본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

변호사의 이익충돌회피의무

Lawyers’ Duty to avoid ‘Conflict of Interests’

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

본고에서는 변호사의 이익충돌회피의무의 법리에 대하여 살펴보았다. 변호사법과 변호사윤리장전의 규정에 의하면, 동일한 사건 내지는 쟁점이 동일한 사건에서의 대립하는당사자의 쌍방대리를 금지하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 동일한 사건이 아니라 하더라도 사건 의뢰인의 상대방 당사자로부터의 사건 선임을 제한하고 있다. 이외에도 변호사가 공무원⋅ 조정위원 또는 중재인으로서 직무상 취급한 사건의 선임과 계정권리의 양수를 금지하고있으며, 공동 당사자 간의 이해대립 시의 선임 또한 제한하고 있다. 이러한 선임제한 규정들은 법무법인, 법무법인(유한), 법무조합, 공증인가합동법률사무소, 공동법률사무소 등에모두 준용되고 있는데, 이익충돌회피의무 관련 규정들의 법해석에 대한 보다 구체적인 가이드라인을 확인하고 개선방안을 모색하고자 노력하였다.

Abstract

In this paper I have reviewed and tried to find better solutions of the subject of ‘the conflict of interests’, which is regulated by the Attorney-at Law Act and the Attorney’s Ethics Code. The several points I have reviewed are conflicting interests of the opposing parties, conflicting interests of the clients of the same party, the ethics of a lawyer who is a retired public official, mediator or arbitrator, prohibition of transfer of the legal right in dispute from a client. Conflict of interests of the opposing parties can be divided into two categories; one is the representation of both parties in the same case, and the other is the representation of the opposing party in a different case. All these rules of restriction of case acceptances are applied to law firms, limited liability law firm or law firm partnership, joint law offices in which two or more lawyers accept or handle cases or conduct the duties of lawyers jointly (hereinafter referred to as “law firm, etc.”). According to the Attorney-at Law Act and the Attorney’s Ethics Code, any attorney-at-law should not accept a case brought by the opposing party, for which the lawyer has been consulted by the other party of the case and which the lawyer has already accepted. A lawyer is not allowed to accept a case brought by the opposing party of another case which the lawyer has already accepted, unless the client of the already accepted case has given his or her consent to it. A lawyer also should not accept a case which the lawyer handled or has come to handle in his or her capacity as a public official, mediator or arbitrator. In the application of the provisions of the restriction of case acceptances, a law firm, etc. shall be considered as one lawyer. Unacceptable cases include cases where a lawyer who retired from a public office is designated as a lawyer in charge of a law firm, etc. The unacceptable cases of a law firm, etc., also include cases where a lawyer who retired from a public office receives attorney fees by actually getting involved in the acceptance or performance of cases even though he/she is not indicated as a responsible lawyers in charge of the deeds of case acceptance contract, litigation documents, attorney’s statement of opinion, etc. In addition to that, a lawyer should avoid conflict of interests of his or her clients of a same party, whom he or she represent simultaneously and respectively in a case accepted and handled by himself or herself. A lawyer should not take over the legal right which is the dispute object of the case accepted and handled by him or her. This is not allowed even when such right is assigned to the lawyer as a payment for his or her legal service by his or her client.

참고문헌 (15)

  1. 정형근, "법조윤리강의" (2014), 박영사
  2. 최진안, "법조윤리 제3판" (2014), 세창출판사
  3. "법조윤리론" (2004), 사법연수원
  4. "징계사례집 제5집" (2012), 대한변호사협회
  5. "판례⋅선례 변호사법축조해설" (2009), 대한변호사협회
  6. 손창완, "변호사와 의뢰인간의 이익충돌과 변호사의 의무 -미국 변호사협회의 직무행위표준규칙 및 판례를 중심으로-", 법학논총, 33(1), pp.427~458 (2013), 법학연구소
  7. 이상수, "차단막을 이용한 이익충돌 회피", 법과사회, (36), pp.215~243 (2009), 법과사회이론학회
  8. 이주원, "독일 법조윤리규범의 실태와 시사점 - 변호사윤리를 중심으로 -", 고려법학, (59), pp.85~112 (2010), 법학연구원
  9. 이중기, "법무법인에 발생하는 이익충돌과 충실의무 : ‘준수탁자’로서의 법무법인", 홍익법학, 14(4), pp.457~509 (2013), 법학연구소
  10. 이태영, "변호사의 이익충돌회피의무", 법조, 61(9), pp.5~53 (2012), 법조협회
  11. 정형근, "변호사의 이익충돌회피의무", 경희법학, 46(2), pp.203~235 (2011), 법학연구소
  12. 정형근, "변호사의 직업윤리에 대한 고찰", 법조, 58(6), pp.278~324 (2009), 법조협회
  13. 최윤희, "변호사의 비밀유지의무", 일감법학, (32), pp.467~481 (2015), 법학연구소
  14. 최형구, "변호사의 겸직제한과 법조윤리 – 사내변호사를 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 24(1), pp.11~42 (2013), 법학연구소
  15. 하정철, "변호사의 종전 의뢰인과의 이익충돌 - 한국과 미국에서의 “종전 사건과 동일하거나 본질적으로 관련된 사건” 범위의 비교법적 고찰 -", 고려법학, (71), pp.157~201 (2013), 법학연구원

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (21건)