【作者】 王艳华；

【导师】 徐卫东；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 民商法学， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 1979年恢复律师制度以来,我国律师行业取得长足发展。从业人数激增,从212人增加至2022年底的62万人,40多年间增长3000余倍。律师业务收入在国民经济中的重要性显著提升。社会生活的丰富性、科技发展、商业模式创新使法律关系呈现出多样性、复杂性,制定法语词表达有限的准确性、法律调整手段的滞后性、立法技术的局限性等因素导致法律规范体系难免不周延、存在漏洞或相互矛盾,加之律师认知能力于特定时点的有限性,律师执业过失在所难免。我国法律未明确界定重大过失概念,理论研究也仍需深入。《保险法》第27条第2款仅规定故意制造保险事故免予赔偿,未规定重大过失致损法律后果。法律规定的模糊导致理论观点莫衷一是,保险实践做法各异,司法裁判尺度不一。罗马法谚“重大过失等于故意”,民法上对重大过失与故意同等评价之情形不乏其例。但重大过失与故意毕竟是不同过错类型,重大过失认识因素至多为预见他人权益受侵害之抽象可能性,意志因素为不欲求不希望损害结果发生,有别于故意的“明知”认识因素和追求或放任结果发生之意志因素。我国制定法未界定重大过失概念,理论研究也尚未提供其程度及注意义务范围的量化标准,过失责任客观化趋势和专家责任客观标准背景下,重大过失主观可谴责性丧失了根据。保险法上区分故意和重大过失行为后果还应将保险事故特征、保险的功能纳入考量,保险事故具有偶然性,投保群体共同分担风险,保险人赔偿损失、提供处理风险等服务。故意行为违背保险事故偶然性特性,重大过失所致事故则必然参与其他非行为人可控因素,其偶然性并未被重大过失所改变,保险免责以惩戒重大过失行为的道德正当性追求宜让位受害人获赔效率的工具价值。律师工作内容和效果对社会规则的依赖及律师注意义务范围的不确定性、司法裁判不可避免的结果导向性等诸多因素导致律师执业重大过失认定裁量空间较大,难以预测和规避。从法理上区分故意与重大过失,结合其对事故偶然性的不同影响,考虑保护受害人权益、保护消费者权益、公共政策因素及损失补偿原则内涵由“禁止不当得利”向“充分补偿”方向发展,正视律师执业行为重大过失认定的特殊性,考虑吸收借鉴国外理论与立法趋势,不难得出律师执业重大过失致损风险应予承保结论。《保险法》第27条第2款中“故意”文义上不包含重大过失,即使将“故意”在制定法的文义范围内扩充到极限,也无法将重大过失划在边界内;由于不存在偏离固有语言用法对概念进行限缩的情况,无法在文义内以扩张方式将重大过失纳入“故意”概念中,该条款不适用于重大过失情形。将重大过失致损纳入承保范围符合文义、保险法依行为类型区分过错法律后果之规范体系和排除故意行为道德风险之立法目的。律师执业责任保险重大过失致损免责条款若为格式条款,须受订入控制、内容控制、不利解释规则调整,但即使提示并明确说明,条款免于不生效评价,也将因免除保险人依法应承担的义务、排除被保险人依法享有的权利而无效。若为个别协商条款,则需依《保险法》第27条第2款规范目的,结合对价平衡原则考量,未对保费构成影响时应认定无效,使被保险人法律地位不明显低于采用格式条款情形;否则有效。结合我国责任保险发展实际,兼顾律师执业责任保险转移律师执业风险和保障受害人权益双重价值目标,应在区分核心给付条款与附随条款基础上,将间接损失、实习律师执业行为致损、对与委托人无利害关系之第三人的侵权责任纳入承保风险范围,采全部赔偿结合免赔额模式;应对律师执业责任纠纷多不区分过错类型,理赔程序可能因是否构成重大过失及重大过失致损免责条款效力认定阻滞的现实问题,需背离分离原则,确立第三人直接请求权,引入保险人参与权,明确其效力及权利行使界限,以实现保险人、被保险人、第三人之间的利益平衡。各省级律师协会组织投保律师执业责任保险的方式于律师事务所经营风险意识不足、保险人不积极设计销售律师执业责任保险产品的早期阶段有积极意义,但市场化是未来方向。改变律师执业责任保险产品高度同质化现状,形成费率合理、条款公平的多样化律师执业责任保险产品市场需正视保险公司营利需要,就保险人顾虑被保险人道德风险、逆向选择而不积极承保律师重大过失执业行为致损风险的现实障碍寻求突破路径。保险人可主动采取审慎核保、采用经验费率、监督被保险人风险管理措施,律师行业规范管理、律师重视执业声誉行为亦可起到防范、规避重大过失执业行为致损风险效果。律师重大过失执业行为面临无法被保险分散的行政处罚甚至刑事责任风险、声誉受损影响业务承揽、理赔导致保费增加或可消解无责经营的隐忧。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since 1979 when lawyer institution resumed,our law profession has made great progress.The number of employees has soared from 212 to 620,000 by the end of 2022,it has grown more than 3,000 times in more than 40 years.The importance of lawyers’ income in the national economy has increased significantly.The richness of social activities,the development of science and technology,and the innovation of business model make the legal relations show diversity and complexity.The limited accuracy of the legislative language,the hysteresis of the means of legal adjustment,the limitation of legislative technology and other factors lead to the inevitable imperfections,loopholes or contradictions of the legal system.In addition,the limitation of lawyers’ cognitive ability at a specific time.Mistakes in the lawyers’ professional behavior are inevitable.The concept of gross negligence is not clearly defined in our laws,theoretical research is still needed.The paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Insurance Law only stipulates that insurance accidents caused by intentional acts are exempted from compensation,but does not stipulate the legal consequences caused by gross negligence.The vagueness of legal provisions leads to conflicting theoretical views,different insurance practices,and various judges.There is a Roman law saying "Gross negligence equal to frand",and there are many cases in which gross negligence and intention are equally valued in civil law.However,gross negligence and intention are different faults.The cognitive factor of gross negligence is at most the abstract possibility of foreseeing the infringement of others’ rights and interests,and the will factor is not wanting the damaging results,which are different in "knowing" cognitive factor and the will factor of pursuing or allowing the result to happen from the intentional fault.The concept of gross negligence has not been defined in Chinese law,and theoretical research has not yet provided the quantitative standard of its degree and scope of duty of care.On the background of the tendency of objectification of negligence liability and the objective standard of expert liability,the subjective imputability of gross negligence has lost its basis.In the insurance law,the characteristics of insurance accidents and the functions of insurance should be taken into consideration to distinguish the consequences of intentional fault and gross negligence behaviors.The insurance accidents are accidental,insurance applicant groups pooling risks,insurers compensate for losses,provide services to deal with risks,etc.Intentional behavior violates the contingency characteristics of insurance accidents,and the accident caused by gross negligence must participate in other uncontrollable factors.The contingency is not changed by gross negligence,the moral legitimacy of exemption from insurance liability in order to punish gross negligence behavior should give way to the instrumental value of the efficiency of the victim’s compensation.Many factors,such as the dependence of lawyers’ work content and effect on social rules,the uncertainty of the scope of lawyers’ duty of care,and the inevitable result-orientation of judicial adjudication,lead to the large discretion space for the determination of lawyers’ professional gross negligence.It is difficult to predict and avoid.By distinguishing intention from gross negligence in jurisprudence,combining their different influences on the contingency of insurance accidents,considering the protection of victims’ and consumers’ rights and interests,public policy and the connotation of the principle of indemnity developing from "prohibit unjust enrichment" to "fully compensate",facing up to the particularity of the determination of gross negligence in lawyers’ professional behavior,and considering absorbing foreign theories and legislative trends,it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that the risk of gross negligence in lawyers’ professional behavior should be insured."Intention" in paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Insurance Law does not include gross negligence in the context.Even if "intention" is extended to the limit within the context of the written law,gross negligence cannot be classified in the boundary.Since there is no deviation from the inherent language usage to limit the concept,nor can gross negligence be extended into the concept of "intention" within the context,this article does not apply to gross negligence.The inclusion of gross negligence in insurance coverage conforms to the meaning,the standard system of Insurance Law to distinguish legal consequences of faults according to the type of behaviors and the legislative purpose of excluding moral hazard of intentional behavior.If the disclaimer clause of gross negligence in Lawyer Professional Liability Insurance is standard terms,it shall be adjusted by the rules of controlling over the conclusion,controlling of the content and adverse interpretation.However,even if it is indicated and made specific explanation that the clause is exempt from the evaluation of non-effectiveness,it will be invalid because of the exemption of the insurer’s obligations and the exclusion of the insured’s rights according to law.If it is an individual negotiation clause,the validity evaluation shall be made according to the normative purpose of paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Insurance Law,in combination with the principle of balance of consideration.If it does not affect the premium,it shall be deemed invalid,so that the legal status of the insured is not significantly lower than that of the standard terms.Otherwise it is valid.Considering the development reality of liability insurance,and considering the dual value objectives of transferring lawyer’s practice risks and protecting victim’s rights and interests,we should,on the basis of distinguishing between the core presentation terms and the incidental terms,include indirect loss,loss caused by professional behavior of practicing lawyer and tort liability for the third party who has no relationship of interests legally with the client into the scope of underwriting risks.Adopt the model of total compensation combined with deductible;In order to deal with the practical problems that many lawyers’ professional liability disputes do not distinguish the faults,and the claim procedure may be blocked by the validity identification of the disclaimer clause of gross negligence or identifying gross negligence itself,it is necessary to deviate from the separation principle,establish the third party’s right of direct claim,introduce the insurer’s participation right,and clarify its validity and the limits of right exercise,realize the balance of interests among the insurer,the insured and the third party.The way of insuring Lawyer’s Professional Liability Insurance organized by provincial Lawyers Association is significant in the early stage when law firms lacked operational risk awareness and insurers did not actively design and sell lawyer practice liability insurance products,but marketization is the direction.To change the current situation of highly homogeneity of Lawyer’s Professional Liability Insurance products and form a diversified market of Lawyer’s Professional Liability Insurance products with reasonable rates and fair terms,it is necessary to face squarely the profit needs of insurance companies,this paper tries to find a way to break through the realistic barriers that insurers worry about moral hazard and adverse selection of the insured and do not actively cover the risk of loss caused by the gross negligence of lawyers’ professional behavior.The insurer may take the initiative to adopt prudent underwriting,experience rates and supervise the insured’s risk management measures,the standard management of lawyer profession and lawyers’ attention to profession reputation can also prevent and avoid the risk caused by gross negligence of lawyers’ professional behavior.Lawyers’ professional behavior with gross negligence is at risk of administrative punishment or even criminal liability that can’t be dispersed by insurance,business affected by diminished reputation,and higher premium because of the claim probably resolve the hidden concern of management without responsibility.更多还原