【作者】 王蕾；

【导师】 靳建丽；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 我国民事诉讼立法上对于如何保障当事人及其代理律师的取证权没有实质性的规定,律师自行调查与申请调查虚置化,这就造成了当事人及其代理律师在取证环节有责任无救济的局面。基于此,我国地方实践探索出一项极具本土特色的证据收集制度——民事诉讼中律师调查令制度。律师调查令制度与诉前证据保全、文书提出命令、报告财产令等制度存在着功能竞合,都在保障当事人及其代理律师调查收集权利中发挥作用。然而,律师调查令从诞生之初就饱受争议,围绕“法院拥有的公权力授予私权利主体是否合理”这一问题,不同学者从不同角度对该问题进行研究。我国民事诉讼中律师调查令制度的司法实践呈现出“当事人或代理律师启动-法院审查-律师实施”的证据收集新模式。虽然法院通过司法令状授予律师一定的调查取证权,但核心审查权仍掌握在法官手中。事实上,现阶段我国的律师调查令制度仍是沿着限制法院调查取证权限、强化当事人程序主体地位的改革方向前进,因此,法院将其拥有的公权力部分授予私权利主体是正当的,这便是律师调查令的性质所在。目前,民事诉讼中律师调查令制度在我国试点的时间不长、各个省市情况不一致、出台的规则也不统一。为了解律师调查令的实践情况,笔者以各省市出台的地方规则和调研所得的样本数据为分析对象,就律师调查令的适用阶段、证据范围、程序设计、法院审查、保障实施、责罚体系等方面展开实证研究。在理论分析和实证研究的基础上,发现律师调查令在立法层面存在立法保障不足、适用范围不明确、法院审批程序不完善、被调查主体的救济权利被忽视、拒绝调查的惩戒缺乏等问题;在实践层面存在律师调查令使用不规范及社会认可度低等问题。针对以上提出的典型问题,应当从我国实际情况出发,并借鉴大陆法系的文书提出命令制度和英美法系的证据开示制度中的有益成分,构建和完善我国民事诉讼中律师调查令制度。具体而言,一方面,立法层面的完善:第一,应当在民事诉讼法中确立律师调查令制度,同时通过司法解释完善细则;第二,严格限定调查令适用的证据范围和证据类型;第三,完善律师调查令的法院审批程序设计,明确审签程序和审查标准,赋予对方当事人程序参与权;第四,通过扩展被调查主体提交证据的方式及赋予其异议权来加强对被调查人的权利保障。另一方面,实践层面的完善:第一,构建调查令的信息化机制,使得法官的审查和律师申请使用调查令的行为可追踪可查询;第二,加大司法宣传并建立联动机制,促使调查令申请率、适用率和配合度的提高。更多还原

【Abstract】 Our country’s civil litigation legislation has no substantive provisions on how to protect the parties’ and their lawyers’ right to obtain evidence.Lawyers’ self-investigation and application investigations are fictitious,which creates a situation where the parties and their lawyers are responsible and have no remedy in the process of obtaining evidence.Based on this,Our country’s local practice has explored an evidence collection system with local characteristics-the lawyer’s investigation order system in civil litigation.There is a functional overlap between the lawyer investigation order system and the pre-litigation evidence preservation,document submission order,property report order and other systems,and they all play a role in protecting the parties and their lawyers’ right to collect and investigate.However,the lawyer’s investigation order has been controversial since its inception.Regarding the question of whether it is reasonable for the public power owned by the court to grant private rights to the subject,different scholars have studied the issue from different perspectives.The judicial practice of the lawyer’s investigation order system in civil litigation in my country presents a new model of evidence collection of "initiated by the client or attorney-court review-enforcement by the lawyer".Although the court grants lawyers certain powers of investigation and evidence collection through judicial warrants,the core review power is still in the hands of the judge.In fact,at this stage,my country’s lawyers’ investigation order system is still advancing in the direction of reforms that restrict the court’s ability to conduct investigations and collect evidence and strengthen the status of the parties’ procedural subjects.Therefore,it is legitimate for the courts to delegate the part of their public power to the subjects of private rights.This is the nature of the lawyer’s investigation order.At present,the trial of the lawyer’s investigation order system in civil litigation has not been long in our country,the situation in various provinces and cities is inconsistent,and the rules issued are not uniform.In order to understand the practice of the lawyer’s investigation order,the author takes the local rules issued by various provinces and cities and the sample data obtained from the survey as the object of analysis,and discusses the application stage of the lawyer’s investigation order,scope of evidence,program design,court review,guarantee implementation,penalty system,etc.to carry out empirical research.On the basis of theoretical analysis and empirical research,it is found that the lawyer’s investigation order has insufficient legislative protection at the legislative level,unclear application scope,imperfect court approval procedure,neglect of the remedy rights of the subject under investigation,and lack of punishment for refusal of investigation;At the practical level,there are problems such as irregular use of lawyers’ investigation orders and low social recognition.In response to the typical problems raised above,we should proceed from the actual situation in our country,and learn from the beneficial elements of the civil law system and the common law system of evidence discovery system to construct and improve the lawyer’s investigation order system in civil litigation in my country.Specifically,on the one hand,improve the legislative issues: first,the lawyer’s investigation order system should be established in the civil procedure law,and the rules should be improved through judicial interpretation;second,the scope and type of evidence applicable to the investigation order should be strictly limited;Third,improve the design of the court review and approval procedures for lawyers’ investigation orders,clarify the approval procedures and review standards,and give the opposing party the right to participate in the procedure;fourth,strengthen the investigation by expanding the ways in which the subjects under investigation submit evidence and granting them the right to object Human rights protection.On the other hand,improve practical issues: first,build an information mechanism for investigation orders,so that judges’ review and lawyers’ application for investigation orders can be traced and queried;second,increase judicial publicity and establish linkage mechanisms.Promote the increase in the application rate,application rate and cooperation of the investigation order.更多还原