개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In most countries, including but not limited to Korea, lawyers are responsible for the non-professional misconduct as well as professional misconduct. The discipline for lawyers’ purely private misconduct is not uncommon. But the discipline for misconduct in private affairs requires justification. No matter how wicked, sleazy, and unpleasant the misconduct may be, disciplinary authorities should exercise their power legitimately. How can it be justified to discipline for private misconduct outside of professional practice?
The main arguments are as follows: A lawyer’s private misconduct reflects his character that he will commit a professional misconduct in the future; A lawyer’s private misconduct reduces the trust of the public by harming the reputation of lawyers; A private misconduct of lawyer needs to be sanctioned because it is not easy to separate the private misconduct from the public misconduct.
But the arguments for disciplining for lawyer’s private misconduct do not make sense because they rest on doubtful normative assertions or poor data quality. On the contrary, the arguments against disciplining for lawyer’s private misconduct are reasonable: There is a continuing risk of arbitrary exercise of disciplinary power; In the case of a severe private misconduct, the revocation of registration of a lawyer has the same effect as if he were suspended or disbarred; It is dubious that the disciplinary authorities make effective use of limited disciplinary resources in order to investigate private sins; Discipline for lawyer’s private misconduct lacks democratic legitimacy because it does not correspond with the fundamental principles of modern democratic legal system e.g. rationality, fairness, double jeopardy, market functioning, client’s autonomy.
A lawyer as a human and a citizen has human rights and fundamental rights. Lawyers keep their human dignity and pursue happiness in the performance of their practice. In this vein, the duty of dignity maintenance do not influence every sphere of their lives.
Among the non-professional misconduct, a severe public misconduct can be discipline on the ground of violation of duty of dignity maintenance. But lawyer’s private misconduct outside of professional practice can not be justified. The provision of the discipline for non-professional misconduct should be abolished or partially revised from the perspective of de lege ferenda. In the same vein, disciplinary authorities should refrain from discipling lawyer for private misconduct.
Ironically legal ethics is not ethics. Legal ethics is about the law, not morality or justice. Lawyer’s duty of dignity maintenance has a rather ethical character. But the duty acquires a legal character by legislating it as a duty of lawyer in the Attorneys-at-Law Act. So, the discipline for lawyer’s private misconduct needs to be dealt with not from the ethical point of view, but instead from the legal point of view. A lawyer can not be sanctioned for the simple reason that the lawyer’s conduct is unethical or immoral. Legal ethics may be a ethics, but that is only a professional ethics.
The main arguments are as follows: A lawyer’s private misconduct reflects his character that he will commit a professional misconduct in the future; A lawyer’s private misconduct reduces the trust of the public by harming the reputation of lawyers; A private misconduct of lawyer needs to be sanctioned because it is not easy to separate the private misconduct from the public misconduct.
But the arguments for disciplining for lawyer’s private misconduct do not make sense because they rest on doubtful normative assertions or poor data quality. On the contrary, the arguments against disciplining for lawyer’s private misconduct are reasonable: There is a continuing risk of arbitrary exercise of disciplinary power; In the case of a severe private misconduct, the revocation of registration of a lawyer has the same effect as if he were suspended or disbarred; It is dubious that the disciplinary authorities make effective use of limited disciplinary resources in order to investigate private sins; Discipline for lawyer’s private misconduct lacks democratic legitimacy because it does not correspond with the fundamental principles of modern democratic legal system e.g. rationality, fairness, double jeopardy, market functioning, client’s autonomy.
A lawyer as a human and a citizen has human rights and fundamental rights. Lawyers keep their human dignity and pursue happiness in the performance of their practice. In this vein, the duty of dignity maintenance do not influence every sphere of their lives.
Among the non-professional misconduct, a severe public misconduct can be discipline on the ground of violation of duty of dignity maintenance. But lawyer’s private misconduct outside of professional practice can not be justified. The provision of the discipline for non-professional misconduct should be abolished or partially revised from the perspective of de lege ferenda. In the same vein, disciplinary authorities should refrain from discipling lawyer for private misconduct.
Ironically legal ethics is not ethics. Legal ethics is about the law, not morality or justice. Lawyer’s duty of dignity maintenance has a rather ethical character. But the duty acquires a legal character by legislating it as a duty of lawyer in the Attorneys-at-Law Act. So, the discipline for lawyer’s private misconduct needs to be dealt with not from the ethical point of view, but instead from the legal point of view. A lawyer can not be sanctioned for the simple reason that the lawyer’s conduct is unethical or immoral. Legal ethics may be a ethics, but that is only a professional ethics.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 비교법적 검토
Ⅲ. 사적 비행에 대한 징계를 지지하는 논거
Ⅳ. 사적 비행에 대한 징계를 반대하는 논거
Ⅴ. 결론: 입법론 및 해석론적 함의
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (3)
-
대법원 2002. 8. 23. 선고 2000다60890,60906 판결
[1] 피징계자에게 징계사유가 있어서 징계처분을 하는 경우, 어떠한 처분을 할 것인가 하는 것은 징계권자의 재량에 맡겨진 것이고, 다만 징계권자가 재량권의 행사로서 한 징계처분이 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 징계권자에게 맡겨진 재량권을 남용한 것이라고 인정되는 경우에 한하여 그 처분을 위법하다고 할 수 있고, 그 징계처분이 사회통념상
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2004. 6. 25. 선고 2002다51555 판결
[1] 교직원인 피징계자에게 사립학교법상의 징계사유가 있어 징계처분을 하는 경우, 어떠한 처분을 할 것인가는 징계권자의 재량에 맡겨진 것이고 다만, 징계권자가 재량권의 행사로서 한 징계처분이 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 징계권자에게 맡겨진 재량권을 남용한 것이라고 인정되는 경우에 한하여 그 처분을 위법하다고 할 수 있고, 교직원에 대한
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 2012. 11. 29. 선고 2010헌바454 전원재판부
가. 구 변호사법 제91조 제2항 제3호의 `변호사로서의 품위’란 `기본적 인권의 옹호와 사회정의 실현을 사명으로 하는 법률 전문직인 변호사로서 그 직책을 맡아 수행해 나가기에 손색이 없는 인품’으로 그 의미내용을 합리적으로 파악할 수 있으므로 위 법률조항은 명확성원칙에 위배되지 아니한다.
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
변호사의 품위유지의무와 직무 외 비행
법학논총
2017 .01
-
Factors Affecting the Disciplinary Misconduct of Prisoners in Thailand
International Journal of Criminal Justice
2020 .12
-
부모의 학대방임과 청소년의 비행 : 공격성의 매개효과
사회과학연구
2018 .02
-
변호사 업계의 양성평등에 대한 소고 - 취업 및 경력 초기 단계를 중심으로 -
이화젠더법학
2022 .05
-
Korean court cases regarding research and publication ethics from 2009 to 2020
Science Editing
2021 .01
-
증거위조죄와 변호인의 진실의무에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2021. 1. 28. 선고 2020도2642 판결을 중심으로 -
아주법학
2021 .08
-
일선경찰관의 문제행위 유발요인에관한 연구-자기 통제력 구성요인을 중심으로-
경찰학논총
2018 .01
-
변호사의 이익충돌회피의무
일감법학
2016 .01
-
교원의 성비위에 대한 징계양정 기준의 문제점과 개선방안
동아법학
2021 .11
-
억제요인이 경찰공무원 비위행위 인식에 미치는 영향
한국범죄심리연구
2019 .01
-
법학전문대학원과 사법연수원 교육이 직장선택 고려사항과 법조현실 평가에 미치는 영향
법과사회
2015 .01
-
변호사소개 플랫폼의 변호사 독립성 침해의 문제와 대안의 필요성
인권과 정의
2021 .12
-
공기업 임직원의 의무와 책임에 관한 연구 - 한국토지주택공사 임직원의 비위행위 및 근절대책을 중심으로-
법학논총
2023 .02
-
Lawyer's Incentive Contract in Arbitration : A Signaling Approach
중재연구
2024 .09
-
변호사 업무광고의 제한법리
일감법학
2021 .01
-
Economics for Intellectual Property Lawyers
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2016 .12
-
중국 변호사조정제도에 관한 고찰
한중사회과학연구
2020 .01
-
우리나라 대학의 연구윤리제도 현황 및 개선방향
교육과학연구
2016 .12
-
변호사 업무에서의 인공지능(AI)의 사용과 변호사 윤리 : 미국 변호사 협회 모범변호사업무규칙(ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct) 분석을 중심으로
아주법학
2024 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-360-001971824