for Taiwan, whether cultural, political, or economic, to justify its different approach of regulations. This Essay discovers that the scenario of legal service industry in Taiwan has changed dramatically, no matter from the perspective of social expectation, or of the competition among lawyers. Therefore, continuously forbidding lawyers from advertising may not match the future scenario and even leads to self-contradiction, which also expropriates the right of Taiwan lawyers to communicate with their target customers. Furthermore, according to the comparative approach, not only legal-advanced countries like the U.S. or the U.K. allow their lawyers to advertise their service through various ways; China, where no lawyer exist until 1982, also recognize the freedom of lawyers to do advertisement. It should be an important fact for Taiwan to take into account of when making its own decision of whether deregulate the lawyer advertising control or not. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-07T23:52:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R00724012-1.pdf: 5863714 bytes, checksum: b3f81cfabd19beddc0ad394cf3180c78 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
摘要 iii Abstract iv 目錄 v 表目錄 vi 圖目錄 vii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 4 第三節 研究方法與限制 6 第四節 研究架構 9 第二章 文獻回顧 11 第一節 專門執業之管制 11 第二節 我國目前對律師業競爭行為之管制 21 第三節 我國律師業廣告規範之正當性基礎與其界限 26 第四節 跨國規範比較之衡量要素 34 第三章 我國律師業廣告管制之情境分析 45 第一節 我國律師業發展情境之關鍵因子 45 第二節 我國律師業之廣告規範暨相關爭議 53 第三節 我國律師業廣告規範之檢討—現行爭議及未來情境意涵之分析 61 第四章 他國律師業廣告規範比較分析 73 第一節 美國律師業廣告規範 73 第二節 英國律師業廣告規範 86 第三節 中國律師業廣告規範 93 節四節 小結 98 第五章 結論與建議 101 第一節 研究發現 101 第二節 研究建議 105 第三節 未來研究方向建議 107 參考文獻 中文部分 109 英文部分 110 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 我國律師業廣告解除管制之研究—兼採情境分析與比較法觀點 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Deregulation of Lawyer Advertising in Taiwan—
Adopting Contingency Analysis and Comparative Study | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 102-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 祝鳳岡,謝銘洋 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 律師業,廣告,言論自由,情境分析,比較法,社群媒體, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Lawyers,Advertisement,Freedom of Speech,Contingency Analysis,Comparative Approach,Social Media, | en |
dc.relation.page | 111 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2013-12-17 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 國際企業學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 國際企業學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-102-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.73 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。