本文關(guān)鍵詞： 律師懲戒權(quán) 行政處罰權(quán) 紀(jì)律處分權(quán) 律師管理體制 律師協(xié)會　出處：《中國政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：本文以律師懲戒權(quán)為研究對象,在“兩結(jié)合”管理體制背景下,詳細(xì)論述了律師懲戒權(quán)的性質(zhì)、來源、形成原因,最后分析了改革律師懲戒權(quán)的必要性、可行性和改革方法。 1980年,全國人大常委會頒布了《中華人民共和國律師暫行條例》,初步構(gòu)建了我國律師制度。1993年,國務(wù)院批準(zhǔn)了《司法部關(guān)于深化律師工作改革的方案》。該方案首次明確了“兩結(jié)合”的律師管理體制:“從我國的國情和律師工作的實際出發(fā),建立司法行政機(jī)關(guān)的行政管理與律師協(xié)會行業(yè)管理相結(jié)合的管理體制。經(jīng)過一個時期的實踐后,逐步向司法行政機(jī)關(guān)宏觀管理下的律師協(xié)會行業(yè)管理體制過渡�！�1996年頒布的《律師法》將“兩結(jié)合”的管理體制以法律的形式規(guī)定下來,本法規(guī)定了律師協(xié)會是律師的自律性組織,律師必須加入所在的地方律師協(xié)會,還詳細(xì)規(guī)定了律師協(xié)會的各項職責(zé)。在律師管理體制中,律師懲戒權(quán)是一項極為重要的權(quán)利。本文中,筆者對律師懲戒權(quán)進(jìn)行了界定,認(rèn)為目前司法行政機(jī)關(guān)對律師的行政處罰權(quán)和律師協(xié)會的紀(jì)律處分權(quán)都屬于律師懲戒權(quán)。 本文第一部分為引論,本部分闡述了選題的由來、選題的研究現(xiàn)狀及存在缺陷、選題的意義、本文的邏輯及研究方法。本章指出,目前我國關(guān)于律師懲戒制度的研究存在兩大缺陷:第一,過分強(qiáng)調(diào)律師行業(yè)應(yīng)采取自治原則,律師懲戒權(quán)應(yīng)歸律師協(xié)會所有,而忽略了我國的司法傳統(tǒng),沒有將自治原則與我國司法傳統(tǒng)相結(jié)合;第二,提出完善律師懲戒制度的方法時,沒有注意到應(yīng)遵循我國目前的法律體系。本選題的意義在于,筆者反對照搬照抄西方國家的經(jīng)驗,試圖在現(xiàn)有的法律體系、法律制度框架和司法傳統(tǒng)下,尋求一條完善我國律師懲戒權(quán)體系的道路。同時筆者在本章闡述了本文的邏輯思路和所使用的三種研究方法,即:歷史分析法、規(guī)范分析法、比較法。 第一章論述了我國的現(xiàn)行的律師管理體制及其形成過程,詳細(xì)分析了律師協(xié)會的權(quán)力性質(zhì)和來源,以及律師協(xié)會在行政法上的法律地位。本章指出,律師協(xié)會的權(quán)力來源在實證法上來自于法律授予,行政委托和契約約定。而律師協(xié)會所行使的權(quán)力的性質(zhì)均屬于公權(quán)力,只是其在行使基于契約的公權(quán)力時,并不能作為“行政主體”而存在,不能作為行政訴訟的被告,缺乏外部救濟(jì)。 第二章通過立法的視角詳細(xì)描述了我國現(xiàn)行律師懲戒權(quán)的建立過程,展現(xiàn)了律師懲戒權(quán)在確立過程中各種觀點(diǎn),說明了現(xiàn)行律師懲戒權(quán)二元體制形成的原因。同時詳細(xì)論述了作為律師懲戒權(quán)之一的律師協(xié)會紀(jì)律處分權(quán)的權(quán)利來源和性質(zhì),揭示了律師協(xié)會的紀(jì)律處分權(quán)表面上是通過章程所賦予律師協(xié)會的權(quán)力,是一種律師協(xié)會管理成員的內(nèi)部管理權(quán)。但實質(zhì)上,律師協(xié)會的紀(jì)律處分權(quán)本質(zhì)上來源于國家的意志。 第三章分析了律師懲戒權(quán)二元體制形成的原因,其直接原因表現(xiàn)為:一方面,對于司法行政機(jī)關(guān)的行政處罰權(quán)而言,某些對律師的懲戒方式被認(rèn)為是政府所固有的權(quán)力,不會因為實施律師協(xié)會行業(yè)管理,就將其轉(zhuǎn)移給律師協(xié)會來行使。另一方面,我國試圖學(xué)習(xí)的西方懲戒委員會制度在中國立法環(huán)境下未得以完全確立。而其更深層次的原因是,司法行政機(jī)關(guān)在國家行政體系中本身處于弱勢地位,放權(quán)意愿不強(qiáng);律師協(xié)會獨(dú)立性日漸加強(qiáng),司法行政機(jī)關(guān)對其難于控制,在此種情形下,司法行政機(jī)關(guān)不愿將自身的權(quán)限完全轉(zhuǎn)移給律師協(xié)會。 第四章筆者分析了改革律師懲戒權(quán)的必要性和可行性。筆者認(rèn)為,改革律師懲戒制度可以節(jié)約行政資源,可以使目前運(yùn)行的二元體制更具備合理性,更為重要的是,在律師“行業(yè)自治”是成為主流和發(fā)展方向的今天,應(yīng)該構(gòu)建適合我國司法傳統(tǒng)和權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)律師懲戒權(quán)。最后,筆者提出了對于重構(gòu)律師懲戒方式和懲戒權(quán)限的建議,提出在懲戒方式上保留如下幾種:警告(不公開)、公開訓(xùn)誡(公開)、停止執(zhí)業(yè)、吊銷律師執(zhí)照、罰款、沒收違法所得幾種懲罰方式。在懲戒權(quán)限的劃分上,筆者提出了三種劃分方式以給讀者留下想象思考空間,即:方式一、律師協(xié)會擁有警告的紀(jì)律處分權(quán),司法行政機(jī)關(guān)擁有公開訓(xùn)誡、停止執(zhí)業(yè)、吊銷律師執(zhí)照、罰款和沒收違法所得的行政處罰權(quán);方式二、律師協(xié)會擁有警告、公開訓(xùn)誡、停止執(zhí)業(yè)的懲戒權(quán),司法行政機(jī)關(guān)擁有吊銷律師執(zhí)照的懲戒權(quán),至于罰款和沒收違法所得可以由兩個部門共享;方式三、律師協(xié)會擁有懲戒調(diào)查權(quán),司法行政機(jī)關(guān)擁有懲戒決定權(quán)。
[Abstract]:Taking the disciplinary right of lawyers as the object of study, under the background of the "two combinations" management system, this paper discusses the nature, sources and causes of lawyer's disciplinary right, and finally analyzes the necessity, feasibility and reform methods of reforming lawyer's disciplinary right.
In 1980, the NPC Standing Committee promulgated the "Provisional Regulations of People's Republic of China law >, constructs a system of lawyers in China.1993 years, the State Council approved the" Ministry of justice on deepening the reform of the work of a lawyer. The scheme for the first time defined the "lawyer management system combined with the two": "starting from the actual situation of our country and the work of lawyers the establishment of administrative management and management of Lawyers Association of judicial and administrative organs of the integrated management system. After a period of practice, gradually to the lawyers association management system transition macro management of the judicial administrative organs under the law." < > issued in 1996 will be "two combination" management system in the form of law set down, the provisions of this law, the lawyers association is a self disciplinary organization of lawyers, lawyers must join his local lawyers association, specified the duties of Lawyers Association. In the management system of lawyers, the right of disciplinary punishment is a very important right. In this paper, the author defines the right of disciplinary punishment, and thinks that the right of administrative punishment and the disciplinary power of lawyers associations belong to the right of disciplinary punishment.
The first part is introduction, this part expatiates the origin and defects of current research topic, the significance of the topic, logic and research method in this paper. This chapter points out that, at present there are two major defects of the disciplinary system of lawyers in China: first, too much emphasis on legal profession should adopt the principle of autonomy, lawyer the disciplinary right should belong to all lawyers association, ignoring China's judicial tradition, not autonomy and judicial tradition of our country combined; second, improve the method of disciplinary punishment of lawyers, did not notice should follow the legal system of our country at present. This is the significance of the topic, the author opposes the copy of western countries try to experience, in the existing legal system, legal framework and judicial tradition, seek a perfect our legal punishment power system of the road. At the same time in this chapter the author expounds the logical thought And the three methods used, namely, historical analysis, normative analysis and comparison.
The first chapter discusses China's current lawyer management system and its forming process, a detailed analysis of the nature of the power source and the lawyers' Association, and the legal status of Lawyers Association in administrative law. This chapter points out that lawyers association power sources in the empirical law from the law granting administrative entrustment contract, and. The nature of lawyers' Association shall exercise his powers belong to public power, the public power is based on the contract in the exercise, and not as a "administrative subject" exists, not as a defendant in administrative litigation, the lack of external relief.
The second chapter through the perspective of the legislative process of a detailed description of the establishment of the disciplinary right of China's current law, show the lawyer disciplinary authority in the process of establishing view, explains the current lawyer disciplinary authority formed two yuan system. At the same time elaborated the origin and nature of rights as a lawyer of the bar association of the disciplinary right of disposition rights that reveals the disciplinary powers on the surface of Bar Association lawyers association is conferred by the articles of association of power, is a member of the bar association management internal management rights. But in fact, the Lawyers Association disciplinary right of this matter comes from the will of the country.
The third chapter analyzes the reasons of lawyers disciplinary authority form the two element system, the direct reason is: on the one hand, the right of administrative punishment in judicial administrative organs, some lawyers disciplinary approach is believed to be the inherent power of the government, not because the management of the implementation of Lawyers Association of industry, will be transferred to the lawyers association to exercise. On the other hand, the committee system in Western China is not trying to learn discipline be fully established in the Chinese legislative environment. But the deeper reason is that the judicial administrative organs in the national administrative system itself in a weak position, decentralization will is not strong; the independence of lawyers association is increasing, it is difficult to control the judicial administrative organs for, in this case, the judicial and administrative authorities will not own authority completely transferred to the lawyers association.
The fourth chapter the author analyzes the necessity and feasibility of the disciplinary right of lawyer reform. The author believes that the reform of lawyer disciplinary system can save administrative resources, can make two yuan system currently running more reasonable, more importantly, is to become the main stream and the development direction of today in the "lawyer profession autonomy", should build China's judicial tradition and the power structure of lawyers right of discipline. Finally, the author puts forward the way for the reconstruction of lawyer discipline and disciplinary authority, make a reservation following several ways: in the disciplinary warning (not published), public reprimand (public), stop practicing, fine disbarred, confiscate the illegal income, some punishment. In the division of disciplinary authority, the author puts forward the three division to give the readers imagination thinking space, namely: A, Discipline Department lawyers association has warned the decentralization of the judicial administrative organs Have a public reprimand, stop practicing, disbarred, right of administrative punishment of fine and confiscation of illegal income; two, the lawyers association has warned publicly admonished, stop practicing the right of discipline, judicial and administrative authorities have revoked the punishment for lawyer's license, fines and confiscation of illegal income can be shared by two departments; three the lawyer, the association has the right of investigation and punishment, with the judicial administrative organs disciplinary decisions.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D926.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 孫建;律師懲戒職能分工改革研究[J];中國司法;2004年02期

2 章武生;中西律師懲戒制度比較研究[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);1995年02期

3 楊春福;韓國律師的義務(wù)及其懲戒[J];法學(xué)雜志;2003年01期

4 楊可中;強(qiáng)化律師協(xié)會管理職能的幾個問題[J];法學(xué);1994年07期

5 林野麗;;淺論律師協(xié)會的懲戒權(quán)[J];法制與社會;2008年08期

6 張迎濤;;律師協(xié)會懲戒權(quán)比較研究[J];公法研究;2009年00期

7 王淑榮;;日本律師職業(yè)主義的沿革[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2006年04期

8 張明勇;臺灣地區(qū)的律師懲戒制度[J];中國律師;1995年12期

9 陳文興;律師資格與懲戒[J];中國律師;1997年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 羅德;我國律師懲戒程序之完善[D];中南大學(xué);2006年

2 趙群;律師懲戒制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

3 侯峰;論律師行業(yè)懲戒制度[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

4 周嫻;論律師協(xié)會懲戒權(quán)的規(guī)范路徑[D];湘潭大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號：1555754