- 學位論文
我國律師業廣告解除管制之研究—兼採情境分析與比較法觀點
Deregulation of Lawyer Advertising in Taiwan— Adopting Contingency Analysis and Comparative Study
若您是本文的作者，可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。
摘要
我國律師業究竟得否及應否進行廣告，可謂係一爭論已久之大哉問，台北律師公會固以「律師業務推展規範」草案限制律師所得採取之廣告型式，但由於並未受到會員大會承認之故，因此並不具有實質之法律拘束力。然而，此草案昭示著公會對於律師業廣告議題之傾向，而台北律師公會之會員人數又為全台灣之冠，其影響力自不容小覷，可合理推測倘若無另以立法肯認，受公會管制之律師會員似不致於冒然以身試法，此亦解釋了為何我國律師制度發展至今，卻從未於電視、廣告及報紙上看到律師廣告之奇特現象。值得注意的是，依日前報導，立法院將於本會期，以「全面開放律師業進行廣告」作為律師法之修法重點，而台北律師公會亦受到許多來自於會員之改革呼聲，因而開始有修改前開「律師業務推展規範」草案之想法與討論，於此變革之際，當係研究此一議題之妥適時點。 本研究將以情境分析分與比較法兩大支柱作為研究主軸，先以情境分析法檢討我國律師業過去與未來情境內容與意涵是否已生有變遷。若然，是否有必要透過開放律師業進行廣告之方式來回應該等變遷。再以法學上之比較法作為另一研究觀點，以他國之實踐經驗與法制發展作為佐證，探究我國之律師業廣告管制是否與世界潮流相符，如否，又是否有何正當理由或本土上之特色原因造成台灣律師業有必要針對律師業廣告議題為不同之管制。 研究結果顯示，我國律師業發展之情境內容，已隨近年律師錄取員額之大幅放寬產生了重大之變遷，無論是社會大眾對於律師角色之期待或律師業成員間競爭之態勢與程度均與過往大不相同，因此持續禁止律師業從事廣告活動可能將與未來之情境變遷格格不入，甚而發生理論基礎自相矛盾之情形，亦使執業律師缺少正當競爭之重要手段。又，自比較法上觀點切入，無論是律師制度發展源遠流長之英美二國，或是律師制度較為短淺但與我國同文同種之中國，皆不約而同的針對律師業廣告議題採取開放之管制態度，此一國際潮流甚值正處於管制十字路口之我國參考。
並列摘要
Whether lawyers in Taiwan could or should advertise their service is a long debated issue. Though Taipei Bar Association has announced “The Regulation of Promotion of Legal Service”, which forbids certain types of advertisement including television and radio, it is not recognized by the council and therefore has no binding force. However, The regulation still clearly represents the attitude of the Taipei Bar Association on this issue, so few lawyer would like to “test” where the line is, which explain the reason why we’ve never seen any TV commercial of lawyer service in Taiwan before. According to the recent news, Legislative Yuan has announced that during this session, the issue of lawyer advertising will be listed as an priority on their working agenda, and Taipei Bar Association has also received lots of complaints, calling for deregulating the control of lawyer advertising. As a result, it would be a proper time for us to discuss the issue whether we should allow lawyers in Taiwan to advertise their service. This essay is conducted by both contingency analysis and comparative approach, and will firstly decide whether the scenario of Taiwan legal service industry has changed, and if so, whether that kind of change should lead to the conclusion of allowing lawyers in Taiwan to advertise their service in order to adapt the new scenario. This essay will then uses the comparative approach by legal researching of the regulation of lawyers advertising in United States, United Kingdom, and China, in order to decide whether regulations in Taiwan are following international trend, and if not, is there any legitimate ground for Taiwan, whether cultural, political, or economic, to justify its different approach of regulations. This Essay discovers that the scenario of legal service industry in Taiwan has changed dramatically, no matter from the perspective of social expectation, or of the competition among lawyers. Therefore, continuously forbidding lawyers from advertising may not match the future scenario and even leads to self-contradiction, which also expropriates the right of Taiwan lawyers to communicate with their target customers. Furthermore, according to the comparative approach, not only legal-advanced countries like the U.S. or the U.K. allow their lawyers to advertise their service through various ways; China, where no lawyer exist until 1982, also recognize the freedom of lawyers to do advertisement. It should be an important fact for Taiwan to take into account of when making its own decision of whether deregulate the lawyer advertising control or not.
參考文獻
台北律師公會，倫理風紀案例選輯，頁150-152（2003）。
孫誠偉，台灣的律師人口真的夠嗎？從市場經濟研究看律師總量的需求，司法改革雜誌，第64期，頁34-35（2007）。
黃旭田，律師大量增加對律師職業及台北律師公會之影響，律師雜誌，第251期，頁90-99（2000）。
黃昭元，憲法權利限制的司法審查標準：美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析，台大法學論叢，第33卷第3期，頁83~85（2004）。
黃瑞明，寧效伯高，不效季良—評我國應否允許律師廣告，律師通訊，第162期，頁1-3（1993）。