미국법상 변호사의 보수규제
Regulations on Attorneys' Fee in U.S.
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Attorneys have duty to perform legal practice on legal matters by client's delegation, and clients are provided with legal service by attorneys. In Roman times, Attorney's practice was done gratis, thus legal service could not be compensated in principle, but in modern days attorney's legal service is usually given fee. As the relationship between client and attorney is defined by delegation contract, attorneys' fee will be determined by their agreement at the time of conclusion of the contract. Nevertheless, traditionally attorneys' fee has been the most critical cause of legal disputes between clients and attorneys. Especially in cases where attorneys drew excessive fee agreements exploiting clients' unfavorable conditions, such unscrupulous fee agreements gave rise to the serious criticism in the society and also damaged the reputation and credibility of the entire legal profession. American Bar Association(ABA) provided rules on types, amounts, means of agreement of attorneys' fee and the likes in Model Rules of Professional Conduct(MPRC). As ABA is a private voluntary association, MRPC is only a model without binding force. However most of the states' bar associations in U.S. adopted ABA's MRPC as their rules of professional conduct either with or without a few modifications. Furthermore many state courts also adopted their own state bar association's rules of professional conduct which accepted ABA's MRPC as the state law by the court's authority. Therefore ABA's MRPC would be the most general rules on regulation of attorneys' fee in U.S. In this light, this paper will examine and analyze the academic discussions on interpretation, and the various cases in U.S. states courts surrounding ABA's MRPC. For this purpose, regulations on unreasonable fee, contingent fee, and fee sharing among attorneys, and procedural requirements for fee agreement in ABA's MRPC will be covered, and finally its implications for Korea will be reviewed in conclusion.
Abstract
Attorneys have duty to perform legal practice on legal matters by client's delegation, and clients are provided with legal service by attorneys. In Roman times, Attorney's practice was done gratis, thus legal service could not be compensated in principle, but in modern days attorney's legal service is usually given fee. As the relationship between client and attorney is defined by delegation contract, attorneys' fee will be determined by their agreement at the time of conclusion of the contract. Nevertheless, traditionally attorneys' fee has been the most critical cause of legal disputes between clients and attorneys. Especially in cases where attorneys drew excessive fee agreements exploiting clients' unfavorable conditions, such unscrupulous fee agreements gave rise to the serious criticism in the society and also damaged the reputation and credibility of the entire legal profession. American Bar Association(ABA) provided rules on types, amounts, means of agreement of attorneys' fee and the likes in Model Rules of Professional Conduct(MPRC). As ABA is a private voluntary association, MRPC is only a model without binding force. However most of the states' bar associations in U.S. adopted ABA's MRPC as their rules of professional conduct either with or without a few modifications. Furthermore many state courts also adopted their own state bar association's rules of professional conduct which accepted ABA's MRPC as the state law by the court's authority. Therefore ABA's MRPC would be the most general rules on regulation of attorneys' fee in U.S. In this light, this paper will examine and analyze the academic discussions on interpretation, and the various cases in U.S. states courts surrounding ABA's MRPC. For this purpose, regulations on unreasonable fee, contingent fee, and fee sharing among attorneys, and procedural requirements for fee agreement in ABA's MRPC will be covered, and finally its implications for Korea will be reviewed in conclusion.
참고문헌 (44)
- "Formal Op. 93-379 (1993)"[URL]
- ABA, "Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct", pp.66~ (2006)
- Adam Silverlight, "Gambling with Ethics and Constitutional Rights: A Look at Issues Involved with Contingent Fee Arrangements in Criminal Defense Practice", Seattle U. L. Rev, 27, pp.805~810 (2003)
- Ankur Parekh, "Lawyers, Ethics, and Fees: Getting Paid under Model Rule 1.5", Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 16, pp.767~769 (2002)
- Charles W. Wolfram, "Modern Legal Ethics", pp.504~ (1986)
- Committee of Lawyer Business Ethics, "Business and Ethics Implications of Alternative Billing Practices: Report on Alternative Billing Arrangements", Bus. Law, 54, pp.175~ (1998)
- David D. Dodge, "Eye on ethics: Take Care When Changing Fee Agreements", AZ Attorney, 42, pp.8~ (2005)
- Deborah L. Rhode, "Legal Ethics", pp.674~ (2001)
- Deborah L. Rhode, "Professional Responsibility and Regulation", pp.208~ (2007)
- Douglas R. Richmond, "Changing Fee Agreements During Representation: What Are the Rules?", PROF. LAW, 15(3), pp.2~ (2004)
- Douglas R. Richmond, "The New Law Firm Economy, Billable Hours, and Professional Responsibility", Hofstra L. Rev, 29, pp.207~ (2000)
- "In re Estate of Johnson 119 P.3d 425(Alaska,2005)", ~ (2005)
- Jim O. Stuckey, Ⅱ, "Reverse Contingency Fees": A Potentially Profitable and Professional Solution to the Billable Hour Trap", Prof Law, 16, pp.25~ (2005)
- Lester Brickman, "Setting the Fee When the Client Discharges a Contingent Fee Attorney", Emory L. J, 41, pp.367~ (1992)
- Lindsey Godfrey, "Rethinking the Ethical Ban on Criminal Contingent Fees: A Common sense Approach to Asset Forfeiture", Tex. L. Rev, 79, pp.1699~ (2000)
- Nathan M. Crystal, "An INtroduction to Professional Responsibility", pp.35~ (1998)
- Robald D. Rotunda, "Legal Ethics", pp.37~ (2003)
- Sonia S. Chan, "ABA Formal Opinion 93-379: Double Billing, Padding and Other Forms of Overbilling", Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 9, pp.611~612 (1995)
- Stephen Gillers, "Regulation of Lawyers", pp.3~ (2005)
- W. Bradley Wendel, "Professional Responsibility", pp.58~ (2004)
- 강일원, "사법개혁추진위원회의 형사사법개선방안 : 형사사건에 있어 변호사 성공보수문제를 중심으로", 형사재판의 제문제, 3 (2000)
- 권오승, "변호사 보수에 관한 검토", 법과 사회, (11) (1995)
- 권오승, "변호사의 성공보수 - 대법원 1992. 3. 31. 선고, 91다29804판결", 민사판례연구, 16 (1994)
- 김재원, "변호사비용과 법조윤리 : 미국의 수임료규제를 중심으로", 법과 사회, (11) (1995)
- 배성호, "변호사보수의 현대적 과제", 한국부패학회보, 11(1), pp.23~44 (2006), 한국부패학회
- 백윤재, "공정한 법률서비스 환경 조성을 위한 개선 방안- 불성실 변론과 변호사 보수 문제를 중심으로 -", 법조, 56(1)통권 : 604, pp.70~85 (2007), 법조협회
- 오종근, "변호사보수에 관한 연구", 법과사회, (27), pp.77~134 (2004), 법과사회이론학회
- 이규호, "미국에 있어서 변호사보수의 각자부담원칙에 대한 연구", 연세법학연구, 5(2)통권 : 6 (1998)
- 이규호, "성공보수금계약에 관한 연구", 연세법학연구, 6(1) (1999)
- 이상돈, "辯護士 報酬에 관한 고찰", 法學論文集, 32(1), pp.191~209 (2008), 법학연구원
- 이상수, "법조윤리의 이론과 실제", pp.248~251 (2009), 서강대학교 출판부
- 이승우, "專門家의 用役提供과 辯護士法上 報酬規定의 問題點", 헌법학연구, 9(4), pp.241~269 (2003), 한국헌법학회
- 이창희, "변호사보수의 적정성과 투명성, in 법률가의 윤리와 책임" (2003)
- 이청조, "독일변호사의 성공보수규제에 관한 법리", 부산판례연구회 판례연구, 21 (2001)
- 이청조, "변호사의 보수에 관한 법리", 동아법학, (20) (1996)
- 이청조, "프랑스변호사의 성공보수규제에 관한 법리", 동아논총, 37 (2000)
- 이충상, "우리나라와 일본의 형사실무의 차이 : 특히 변호사의 보수", 형사재판의 제문제, 3 (2000)
- 이준형, "변호사 사건위임계약서상 불공정약관으로서의 성공보수 및 승소간주 약정", 경쟁법연구, 19, pp.193~221 (2009), 한국경쟁법학회
- 전경운, "변호사의 성공보수약정- 대판 2002. 4. 12. 선고 2000다50190 판결, 판례공보 제155호 1085면 이하 -", 민사법학, (25), pp.199~225 (2004), 한국민사법학회
- 최병선, "정부규제론", pp.318~ (2007), 법문사
- 최진안, "법조윤리", pp.259~261 (2010), 세창출판사
- 한수웅, "독일의 변호사보수", 법과 사회, (11) (1995)
- 한인섭, "법조윤리", pp.215~ (2010), 박영사