律师执业行为规范的思考

一、律师执业行为与律师执业行为规范律师执业行为是指律师在法律允许的范围内,从事与律师职务相关的活动。律师执业行为规范是指律师在职务活动中应当遵守法定的或者约定的行为规则。律师执业行为规范是律师执业行为的保障和约束,而律师执业行为是律师执业规范的具体反映。随着我国经济体制改革的不断深入,律师执业活动范围和空间的不断扩大,律师执业行为由单一的参与法院审理案件的诉讼活动,逐步延伸到涉及国企改制、公司上市、房地产按揭等各种经济活动中。律师执业行为过程中应当包含律师执业行为的权利规范和律师执业行为的义务规范两…     

中澳“律师执业环境与职业道德”研讨会在北京召开

2004年9月27日至28日,由司法部司法研究所、全国律师协会与澳大利亚维多利亚大学举办的中澳“律师执业环境与职业道德”研讨会在北京举行。司法部副部长段正坤致开幕辞。澳方维多利亚大学名义校长、维多利亚最高上诉法院法官弗兰克·文森特到会致辞。中澳两国司法界、法学界的专家、学者、同行就“律师执业中的权利与保障”、“辩护律师在法庭享有的权利与责任豁免”、“律师违反职业道德或执业纪律时的惩戒机构及其手段”、“律师的社会责任”、“律师社会诚信体系建立与完善”等8个专题进行了深层次的研讨。全国律师协会副会长于宁、司法…     

加强律师职业道德和执业纪律建设刻不容缓

律师制度是一个国家司法制度的主要组成部分,律师对于维护国家法律尊严,维护当事人的合法权益,实现诉讼的民主与公正起到举足轻重的作用。我国自80年代恢复律师制度以来,律师事业取得了长足发展:律师队伍迅速发展壮大,律师业务也由传统的刑事、民事、行政诉讼代理拓展到与市场经济发展相关的业务领域,并从事有关国际贸易、国际投资、金融证券、知识产权保护、反垄断、反倾销等多     

《律师执业行为规范（试行）》修订稿

第一条 律师的执业权利源于法律的规定和委托人的授权。律师执业应当遵循法律规定和律师执业规范要求．在委托人授权的范围内．按照法律的规定和执业规范的要求．为其提供法律服务。     

论律师调查取证执业风险与避险

北京康达律师事务所的辩护律师李庄被重庆市中级人民法院判决有罪,此事件引起了全国各律师、学者的关注。在律师、学者强调维护律师,特别是刑事辩护律师合法权益的同时,本文以律师调查取证权的权利界限为研究重点,强调在律师履行调查取证权时,应当严格依据相关法律程序,尽量规避执业风险。希望能够看到律师界强调维权的同时,注重规范律师行业管理体制,律师在执业过程中提高执业道德和执业水平。     

中华全国律师协会关于印发《律师执业行为规范》的通知

1.2011年11月9日中华全国律师协会公布2.律发通〔2011〕35号各省、自治区、直辖市律师协会和新疆生产建设兵团律师协会,总政司法局:为了贯彻落实《律师法》对律师执业行为的要求,全国律协对《律师执业行为规范(试行)》稿进行了修改,形成了新《律师执业行为规范》,     

论律师的执业困惑

在当代中国,律师已成为具有重要影响的职业群体。但同时我们还要看到,我国律师业在制度层面和实践层面上还存在许多问题,律师执业还存在许多困惑,尚有待改革的进一步深化。     

执业律师与职业律师

根据《中华人民共和国律师法》(下称《律师法》)第2条的规定:"本法所称律师,是指依法取得律师执业证书,接受委托或者指定,为当事人提供法律服务的执业人员"。该条所指律师即执业律师。所谓职业律师,笔者的定义是:为当事人提供某一方面专业法律服务并以此专业方面的法律事务为毕生事业的执业律师。     

论律师职业道德的特点

律师职业的性质及律师在社会中的特殊地位和重要作用决定了律师职业道德的特点。本文从分析律师的地位和作用入手,着重论述了当前社会形势下律师职业道德的特点,力求为当前律师制度的完善提供良策。     

切实加强律师职业道德建设

正党的十八届三中全会《关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定》明确,要"完善律师执业权利保障机制和违法违规执业惩戒制度,加强职业道德建设,发挥律师在依法维护公民和法人合法权益方面的重要作用"。为贯彻落实该精神,司法部和全国律协先后出台了《关于进一步加强律师职业道德建设的意见》和《律师职业道德基本准则》,如何将两个文件的要求落到实处,是全国各级司法行政机关和律师协会工作的当务之急和重中     

论律师的职业秘密

一、律师职业秘密与律师职业秘密特权所谓律师的职业秘密,是指律师因其职务活动中所知悉的与其委托人有关且为其委托人不愿透露的事项。律师的职业秘密具有以下特征:1、律师职业秘密的主体是律师。这里的律师包括律师、曾经担任过律师的人、实习律师、律师助理等知悉秘密的人员     

论以法律职业精英化为目标的法律职业资格考试

国家统一法律职业资格考试制度是对国家统一司法考试制度的继承和发展,应当准确认识其在报名资格、考试内容、考试模式等方面的变与不变,坚持其服务于法律职业精英化的目标。法律职业资格考试中的法律职业应做限缩解释,仅限于法官、检察官、律师和公证员。法律职业资格考试具有国家级、统一性、职业资格考试的特征,应协调其与其他国家考试的关系,取消地域区分,突出职业性。在提高报考条件和设置四年过渡期的基础之上,应禁止通过者重复报考,设置报考次数上限。与二阶段考试模式相适应,在考试内容方面应精简考查科目,增强命题的综合性和实践性。此外,应当完善合格命题者的资格条件和选拔程序,以社会需求为参考划定分数线,适当延长客观题考试成绩的时间效力。     

我国律师行业管理探析

一、我国律师行业管理制度渊源清末变法以前,我国并没有严格意义上的律师制度,更无从谈起律师行业管理。1910年,修律大臣沈家本、伍廷芳拟订《大清刑事民事诉讼法》,参酌西方审判体系,设置律师制度。对律师之资格、注册登记、职责、律师公会等,均作出具体规定。但未及实施,清廷     

浅论证据法与司法鉴定职业行为规则的契合

科学证据在诉讼中越来越占据重要的地位，也越来越多地成为新闻事件的主要关注点。科学证据不仅应当具有技术上的有效性，还应当具有技术实施程序上的适当性，即应当遵守适用有关原理或者技术应当遵守的程序，否则将影响证据的可采性。例如，DNA分型技术的出现，带来了执法领域的革命性变革。“除了细胞核DNA分析，还没有法庭科学方法被严格...     

The Canadian Legal Profession

This article seeks to weave together the limited information available on the legal professions of the Canadian provinces. Following the same general format as the other comparative studies in this series, it also offers several critical observations of special interest to readers in the United States, whose experience the Canadian bar so closely tracks. The phenomenon of stratification—familiar to American observers—is clearly visible in the Canadian legal profession. Combined with other centrifugal forces, it threatens the unity of a profession which, until recently, has managed to preserve a high degree of cohesion in training, ideology, and institutional structures. On the other hand, in certain respects, the Canadian experience seems to differ from that of the United States, especially in the strength and peculiar structure of publicly funded legal aid schemes, in the profession's continuing formal autonomy and relative immunity from public regulation, and in its long-lasting attachment to apprenticeship as a necessary stage in professional formation. These and other convergences and divergences between the two countries raise questions of general significance: To what extent do the similarities between Canada and the United States verify the assumption implicit in the theoretical literature (principally Abel, Freidson, and Larson) that there is an empirical referent for something called legal professionalism? And to what extent do the differences suggest that containing societies contribute distinctive characteristics to their legal professions, whose qualities are therefore highly contingent?     

Postmodern Professions? The Fragmentation of Legal Education and the Legal Profession

This article considers the institutional dimensions of professionalism and the legal profession's struggle with the challenges of post-modernity. An aspect of this is the Law Society's Training Framework Review (TFR) which promises changes to solicitors' education from 'cradle to grave'. The first part of the article analyses the structure and drivers of the TFR, their origins, and how they will be articulated. Secondly, the TFR is considered in the context of the political economy of higher education and its role in the new capitalism. Finally, we examine the potential effects of the TFR for the legal profession in the context of increasing practice segmentation and the threat of deprofessionalization, and also for the Law Society itself, whether it can retain a key role in the life course of the legal profession.     

法律职业话语的解析

职业主义、精英主义和民粹主义构成了现代社会关于法律职业的三种话语系统和意识形态。职业主义是一种描绘和论证法律职业的理想图景的话语,精英主义是一种论证法律职业的正当性和合法性的话语,而民粹主义则是一种批判法律职业之弊害的话语。三种话语系统和意识形态之间的良性互动,是法律职业健康发展的有效保证。     

The Human Rights Act and Legal Culture: The Judiciary and the Legal Profession

The purpose of this article is to consider the effect the United Kingdom’s currently prevailing legal culture is likely to have on the realization of cultural change presaged by the Human Rights Act. The article is in five parts. The first two address the preliminary questions: what is meant by ‘legal culture’ for these purposes, and what type of ‘human rights culture’ does the Human Rights Act envisage? The answers define the scope of the remainder of the article’s inquiry into the ways in which the Act itself and the culture of the United Kingdom legal profession and judiciary are likely to interact. The third part of the article identifies some examples of the sorts of culturally specific aspects of current legal practice which are likely to operate as serious practical constraints on the emergence of a human rights culture worthy of the name, before the fourth part considers what sorts of cultural changes will be required of judges and lawyers for the presaged cultural transformation to come about. Finally, the article asks whether there is any reason to believe that courts and lawyers can find from within their present culture the resources to bring about the necessary shift.