| 摘要: | 「如果你是一位律師，你會為陳進興辯護嗎？如果你明明知道你的當事人，犯了滔天大罪，你還會接受委任當他的辯護律師嗎？如果他拿了兩千萬美金要你幫他辯護，你會因此接受委任當他的辯護律師嗎？」一位律師在法律系一年級的班上，對著同學提出思考性的問題。此時的同學呆望的互看著，矛盾的沒有人舉手贊成與回應。律師表情凝重的說：「無論是好人或是十惡不赦的大壞人，身為律師的你，都有義務與責任要替他辯護。因為無論是好人與壞人，它們都一樣享有人權，都受到憲法的保障，無一可例外」。換句話說，身為一位律師，無論當事人被控訴何等殘暴的重大犯罪，他在法律上的權利仍需要獲得保障，這就是民主價值的重要基石之一，不但是律師該做的事情，也是檢察官發現真實不可忽視的客觀性義務，以及法官對於審理案件時，需以無罪推定為基本原則的態度，皆是訴訟鐵三角必須清楚認知且為首要重任。
「你，相信司法嗎？」律師接著提出思考性的質疑。大多數同學用著疑惑的表情選擇否定，律師驚訝地說著：「司法是這麼正義的事情，你們要勇敢地相信司法，即便有人要行賄或是做違法行為，律師、法官與檢察官們是不會接受的」。同學們一致抹去心中，對於司法貪瀆及不法行為可能性的質疑，選擇了相信司法，相信自己正走在通往光明的司法康莊大道上。大一的法律新鮮人，對於法律的知識及司法的公信，隨著學習的累積而更加確信。未料，一年接著一年曝光的司法貪瀆案件、恐龍法官、恐龍檢察官和律師執業不當行為等等，卻未曾停息。我國的法律專業倫理與法律倫理準據出了什麼問題？為什麼會產生了這種惡習？以及為什麼產生了智識經驗判斷有失偏頗或不當的司法結果？
法律倫理學是一門亟待耕耘的法學領域，起初在探討法律倫理時，只有指涉律師倫理，於後才開始將司法倫理一併討論，故衍生了法律倫理有狹義、廣義與最廣義之定義。本論文以中華民國法律倫理規範之《律師法》、《律師倫理規範》、《法官法》、《法官倫理規範》與《檢察官倫理規範》為主要探討之客體；輔以律師懲戒案例、公務員懲戒議決書之法官與檢察官部分、法官懲戒判決、檢察官懲戒判決及時事案例，作為剖析探討法律倫理規範實效性之來源。
本論文以Hans Kelsen的實效性論點作為探討，是指有效性之法規範，在事實上是否被實際遵守或被實際運用。實效性是有效性之法規範實際上所產生的效果，惟有效性的法規範，卻不見得具有實效性，即「法律的實效性是法律有效性的條件，而不是理由」。《律師倫理規範》、《法官倫理規範》與《檢察官倫理規範》，是分別依照《律師法》與《法官法》授權而制定，是屬於具有法律或準法律性質之有效性規範。然而為什麼有效的法律倫理規範，實際上無法被人們的實際行為所服從、遵守與適用的情形，即是實效性的問題所在。
當律師、法官與檢察官，在職務運作過程中，碰到兩難困境時，無論遇到是倫理規範要求所必須要做的，與自身利益相衝突；或者是倫理規範要求的義務間相互衝突，只要面臨倫理要求間之衝突，需要選擇其一時，都是屬於倫理困境。以及自律師、法官與檢察官受懲戒之案例進行歸納，針對違反的義務類型進行實效性分析，均為本論文主要探討的核心，以探求法律倫理規範何以未能產生實際效果的原因與問題之所在。
探求出造成法律倫理規範無法產生實際效果之原因後，本論文認為應自人文因素層面著手，探討如何改善，以提升法律倫理規範之實效性。在法學教育的過程中，除了法律專業之學習外，亦應一併注重法律倫理規範意識之培養以及個人之修為。雖然並不是學習過法律倫理的法律專業者，便能擁有高尚的道德情操，但我們不能以無法保證法律專業者的人格清高，作為否定法律倫理價值的原因。
Do you believe in Judicial Justice? Imagine yourself as a lawyer, standing between the crossroad, would you choose to defend for those who you believe guilty and should be punished? How would you choose if your client offer a great deal of money?
Law school students are those who are eager and passionate for public affairs, upholding social Justice and democracy. Students are to be told by their teachers that the right thing to do is to speak for anyone, no matter what circumstances and positions they are into, since all men are entitled to human rights and protected by the fundamental right under the constitution. However, the real world seems to be cruel, as bribery rates becomes higher than ever in our judicial system and legal sphere. What has happened to our judicial ethics? What has changed our preference? And what could we learn from our experience when we face a critical decision in judging what's the right thing to do?
Legal ethics was firstly sought and discussed as ethical rules for attorney, and Judicial Ethics was latter to be developed. The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the effectiveness of normative rules in Legal Ethics, mainly on the legislations of The Republic of China. Cases and decision of the discipline committee for lawyers, judges and prosecutors would be analyzed and taken into account. The legislations used for reference are the "Lawyers Act", "Code of Ethics for Lawyers", "Judges Act", "Code of Ethics for Judges" and the "Code of Ethics for the Prosecutors".
This thesis sets its view by analyzing whether the Code of Ethics are taken into consideration. The Code of Ethics are legislations authorized by the Lawyers and Judges Act, which are at the same level of hierarchy as other legal acts. However, these valid rules are often inapplicable and disobeyed in practice, which brings us to the question concerning the effectiveness of the law － the efficacy of a legal order.
The efficacy doctrine was introduced by Hans Kelsen, who saw the effectiveness of a legal order as conditions for validity, but not a reason for the validity of the grundnorm and the individual norm. By setting the view In Kelsen's footsteps, this thesis seeks to explain the status of these legislations by analyzing how judicial authorities and lawyers meet their moral dilemma, while choosing between to obey the rules, or to fulfill their own interest by disobeying them.
By analyzing through the cases of the discipline committee and other related types of obligation that had been violated, this thesis tends to provide a suitable answer to solve question of effectiveness and gain a fruitful lesson while figuring out the puzzles. The research on Legal Ethics may not provide a better chance to enhance the obedience of morality standards, but could definitely apply an understanding of common beliefs, shaping a social value which should not be underestimated. Thus, Legal Ethics demands great develop, urges compliance and the need of applying humanistic factors in respecting social society. |
