본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

변호사 징계제도에 관한 비판적 고찰

A Critical Study on the Attorneys Disciplinary System

0

조회

0

다운로드

8

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Attorneys are the main agents of the fundamental rights who plead for the suspects or defendant against government authorities such as the public prosecutors and the police. Attorney disciplinary is an institutional strategy to foresee the spirit that was provided by the act that established the attorney system. The disciplinary is an institutional strategy to defense social blames against attorneys, to protect innocent and faithful attorneys, to maintain the occupation as an attorney for a long period. Although, the minority attorneys did actions that could be throw themselves to the disciplinary, the strict disciplinary systems are requested due to honor and confidence of judicial order collapse. When the attorneys are in the charges on the proceedings, they have aspects to make critical arguments against the government authorities inevitably and in the tension with the government powers. In this reason, the authorities are able to restrict or obstruct attorneys' performing duties. According to the history of the attorney system, it tells us that the government authorities are tend to monopolize the attorneys' supervising duties and the disciplinary. The types of the disciplinary actions are ① Permanent disbarment, ② Disbarment, ③ Suspension from practicing for not longer than three years, ④ Fine for negligence not exceeding 30 million won, ⑤ Censure (Article 90, Attorney-at-law Act). The reasons for the disciplinary action are ① the actions that is applicable to permanent disbarment, ② the other reasons that is applicable to the rest of the disciplinary types. When any attorneys falls under disciplinary action, the President of the KBA(Korean Bar Association)shall request the Attorney Disciplinary Committee to commence a disciplinary action. The disciplinary action can be commenced by application by chief public prosecutor of a district public prosecutors' office, the president of local bar association and the commissioner of LEPPC.

Abstract

Attorneys are the main agents of the fundamental rights who plead for the suspects or defendant against government authorities such as the public prosecutors and the police. Attorney disciplinary is an institutional strategy to foresee the spirit that was provided by the act that established the attorney system. The disciplinary is an institutional strategy to defense social blames against attorneys, to protect innocent and faithful attorneys, to maintain the occupation as an attorney for a long period. Although, the minority attorneys did actions that could be throw themselves to the disciplinary, the strict disciplinary systems are requested due to honor and confidence of judicial order collapse. When the attorneys are in the charges on the proceedings, they have aspects to make critical arguments against the government authorities inevitably and in the tension with the government powers. In this reason, the authorities are able to restrict or obstruct attorneys' performing duties. According to the history of the attorney system, it tells us that the government authorities are tend to monopolize the attorneys' supervising duties and the disciplinary. The types of the disciplinary actions are ① Permanent disbarment, ② Disbarment, ③ Suspension from practicing for not longer than three years, ④ Fine for negligence not exceeding 30 million won, ⑤ Censure (Article 90, Attorney-at-law Act). The reasons for the disciplinary action are ① the actions that is applicable to permanent disbarment, ② the other reasons that is applicable to the rest of the disciplinary types. When any attorneys falls under disciplinary action, the President of the KBA(Korean Bar Association)shall request the Attorney Disciplinary Committee to commence a disciplinary action. The disciplinary action can be commenced by application by chief public prosecutor of a district public prosecutors' office, the president of local bar association and the commissioner of LEPPC.

참고문헌 (28)

  1. 김재원, "미국의 법학교육과 변호사 윤리" (2007), 도서출판 정법
  2. 대한변호사협회, , 징계사례집, 4 (2006)
  3. 오종근, "변호사징계제도" (2002), 집문당
  4. 이상수, "법조윤리의 이론과 실제" (2009), 서강대학교 출판부
  5. 정형근, "법조윤리강의" (2010), 박영사
  6. 권형준, "변호사징계에 대한 불복절차의 헌법적 문제", 고시계 (2003)
  7. 김희수, "변호사 징계. in: 법조윤리" (2010), 박영사
  8. 박승룡, "변호사법 개정 논의에 대한 검토", 민주법학, 통(15) (1999)
  9. 신우철, "감시하는 자를 누가 감시할 것인가? - 변호사징계에 관한 비교사법 제도론적 일고찰 -", 영남법학, 8 (2002)
  10. 안원모, "미국에서의 변호사징계 제도발전에 대한 역사적 고찰", 법조, 47(9) (1998)
  11. 오종근, "변호사 징계. in: 법률가의 윤리와 책임" (2007), 박영사
  12. 오종근, "변호사징계제도에 관한 연구", 인권과 정의, 308, pp.2~ (2002), 대한변호사협회
  13. 오종근, "변호사징계절차에서 지방검찰청검사장의 지위", 강원법학, 16 (2003)
  14. 이상돈, "한국에서의 법조윤리와 변호사의 책임", 중앙법학, 8(1), pp.7~32 (2006), 중앙법학회
  15. 이현수, "변호사자치와 변호사징계결정의 효력발생시기. in: 법률가의 윤리와 책임" (2007), 박영사
  16. 정형근, "변호사의 직업윤리에 대한 고찰", 법조, 58(6), pp.278~324 (2009), 법조협회
  17. 정형근, "변호사 직무의 공공성", 한양법학, (30), pp.195~221 (2010), 한양법학회
  18. 채근직, "변호사의 윤리", 인권과 정의, (374) (2007)
  19. A.C. Hutchinson, "Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility" (2006), Irwin Law
  20. American Bar Association, "ABA Compendium of professional responsibility rules and standards" (2007)
  21. M.D. Schwartz, "Problems in Legal Ethics" (2007), Thomson West
  22. Ronald D. Rotunda, "Legal Ethics" (2007), Thomson West
  23. 高中正彦, "法曹倫理講義" (2005), 民事法硏究會
  24. 高中正彦, "辯護士法槪說" (2006), 三省堂
  25. 飯島 澄雄, "辯護士倫理" (2007), LexisNexis
  26. 栢木俊彦, "法曹の倫理と責任(上)" (2005), 現代人文社
  27. 小島武司, "法曹倫理" (2006), 有斐閣
  28. 田中宏三, "辯護士の役割と倫理" (2004), 商事法務

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (17건)