中国法律职业状况调查研究报告.doc
《中国法律职业状况调查研究报告.doc》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《中国法律职业状况调查研究报告.doc(77页珍藏版)》请在咨信网上搜索。
中国法律职业状况调查研究报告 双城记 中国法律职业状况报告 A tale of two cities The legal profession in China 发布人:国际律师协会,伦敦 By IBA 研究作者: By Marco Marazzi and Chen Youxi [国际律协意大利律师]Marco Marazzi [中国律师]陈有西 [研究助理]:中国人民大学律师学院法律硕士研究生 刘芸 [英文正式发布文件,PDF转换] INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION’S HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTE (IBAHRI) THEMATIC PAPERS No 2 A Tale of Two Cities – the Legal Professionin China Marco Marazzi and Chen Youxi Material contained in this report may be freely quoted or reprinted, provided credit is given to the International Bar Association. A Tale of Two Cities – the Legal Profession in China DECEMBER 2012 This paper will analyse the current situation of the legal profession in China, the difficulties faced by lawyers, and the prospects for improvement. It will argue that, while the legal profession in China is acquiring increasing importance and strength– with the number of lawyers now exceeding 230,000 (as opposed to only over 2,000 less than 30 years ago) – the independence of lawyers remains an aspiration more than a reality; depending on their area of practice, lawyers can suffer great constraints in what they can realistically achieve and in the exercise of their rights. This is gradually leading to a bifurcation within the system: between lawyers dealing mostly with civil and commercial matters who benefit from both an increasing ability to exercise their rights and from growing financial rewards; and lawyers who deal with more sensitive administrative and criminal cases, who face often insurmountable challenges, and as a consequence, tend to be much less successful financially and enjoy a much lower status within the legal profession as a whole. In other words, while legal practitioners may be part of the same bar association and work within the same city, they are actually living and working in two separate and different worlds, depending on the nature of their practice. The outcome is that the brightest and more capable lawyers often tend to refrain from handling precisely those types of cases where a lawyer can make a difference in the protection of fundamental rights. Background During the 1930s, in the part of China that was under control of the Chinese Communist Party, the birth of the legal defence system can be traced back to the period of the so-called ‘revolutionar y bases’. In 1932, a legal defence system had already been created inside the base areas in accordance with the Interim Organizations and Regulations of the Judges Department, enacted by the Central Executive Committee of the Chinese Soviet Republic. These rules stated that, with the approval of a court, the defendant could appoint a representative to defend them during the trial in order to protect all relevant interests. Following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the existing legal profession suffered several significant setbacks. With the abolition of legal systems adopted by the former Nationalist government based on the so-called ‘Six Codes’, many members of the legal profession were listed as ‘reactionar y’ and were purged. The legal profession almost vanished. * Marco Marazzi is a foreign lawyer who has lived and worked in China for more than 18 years. Chen Youxi is a legal practitioner specialising in criminal law, a partner of Capital Equity Legal Group and a professor of law. Liu Yun, a PhD student at People’s University of China, actively liaised with the authors on this article. The views and opinions expressed herein are of the authors only and do not in any manner represent those of their current employers. DECEMBER 2012 A Tale of Two Cities – the Legal Profession in China In particular, in December 1950, the Ministr y of Justice (MoJ) issued the ‘Circular Concerning Banning “Evil-Minded Lawyers” and Pettifoggers’, which explicitly outlawed bar associations and other ‘lawyering’ activities existing during the period of the Nationalist government. As a consequence, defendants in criminal trials were tried through the ‘revolutionar y mass’ method without any legal defence. The ver y existence of lawyers was not recognised until the enactment of the first Constitution of the People’s Republic of China in 1954, which stated clearly under Article 76 that ‘cases which are heard by the courts should be open to the public except for some special situations stated by the law, and the accused has the right to defence’. In 1956, the MoJ issued the first ‘Report on Instructions Concerning the Establishment of Lawyers’, creating the first professional lawyer system since the foundation of the People’s Republic. The Chinese government cultivated its own lawyers to ser ve in this new regime; most of them were students who returned from the Soviet Union and those who had received a legal education during the period of the Nationalist government. However, the ‘Anti-Rightist’ campaign – initiated in 1957 by Mao Zedong – again identified nearly half of the 2,000 plus lawyers existing at that time as ‘rightists’ and, therefore, subjects of persecution. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) – which led to a period of almost total lawlessness in the administration of justice – law faculties were closed, lawyer qualification exams were suspended, and law firms and bar associations practically ceased to exist. Following Mao’s death in 1976, the trial of the Gang of Four1 and the ascent to power of Deng Xiaoping, China adopted a new Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (the ‘Criminal Procedure Law’) re-affirming the right to defence of the accused, leading to the rebirth of the legal profession. The right to defence was subsequently recognised also in the new Constitution adopted in 1982. In particular, the Criminal Procedure Law enacted in 1979 provided that the accused can seek legal help from the beginning of the investigation and that, when the case is heard, the accused not only had the right to defend the charges (meaning that they can argue the case personally), but also the right to apply for the collection of evidence and for further investigations. The accused also had the right to make a final statement and appeal during the trial and to appoint a legal defender who could be a lawyer, or a civilian who is recommended by the accused’s work unit (or the mass organisation he belonged to), or as permitted by the court, or a close relative or custodian of the accused. The responsibility of the defender was to offer materials and arguments based on the facts and law, which can prove the accused not guilty or can reduce or avoid criminal liability, and to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the accused. The lawyer was permitted to consult the materials relevant to the case, and to meet and communicate with the accused in writing. All of this could be done also by other defenders with the permission of the court. The law also provided that in cases where there was a public prosecutor, if the accused did not appoint a defender, the court could appoint one. During the trial, if the accused believed that the defender could not protect his or her legitimate rights, the legal defender could be dismissed and another appointed. The Gang of Four comprised Mao’s wife and three other Communist Party officials who, after Mao’s death, were accused of ‘anti-Party’ activities and of being responsible for the worst excesses during the Cultural Revolution. In 1981, they were tried and convicted in what many believe was a politically motivated trial to eliminate the most conser vative figures within the Party and strengthen the path to the ‘reform and opening’ policy. A Tale of Two Cities – the Legal Profession in China DECEMBER 2012 In 1980, China adopted the Interim Regulations on Lawyers of the People’s Republic of China (the ‘Interim Regulations’), followed in 1981 and 1986 by other regulations issued by the Supreme People’s Court,2 the Supreme People’s Procuratorate,3 and the Ministr y of Public Security. For over a decade, this legislation formed the backbone of the legal framework regulating the establishment of law firms and the participation of lawyers in court proceedings. Following the reopening of law faculties at the beginning of the 1980s, the first lawyer qualification exams were held in 1986, the same year when the All China Lawyers Association (ACLA) was founded. One could justifiably say, therefore, that the legal profession in the ‘new’ China (ie, the China emerging from Mao’s totalitarian period) is barely 30 years old. Under the 1980 Interim Regulations, lawyers were defined as ‘workers of the state’ who ‘represented the state’ and ‘protected the interests of the state’. In other words, lawyers were seen as civil ser vants; they were salaried by the state and therefore were not free professionals. Lawyers were seen as a component of the overall administration of justice and were expected to assist in the enforcement of laws and regulations, and to uphold the socialist Accordingly, virtually all law firms and legal advisor y offices created in the decade following the reopening of law faculties were in one way or another affiliated to government departments or entities. At the end of the 1980s the first foreign law firms also started flocking into China, initially in the form of consulting companies, working on non-litigation matters and not allowed to appear in court. However, foreign law firms quickly achieved an almost total monopoly on commercial and corporate legal advice given to the large number of foreign investors entering the countr y. In 1992, the MoJ issued rules restricting the scope of the foreign firms’ activities: while still able to hire locally qualified lawyers and law students, they were restricted to practising the law of their home countries and dealing with non-litigation matters concerning enterprises from their own countries. In other words, they could not practise local law even if they employed locally-qualified lawyers. This situation has not changed. At the same time, foreign firms have contributed actively to the training of a new generation of PRC commercial and corporate lawyers, some of whom left these foreign firms to set up their own firms. At the beginning of the 1990s, as part of the overall economic liberalisation and reform, the first firms organised along the lines of the private partnership model were established. Many state-owned law firms started to convert into partnerships using a personal partnership model where partners assume unlimited joint and several liability, as well as into corporate-style partnerships. Junhe Law Offices (now one of the largest in China) was founded in 1989; and King & Wood,5 another prominent firm which recently merged with an Australian firm, was founded in 1993. During the same period, the first firms registered under the name of an individual lawyer also were founded. Since 2008, with the amendment of the Lawyers Law of the People’s Republic of China (the ‘Lawyers Law’), over 90 per cent of the law firms in the countr y are organised under the personal partnership model and named after the partners; although some state-owned law firms still remain in some remote and less-developed areas. In addition, all corporate-style partnerships had to be 2 This is the highest-level court in China. It functions as court of appeal for cases heard by provincial level courts and provides interpretation of laws and regulations. 3 The Supreme People’s Procuratorate is the highest level prosecutorial authority. 4 As noted below, to a large extent lawyers are still seen as performing this ‘auxiliar y’ role in the administration of justice and are expected to protect the interest of the state and of the Chinese Communist Party. 5 Now known as King & Wood Mallesons. DECEMBER 2012 A Tale of Two Cities – the Legal Profession in China reorganised in terms of the personal partnership model. Meanwhile, legal aid centres – funded by the state – have been set up under the local justice bureaus, aiming to help the needy. Some of the big law firms, such as Dacheng, King & Wood Mallesons, AllBright, and Jingheng, now employ thousands of lawyers, and they have specific divisions of professional practice. However, PRC lawyers who practise in medium–small law firms tend to be ‘generalists’ and undertake litigation (often both civil and criminal) as well as commercial and corporate In the past few years, however, the largest firms (especially those with a large nation-wide network) have focused mainly on commercial/corporate work and related commercial/civil litigation, for two principal reasons: first, because these remain the most profitable practices; and secondly, because (as will be further explained later) criminal cases and administrative litigation cases to a large extent remain less rewarding financially and are more risky from a professional point of view, and thus they fail to appeal to many successful and capable lawyers. The Lawyers Law The development of private firms and the increasing role played by lawyers in the legal system in the 1990s led to the adoption in 1996 of the new ‘Lawyers Law’. This law (further amended in 2007) is recognised as the real first ‘code’ regulating lawyers in the ‘new China’. Under the Lawyers Law, a lawyer is defined as ‘a practitioner who has duly obtained the lawyer’s practising certificate according to the law and who, by way of accepting an appointment or through designation, provides legal ser vices to a concerned party’ – a ver y different definition from the previous one of ‘worker of the state’. The Lawyers Law also states that, in their practise, lawyers must not only ‘abide by the Constitution and the law, and adhere to the ethics of the legal profession and practise discipline’, but also that they ‘shall be subject to the monitoring by the state, the public and the concerned party’. Nevertheless, Article 3(4) of the Lawyers Law states ver y clearly that ‘a lawyer practicing in accordance with the law shall be protected by the law and no organisation or individual may infringe upon his/her lawful rights and interests’. In order to qualify as a lawyer, an individual must ‘uphold the Constitution’ and pass the state judicial examination (since 2002, China holds a ‘unified bar exam’ ever y year which opens the way to all legal professions). The individual is also required to have completed a full year’s training in a law firm, and similarly to requirements found in other jurisdictions, is to ‘[be] of good conduct’. The practising certificate allows the lawyer to practise nationwide, that is, it is not subject to any territorial limitation. More importantly, however, la- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 中国 法律 职业 状况 调查研究 报告
咨信网温馨提示:
1、咨信平台为文档C2C交易模式,即用户上传的文档直接被用户下载,收益归上传人(含作者)所有;本站仅是提供信息存储空间和展示预览,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容不做任何修改或编辑。所展示的作品文档包括内容和图片全部来源于网络用户和作者上传投稿,我们不确定上传用户享有完全著作权,根据《信息网络传播权保护条例》,如果侵犯了您的版权、权益或隐私,请联系我们,核实后会尽快下架及时删除,并可随时和客服了解处理情况,尊重保护知识产权我们共同努力。
2、文档的总页数、文档格式和文档大小以系统显示为准(内容中显示的页数不一定正确),网站客服只以系统显示的页数、文件格式、文档大小作为仲裁依据,个别因单元格分列造成显示页码不一将协商解决,平台无法对文档的真实性、完整性、权威性、准确性、专业性及其观点立场做任何保证或承诺,下载前须认真查看,确认无误后再购买,务必慎重购买;若有违法违纪将进行移交司法处理,若涉侵权平台将进行基本处罚并下架。
3、本站所有内容均由用户上传,付费前请自行鉴别,如您付费,意味着您已接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不进行额外附加服务,虚拟产品一经售出概不退款(未进行购买下载可退充值款),文档一经付费(服务费)、不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
4、如你看到网页展示的文档有www.zixin.com.cn水印,是因预览和防盗链等技术需要对页面进行转换压缩成图而已,我们并不对上传的文档进行任何编辑或修改,文档下载后都不会有水印标识(原文档上传前个别存留的除外),下载后原文更清晰;试题试卷类文档,如果标题没有明确说明有答案则都视为没有答案,请知晓;PPT和DOC文档可被视为“模板”,允许上传人保留章节、目录结构的情况下删减部份的内容;PDF文档不管是原文档转换或图片扫描而得,本站不作要求视为允许,下载前自行私信或留言给上传者【精****】。
5、本文档所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用;网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽--等)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。
6、文档遇到问题,请及时私信或留言给本站上传会员【精****】,需本站解决可联系【 微信客服】、【 QQ客服】,若有其他问题请点击或扫码反馈【 服务填表】;文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“【 版权申诉】”(推荐),意见反馈和侵权处理邮箱:1219186828@qq.com;也可以拔打客服电话:4008-655-100;投诉/维权电话:4009-655-100。
1、咨信平台为文档C2C交易模式,即用户上传的文档直接被用户下载,收益归上传人(含作者)所有;本站仅是提供信息存储空间和展示预览,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容不做任何修改或编辑。所展示的作品文档包括内容和图片全部来源于网络用户和作者上传投稿,我们不确定上传用户享有完全著作权,根据《信息网络传播权保护条例》,如果侵犯了您的版权、权益或隐私,请联系我们,核实后会尽快下架及时删除,并可随时和客服了解处理情况,尊重保护知识产权我们共同努力。
2、文档的总页数、文档格式和文档大小以系统显示为准(内容中显示的页数不一定正确),网站客服只以系统显示的页数、文件格式、文档大小作为仲裁依据,个别因单元格分列造成显示页码不一将协商解决,平台无法对文档的真实性、完整性、权威性、准确性、专业性及其观点立场做任何保证或承诺,下载前须认真查看,确认无误后再购买,务必慎重购买;若有违法违纪将进行移交司法处理,若涉侵权平台将进行基本处罚并下架。
3、本站所有内容均由用户上传,付费前请自行鉴别,如您付费,意味着您已接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不进行额外附加服务,虚拟产品一经售出概不退款(未进行购买下载可退充值款),文档一经付费(服务费)、不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
4、如你看到网页展示的文档有www.zixin.com.cn水印,是因预览和防盗链等技术需要对页面进行转换压缩成图而已,我们并不对上传的文档进行任何编辑或修改,文档下载后都不会有水印标识(原文档上传前个别存留的除外),下载后原文更清晰;试题试卷类文档,如果标题没有明确说明有答案则都视为没有答案,请知晓;PPT和DOC文档可被视为“模板”,允许上传人保留章节、目录结构的情况下删减部份的内容;PDF文档不管是原文档转换或图片扫描而得,本站不作要求视为允许,下载前自行私信或留言给上传者【精****】。
5、本文档所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用;网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽--等)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。
6、文档遇到问题,请及时私信或留言给本站上传会员【精****】,需本站解决可联系【 微信客服】、【 QQ客服】,若有其他问题请点击或扫码反馈【 服务填表】;文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“【 版权申诉】”(推荐),意见反馈和侵权处理邮箱:1219186828@qq.com;也可以拔打客服电话:4008-655-100;投诉/维权电话:4009-655-100。
关于本文