律师进社区 大有作为

律师参与“法律进社区”是切实落实党和国家提出构建和谐社会的重要举措，是实现社区规范化、法制化、和谐化建设的有效途径，也是树立律师良好社会形象、展示律师专业技能的大好机会。深圳市作为中国改革开放的窗口，在全面实现农村城市化之后，将建设法制社区、和谐社区作为社会主义精神文明建设的目标和战略之一．为律师走进社区，推进社区和谐化、法制化提供了良好机遇。     

追求百姓公平正义 促进社会稳定和谐——律师参与信访工作问题浅议

在"构建社会主义和谐社会"过程中,律师行业在协调、调解、化解社会矛盾方面不可替代的社会职能日益凸显。以律师参与信访工作为例。仅从北京市东城、西城、朝阳、海淀四个城区在2005年到2006年的部分统计数据看,共有307位律师参与政府接访工作;共接访1260批次,涉及上访人员6304人次;参与政府召开的信访协调会40余次。朝阳区的接访人数,占到了四个城区总数的70%以上。目前律师陪同政府领导接访,参与依法处理信访问题,已经成为各级政府的一项重要工作。同时,律师行业也面临着如何及时总结经验,不断提高对信访工作重要性的认识,进一步总结、规范、深化律师参与信访工作,建立律师参与信访工作长效机制的问题。一、信访工作的重要作用和律师参与信访工作的意义第一,信访工作是构建社会主义和谐社会的重要方面。信访工作是化解社会矛盾的减压阀、缓冲带;是衡量社会民主进步程度的重要尺度;是党的政策和群众联系沟通的桥梁;是反映群众诉求和呼声,实现社会公平正义     

构建和谐社会：律师作用不可缺

中国共产党十六届六中全会通过了《关于构建社会主义和谐社会基干重大问题的决定》,毋庸置疑,这是一个英明的决策,指明了我国社会的发展方向,确立了国家的发展目标。律师行业如何在构建和谐社会的进程中发挥应有作用,这是每一个律师从业人员应当认真思考的问题。     

当前检察机关信访工作中存在的主要问题及对策

检察信访特别是涉法信访工作十分复杂，有的是改革发展过程中社会矛盾的集中体现，有的是执法机关、司法机关办案不文明、不规范或者是质量不高引发的，有的则是无理纠缠甚至是有一定的政治目的或个人目的。对此，如果处理不好，在很大程度上会导致社会的不稳定、不和谐。因此，在构建社会主义和谐社会的目标下，如何分析判断涉法信访的形势及存在的问题，研究和完善处理涉法信访的机制、对策，使检察信访工作更加适应构建和谐社会的需求，无疑具有重大的现实意义。     

完善大调解机制发挥律师调解职能作用

青海律师在大调解机制确立过程中，为化解社会矛盾，构建和谐社会，充分运用丰富的法律知识、实践经验和解决技巧．利用相对客观中立的法律地位和社会身份，疏导和化解了大量社会矛盾，起到了平息诉讼，理顺情绪，促进和谐的效果，成为构建和谐社会的积极参与者和有力推动者，树立了良好的社会形象。     

关于律师参与社会管理创新工作的实践与思考

加强社会管理创新，是中央政法委提出“三项重点工作”的一项重要任务。律师作为中国特色社会主义法律工作者。在推进社会管理创新中肩负着重要职责。近年来，我省各级司法行政机关按照“三项重点工作”的总体部署，紧紧围绕社会管理创新、构建和谐社会大局，积极组织引导律师通过多种方式参与和开展社会管理创新工作，     

论接访息诉工作的十个环节

群众涉法上访折射出执法机关的执法能力和水平、执法的规范程度,揭示了影响社会稳定的原因所在。我们对待群众的申诉上访,只能导而疏,错则纠,无错则说服息诉,不能采用“冷、硬、横、推、堵”的方法搪塞,否则社会矛盾不但得不到有效的疏导和解决,反而会成为社会不稳定因素,不利于构建社会主义和谐社会。接访是受理和解决申诉的第一步,也是息诉的一个关键环节,接访的目的是解决问题,因此,接访要和有关申诉案件的办理有机地结合起来,从查明原因、找准对策上预防上访申诉案件的重复产生,从根本上解决申诉上访问题。下面,笔者就亲历接访上访群众…     

律师参与涉法信访工作的方法与作用

信访工作是党和政府政治工作和群众工作的重要组成部分，是党和政府联系群众的桥梁纽带．也历来是各级政府的一项重要工作。     

律师参与处理涉法涉诉案件探究

近年来，随着我国改革开放的不断深入，利益格局的重新调整，各种深层次的社会矛盾和问题日渐显露，这些矛盾和问题越来越多地以案件形式进入司法渠道，成为涉法涉诉信访案件，影响社会和谐稳定。解决好涉法涉诉案件，对维护人民群众的合法权益，推进法治化进程，理顺社会关系，确保社会和谐稳定，具有重大意义。本文结合工作实际，着重就律师参与涉法涉诉案件处理作些理论思考和实践探索。     

健全律师参与处理涉法信访程序机制

涉法信访，顾名思义，就是涉及有关法律关系调整、法律责任承担的信访。当前，我国正进入经济社会发展的关键时期，各种社会矛盾凸显，涉法信访已成为当前一个突出的社会问题。据有关部门统计：人民群众的上访．60％以上涉及到法律问题，特别是一些诸如土地征用、房屋拆迁、下岗安置、人员分流、环境污染等群体性信访案件，涉及面广，牵涉人员多，处理难度大，稍有不慎就容易影响社会稳定。但当前对于涉法信访的处置并不尽如人意．依法规范信访程序，改革和完善信访工作机制．使之纳入法制化轨道已成当务之急。     

积极发挥律师在化解社会矛盾中的职能作用

当前，我国正处于社会转型时期。这一时期，既是国家经济发展的黄金期，深化改革的攻坚期，又是社会矛盾的凸现期。各种社会矛盾随着制度的变革、利益格局的重新调整大量涌现。化解这些社会矛盾纠纷，除需要综合考虑制度、市场、政策等方面的因素，畅通利益表达渠道，动员社会公共管理资源外，更需要动员社会各方力量发挥职能作用，平衡各种利益关系，最终实现社会公平正义。     

The Hired Gun as Facilitator: Lawyers and the Suppression of Business Disputes in Silicon Valley

This article draws on interview data from California's Silicon Valley to explore the role of local business attorneys in shaping the market for high-technology start-up financing. Far from exerting a disruptive or disputatious influence on business relations, Silicon Valley lawyers actively facilitate the functioning of the region's venture capital sector. In particular, attorneys intervene in the start-up process to absorb, suppress, and avert crucial uncertainties that might otherwise elevate transaction costs, imperil economic activity, and foster interorganizational discord. Local law firms moderate the hazards of new-company financing in at least three distinct ways: (1) by directly absorbing economic uncertainties in individual transactions; (2) by constructing, preserving, and reproducing normative and cognitive understandings within the community as a whole; and (3) by incorporating these local practices into the external legal regime.     

作为化解行政争议主渠道的行政复议:功能反思及路径优化

新时代行政复议的功能定位应有新的认识。片面的功能定位不足以反映全面依法治国背景下行政复议在助推法治政府建设、实现行政救济、培育法治社会方面所具有的不可替代的重要作用。行政复议化解行政争议的天然优势、我国行政争议的特殊性以及域外国家和地区的经验都决定了行政复议应当成为新时代化解行政争议的主渠道。然而,行政复议的央地改革未能实现同频共振、行政复议质效评价体系科学性差、双被告制度引发复议和诉讼之间出现内耗和空转、法治未能及时为改革保驾护航等因素影响并制约了我国行政复议的良性发展。尊重行政复议行政司法属性的规律和特点,充分弥补行政复议的天然劣势,通过充分的制度供给以实现行政复议公正高效、便民为民的天然优势为宗旨,并以有效处理好行政复议和行政诉讼的差异化发展为目标,进行修法,这既是实现行政复议成为化解行政争议主渠道的必由之路,亦是助力于行政复议良法善治的应然之需。     

Flexibility and Authority: Resolving Labor Disputes in A County Government in Western China

Existing literature regards flexibility and authority as key characteristics of informal justice. We further contend that the combination of the two is crucial for informal justice to be effective. We investigate the process of dispute resolution by a Chinese labor agency. Following the life cycles of a sample of 810 labor disputes, we find that this informal justice forum was efficient and effective, made possible by the combination of flexibility and authority. Flexibility means that the agency attracts certain types of cases that are usually screened out of the formal legal system and that agency officials use “informal,” hence flexible, techniques. Authority means that the administrative agency possesses additional powers over the disputants; hence, the disputants are under pressure to follow its suggestions and decisions. A comparative analysis of various cases of informal justice reinforces the importance of combining flexibility and authority. We further demonstrate that flexibility without authority is insufficient and that some informal justice forums are effective because they enjoy both.     

The Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference: A Grassroots Alternative for Resolving High‐Conflict Parenting Disputes in Lean Times

This article describes a court‐connected alternative dispute resolution program, the Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference. The key feature of this program is the participation of two volunteer panelists, one a family law attorney and the other a mental health professional experienced in parenting disputes, who assist the judicial officer in working with the parties and their attorneys (if any) to reach a resolution of their parenting dispute. Significantly, in addition to addressing the parties’ legal issues, the panelists also address the parties’ psychological and emotional issues relevant to the dispute on an as‐needed basis. Findings from six years of experience with the program are discussed, including evidence of high satisfaction with the program, a high rate of settlement, a decrease in relitigation, and a concomitant savings of scarce judicial resources.     

THE "COOLING OUT" OF LAW STUDENTS: Facilitating Market Cooptation of Future Lawyers

This article is concerned with the ways the law school experience eases entry into a stratified market thereby further compromising adversariness in the American legal process. It identifies some dimensions of legal education, broadly construed, which tend to acclimatize some students to existing realities of the job market. Interpreting interview data gathered from first-year students at the University of Wisconsin—Madison Law School, it suggests that socialization to a professional identity can resemble "cooling out" in the ways it reconciles some to accept any employment in lieu of seeking employment more in tune with their personal goals. Such acclimatization thwarts adversariness because, in accepting the dictates of a stratified market, these lawyers are channeled to serve some interests and people to the disadvantage of others.     

Future Uncertainty as a Challenge to Law's Programmes: The Dilemma of Parental Disputes

The article poses the problem of the need for judges to make 'right' decisions. It then describes how judges have attempted to meet this requirement in difficult cases concerning parental disputes over contact with children where there have been allegations of domestic violence. Applying Luhmann's concepts of the legal system, law's function, law's coding and law's programmes (Das Recht der Gesellschaft (Society's Law) 1997), offers a very different perspective on the issue to that of the judiciary or legal commentators who tend to see the issue of the law, determining, with expert help, what is best for the child. Law's function of stabilizing expectations over time obliges it to deal with all matters that come before the courts through the application of 'conditional programmes' and prevents it from applying the 'purpose oriented programmes' of politics and those who see the issue in terms of ideological conflict.