律師保密義務與真實義務之衝突

Confidentiality v. Duty of Candor: The Ethical Dilemma in Lawyering

鍾若琪(Jo-Chi Chung)

指導教授 ： 陳鋕雄 ； 林志潔

國立交通大學/管理學院/科技法律研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6842/NCTU.2010.00796

摘要

律師保密義務與真實義務之衝突係源自於律師在刑事案件中所扮演的不同角色。律師身為委託人之辯護人，應全力為委託人的最大利益辯護，律師對委託人負有忠實義務、受委託人指示拘束之義務及保密義務等契約義務。其中律師對委託人的保密義務能夠強化兩者之間的信賴基礎，讓委託人能夠坦然無懼地將案情細節與律師溝通，使律師有效掌握案件進而提供最佳的辯護。然而，律師同時具有「自主性司法單元」的身份，使得律師不得無限制地維護客戶的利益，任意地損害公共利益。律師「自主性司法單元」的角色要求辯護律師承擔起公共責任，即對法庭負有真實義務。

律師倫理賦予的保密義務與真實義務相互衝撞所引伸出的矛盾，最常表現在委託人意圖在法庭上為不實陳述、提交不實證據，或要求律師以其不實陳述為主張或抗辯的情況，此時律師就面臨究竟要受保密義務之拘束，抑或秉持對法院的真實義務而拒絕給予委託人協助，甚至向法院舉發不法行為的兩難情況。美國對此「委託人偽證」議題有深入的討論：一派學者主張不應課予律師揭露委託人偽證的義務，否則即侵害了憲法賦予被告「不自證己罪」及「受律師協助辯護」的權利；另一派學者主張被告受律師協助辯護的權利僅止於達到正當、合法的目標，律師不得協助被告提出不實證據或違背法令。據此，美國實務上發展出來多種處理委託人偽證的手段，以確保陪審團不會被律師明知虛偽的證據所矇蔽，同時盡可能避免陪審團及法官對委託人產生偏見。

本文藉由實證研究，深度訪談我國法官、檢察官、律師，試圖了解我國目前實務上律師保密義務與真實義務的情況，並以美國面對委託人偽證問題的作法為模型詢問受訪者，以尋找以適合我國國情的應對措施。實證研究的結果顯示，我國的律師僅負有非常低度的真實義務，基本上只要律師沒有積極為偽造、變造、湮滅證據或教唆偽證等構成刑事犯罪的行為，就足以符合律師倫理對於律師真實義務的要求。然而我國近期一連串的司法風紀問題，嚴重動搖民眾對司法的信賴，如此低度的真實義務，實在無法因應目前日趨複雜的司法環境以及民眾對司法公正性的期待。故本文以美國學說與實務為基礎，探究我國律師真實義務在實務運作上的缺漏，主張我國律師倫理應增定條文，課予律師積極揭露不實證據或對審判庭從事之刑事或詐欺行為的義務，以促進國家刑事司法權之正確行使。

關鍵字

保密義務 ； 真實義務 ； 當事人虛偽陳述 ； 提交虛假證據 ； 訴訟詐欺

並列摘要

The conflicting obligations of client confidentiality and candor to the court stems from the two distinct roles lawyers play during representation of a defendant. A lawyers as an advocate to his client, has to act in the sole interest of his client and provide him with zealous and loyal advocacy. An attorney can best serve his client and represents client interests only with full and frank disclosure between client and attorney; and freedom from fear of disclosure by the attorney fosters full disclosure of the client. Thus, the ethical rules forbid lawyers to disclose information relating the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent or required by certain situations. However, lawyers as officer of the court, have specially duties to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudication process, thus, the ethical rules also requires lawyers to take reasonable remedial measures if the lawyers comes to know that a client who is testify in trial or in a deposition has offered evidence that is false. The conflicting obligations of client confidentiality and duty of candor to the court creates an ethical dilemma for lawyers in situations like client perjury. When a lawyer comes to know his client intends to perjure himself, he has to choose from keeping the secret for his client and present his client’s testimony at trial in the ordinary way or reveal the incriminating information to the court.

The client perjury controversy has been widely disputed in the U.S. Some suggested that client perjury rules, which requires lawyer to deliberately elicit incriminating information from the client without warning the client of the consequences in advance, violates the client's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, while others believed that only good faith communications can be protected, and the counsel's duty of loyalty to, and advocacy of, the defendant's cause is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for truth. In order to cope with the distressing ethical dilemma in client perjury, many remedial measures have been developed in the U.S. These measures are taken by lawyers to ensure the jury will not be misled by false evidence, and at the same time, protect the client from presumption of prejudice.

Through empirical studies, judges, prosecutors and lawyers in Taiwan are interviewed in order to find out how practitioners carry out their obligations of client confidentiality and duty of candor and to further develop remedial measures compatible to the legal system of Taiwan.

The results of empirical study demonstrate that the lawyers’ duty of candor in Taiwan is very low. Technically speaking, as long as the lawyer does not commit subornation of perjury or unlawfully destroying or concealing documents which constitute criminal offence, the lawyer would be deemed to have fulfilled his duty of candor to the court. The lawyer has no obligation to report criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding. Yet, this extremely low duty of candor is not enough to rectify the proceeding undermining-behaviors, such as the recent judicial scandal of judges taking bribes from criminal defendants. Finally, through combining the theories and empirical research results, this thesis proposes that the ethical rules in Taiwan need to be revised to establish higher duty of candor on lawyers, requiring them to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer’s client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding, as a way to secure the legitimacy and integrity of the adjudicative process.

並列關鍵字

confidentiality ； duty of candor ； client perjury ； client fraud

參考文獻

1. 中華民國律師公會全國聯合會第八屆第二次會員代表大會記錄，附件八，律師倫理規範修正草案條文對照表，《全國律師》，2009年10月。

2. 中華民國刑法第一百六十五條修正草案條文對照表，法務部檢察司，98年5月26日。

1. 鍾鳳玲，《從檢察制度的歷史與比較論我國檢察官之定位與保障》，政大法律學研究所博士論文，2008年7月。

17. Freedman, Monroe H., Perjury: The Lawyer’s Trilemma, 1 Litigation 26 (1975).

26. Lefstein, Norman, The Criminal Defendant Who Proposes Perjury: Rethinking the Defense Lawyer's Dilemma, 6 HOFSTRA L. REV. 665(1978).