现行中国律师制度定位之反思

【作者】 黄培云；

【导师】 王威；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法学理论， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 律师制度是当前法学界的一个重要的研究课题。如果说人类在进入文明社会之前需要发现火，那么人类要进入现代法治社会就必须要有一个完善的律师制度。正如火可以保护人类不受野兽的侵袭和告别茹毛饮血的野蛮生活，律师制度能使律师这样一个群体在现代社会中保护民众免受国家这个可能的“利维坦”的侵扰，同时也告别“自力救济”的、“无法无天”的、权利与正义难以保障的野蛮时代，环顾全球，但凡建立或意图建立法治国家的人类群体，无不把律师制度作为其制度构建中的重要一环来思考、规划和建设。然而问题在于：律师制度的构建是借鉴先建立了这种制度的国家的经验甚至是直接照搬先行者的制度模型呢?还是一定要找出某种创新途径，创建具有某国特色的律师制度?别国尤其是西方国家的律师制度得以建构的内外部条件在本国是否具备?这些问题是不容回避也是必须要着重考虑的。拙文通过对律师制度的产生与发展过程中的制度演变的讨论，通过对中国现行律师制度之下中国律师业出现的执业异化的现象的剖析，从政治国家与市民社会的理论模型入手，结合国内外有关的理论探讨，力图说明以下观点： 首先，已建立了律师制度的英、美、法、德等西方国家的高度法治状态下法律具有的至高无上的权威地位和民众对律师职业的内在认同等外部条件，以及律师具有的高度专业化的服务技能与他人无法取代的业务素养和律师业自治自律的机制的不断强化等内在条件，为这些西方国家的律师制度奠定了非常坚实的构建和发展的基础。但是中国律师制度建构的历史过程不断地向我们表明这样一个事实：没有法治建设中国家和市民社会关系的不断塑造与变革，中国的律师制度要成功摆脱自清末以来的仅是一种现代标识的命运是不可能的，同时也无法获得成为真正的以有效维护民权和正义为已任的现代律师制度的上述西方式的内外部条件。 其次，我们还要看到，律师作为国家法的具体实施者之一，同时他也是连接市民社会与政治国家的一个重要的行动者。但是，律师业在当今中国的实际状况与律师制度创建的初衷具有差距，并且呈现出令人担忧的情况。在中国现行律师制度中国家司法行政机关实际上发挥着主导性的管理作用。然而，与国外律师业发达国家采取的得到充分发展的律师行业自治模式相比，中国的管理模式并未有更优越的管理成效，相反却产生了与律师的职业使命相悖的一系列执业异化现象。这些现象主要包括片面追逐高经济回报的民商事代理业务;对能充分展现对基本人权与社会正义的维护、且给司法运行提供良好预期的刑事诉讼及代理业务却采取了回避甚至是排斥的态度;另外，中国律师群体对于参与政治生活热情不高，甚至有逃避的心态。这些现象都要求我们要伴随着型构市民社会与政治国家的良哇互动关系及推进法治的进程，积极发挥律师在当今中国的公共讨论中的、类似于“公共领域”的话语空间中的沟通与媒介的作用，同时在这一过程中使公众对国家政治生活与公共权力的讨论与批判落到实处。但要做到这一点，就归结到要对当前司法行政机关监督指导与律师协会行业管理相结合的律师制度进行进一步的定位思考，并且通过对律师制度中行业自治自律成分的加强来更充分地实现律师维护人权与正义的职业使命以及更好地发挥律师作为沟通国家和社会与推进法治的重要行动者的作用。更多还原

【Abstract】 The system of lawyers is an important subject in modern legal research. It’s supposed that mankind must discover fire before they got to civilization, mankind must establish a perfect system of lawyers before they get to the modern society ruling by law. It’s just like fire to help mankind out of the invasion of the beast, and improving from a primitive stage of human society, the system of lawyers can help mankind out of the invasion of the state as the Leviathan, and improving from a primitive situation where the right of mankind and justice were hard to be maintained and need the self-recovery. Looking around the world, the human race which desired to establish or was establishing the state ruling by law have been taken the system of lawyers as an important part of the legal system to consider and set up. But there are several questions. Whether do we learn the experience and transplant even the existent system of the country, which established the system of lawyers beforehand, or to establish a new kind of this system through new ways? Whether we have possessed the internal and the external conditions which were used by the countries especially the West to establish the system of lawyers or not? These questions can’t be missed and must be treated seriously. Through discussing the transformation of the system of lawyers during the generation and development of it, and analyzing the phenomena of practicing alienation which have emerged from the Chinese lawyering under Chinese system of lawyers in force, and combining the relevant internal and external theories, we hope to demonstrate some opinions.The first, the external conditions which included the considerable authoritative position of the law and the widespread acceptance by civilian under the rule-by-law situation of the west as England, U-S-A, France and Germany, and the internal conditions which included the great professional practical skills and the improvement of the autonomous and self-governing systems, had formed a great solid base for the establishment and development of the system of lawyers of the West. But the foundation processes of Chinese system of lawyers show a fact to us continuously. Without the continuous formation and transition of the relation between state and society under the rule-by-law construction, Chinesesystem of lawyers can’t release itself from the destiny as a modern symbol only, and can’t get the internal and the external conditions as the West to become a modem system of lawyers which take the protection effectively of the human right and justice as its own responsibility.The Second, we also learn that lawyer can execute the law concretely and act as an important activist who become a joint between the Civil Society and Political State. On the contrary, the realities of the situation of the lawyering of the contemporary China cannot be in accord with the desire when the system of lawyers has just been constructed, and it is a worrying problem. In fact, the judicial administration office has played a significant part in the lawyer’s management system under the contemporary China. However, comparing to the developed professional self-government of lawyering of the developed country, the Chinese administration ways to the lawyering didn’t run more efficiently. Meanwhile, a series of phenomena of practicing alienation which break the professional duty has arisen. Confronting these phenomena, along the formation of the well-co-action between Civil Society and Political State and the construction of rule-by-law, we must prompt the exchange and media action of Chinese lawyer in the contemporary china discussing area as the action of the western lawyer in the public sphere, and make the argument and criticism toward the politics and public power to good effect. But at first we must consider further about the location of the system of lawyers of the contemporary China. Through improving the component of professional self-government of the system of lawyers, the Chinese lawyers can fulfill their professional duty better than更多还原