律师调查权若干问题研究
摘要
律师调查权,是律师的一项基于工作的权利,专指律师承办法律事务过程中,进行的有关发现、收集、评判、使用证据活动的权利。我国审判方式改革的方向,是在原有职权主义模式的基础上展开的,逐步过度到当事人主义模式。这种审判方式的改革,要求审判人员对当事人(或控辩双方)的举证、质证活动予以引导和规制,对法官采纳、评判证据予以明确地规范和限定,以保证诉讼活动公正、顺利地进行。这种审判方式的改革,对当事人自行收集证据的要求越来越高,而要求每个当事人都能够懂得日益繁多的法律,收集符合法律规定的证据来保护自身权益也是不现实的事情。在这种情况下,完善律师收集证据制度已客不容缓。
本文从律师调查权的发展、受限的原因、赋予律师充分调查权的必要性以及通过立法解决现行制度的缺陷等角度进行论述。在具体论述过程中,通过提出问题、分析问题、解决问题等方法对每个问题展开论述的。
In recent years, for the reformed form of trial, the reformation direction is gradually over to the adversary system pattern based on the original pattern of ex officio doctrine. This reform requires justice professionals to give definite specification for the litigant (or the prosecution party and defense party) and restriction on the guidance and regulation of activities such as producing evidence and confrontation and the judge’s acceptance and judgment of evidences, with the purpose to ensure the litigation activity can proceed in a just and smooth way. The reform has higher and higher requirements to collect evidences by oneself, however, it is not realistic to expect every party can understand an increasing number of laws and collect evidences in compliance with the law in order to protect self-interests. Under this circumstance, improving the system of evidence-collecting by lawyers is of great urgency.
This thesis gives a detailed discussion on lawyers’right of investigation from seven aspects of the preface, the development history of lawyers’right of investigation, the limitation reasons of lawyers’right of investigation, the necessity to vest lawyers with through the right of investigation, several legislative principles and notices that must by implemented by lawyers’right of investigation, and designs about lawyers’right of investigation.
The preface is about the reform direction of China’s judicial system from the mode of ex officio doctrine to adversary system, and the importance of vesting lawyers with the adequate right of investigation in the reform of trial form.
Part 1: the development history of the right of investigation of lawyers. As the establishment time of Lawyer system of PRC is relatively late, and with the decade of turmoil after the founding of new China, the lawyers’system disappeared. Survey on the right of investigation of lawyers started even later. Up to now, there is still no unified and complete theoretical system. Since the research of lawyers’right of investigation focuses on investigation, the first part which starts from investigation expatiates on the emergence and development of investigation, the nature of investigation, and principles which should be followed. The importance of the right of investigation of lawyers in the whole society is clear as a result of expatiation in this part.
Part2: an introduction to the right of investigation of lawyers. The concept of lawyers’right of investigation is stated firstly, and then, the nature of lawyers’right of investigation is analyzed. Also this part points out the improperness of delineating the nature of lawyers’right of investigation according to whether the right is public or private, which should be distinguished with other right of investigations based on the special subject: lawyers. In the section of the classification of lawyers’right of investigation, the author makes classification from multi-perspectives on the basis of years of practical experience in jurisdiction. By the classification of lawyers’right of investigation, it is clearly understood that in what level and in what scope lawyers can be vested with right of investigation and why the right of investigation is vested. What is more, by discussing the difference and relation with other right of investigations from a development perspective, it is concluded that lawyers should be vested with adequate right of investigation, which lays a hint for vesting lawyers with the right of investigation in legislature.
Part3: the reason for the limited right of investigation of lawyers. That the imperfect legislation is the direct cause for the limited right of investigation of lawyers is indicated, furthermore, the confusion of subjects served by law is the inner reason why lawyers’right of investigation is limited. When analyzed on the internal factors of the limited right of investigation for lawyers, the author points out the internal factors of imperfect legislation of lawyers’right of investigation by the way of comparing features of all subjects served by law, the source of reference, the length of vitality and the mission in the service.
Part4: the necessity of enduing adequate right of investigation to lawyers. Firstly, a critical conclusion is made that enduing adequate right of investigation to lawyers is the inherent requirement of democratic politics and the important condition of realizing judicial justice. The basis of lawyers to survival is the right of investigation. The reason why vesting lawyers with adequate right of investigation is discussed from four aspects: first, what the result could be if lawyers have no adequate right of investigation; second, low social status due to the lacks of adequate right of investigation, the reform of the trial form and the change of judicial function of the court urgently demand to vest lawyers with adequate right of investigation; third, the gradually improvement of lawyers’system provide legal protection for vesting lawyers with the right of investigation; forth, it is in accordance with the common international practice to vest lawyers with the right of investigation.
Part5: several principles and notices that must be carried out by the legislation of lawyers’right of investigation. The right of investigation of lawyers is the one vested to lawyers. It is indicated by Marx that there is no right with obligation and also no obligation with right. When one right is expanded without limit, another obligation is expanded too; when one right is narrowed without limit, another obligation is narrowed too. Therefore, lawyers’right of investigation can not be expanded boundlessly, moreover, objective and legal principles of consistent obligations and rights should be followed when lawyers’right of investigation is vested, that is to say, during the process of legislation, not only the right is vested but also the statutory obligation of lawyers should be taken into consideration when exercising the right of investigation. Only organically keeping obligations and rights in consistency can the development of the lawyer profession and the reform progress of legal system of our country can be accelerated. Based on this, the author further points out the necessity and importance to keep balance in prosecution and defense, and cancel the authority investigation to the judge gradually.
Part5: designs about the legislature of lawyers’right of investigation. This is the essence of this paper while the former discussion is for this part. The author indicates flaws of lawyers’right of investigation invested by present laws in every stage, and brings forward the scope of investing the right of investigation, how and why to invest, besides what obligations should be taken in every stage of the exercise of the right of investigation, and resolutions to difficult problems of lawyers’right of investigation from the aspect of legislature.
本文从律师调查权的发展、受限的原因、赋予律师充分调查权的必要性以及通过立法解决现行制度的缺陷等角度进行论述。在具体论述过程中,通过提出问题、分析问题、解决问题等方法对每个问题展开论述的。
In recent years, for the reformed form of trial, the reformation direction is gradually over to the adversary system pattern based on the original pattern of ex officio doctrine. This reform requires justice professionals to give definite specification for the litigant (or the prosecution party and defense party) and restriction on the guidance and regulation of activities such as producing evidence and confrontation and the judge’s acceptance and judgment of evidences, with the purpose to ensure the litigation activity can proceed in a just and smooth way. The reform has higher and higher requirements to collect evidences by oneself, however, it is not realistic to expect every party can understand an increasing number of laws and collect evidences in compliance with the law in order to protect self-interests. Under this circumstance, improving the system of evidence-collecting by lawyers is of great urgency.
This thesis gives a detailed discussion on lawyers’right of investigation from seven aspects of the preface, the development history of lawyers’right of investigation, the limitation reasons of lawyers’right of investigation, the necessity to vest lawyers with through the right of investigation, several legislative principles and notices that must by implemented by lawyers’right of investigation, and designs about lawyers’right of investigation.
The preface is about the reform direction of China’s judicial system from the mode of ex officio doctrine to adversary system, and the importance of vesting lawyers with the adequate right of investigation in the reform of trial form.
Part 1: the development history of the right of investigation of lawyers. As the establishment time of Lawyer system of PRC is relatively late, and with the decade of turmoil after the founding of new China, the lawyers’system disappeared. Survey on the right of investigation of lawyers started even later. Up to now, there is still no unified and complete theoretical system. Since the research of lawyers’right of investigation focuses on investigation, the first part which starts from investigation expatiates on the emergence and development of investigation, the nature of investigation, and principles which should be followed. The importance of the right of investigation of lawyers in the whole society is clear as a result of expatiation in this part.
Part2: an introduction to the right of investigation of lawyers. The concept of lawyers’right of investigation is stated firstly, and then, the nature of lawyers’right of investigation is analyzed. Also this part points out the improperness of delineating the nature of lawyers’right of investigation according to whether the right is public or private, which should be distinguished with other right of investigations based on the special subject: lawyers. In the section of the classification of lawyers’right of investigation, the author makes classification from multi-perspectives on the basis of years of practical experience in jurisdiction. By the classification of lawyers’right of investigation, it is clearly understood that in what level and in what scope lawyers can be vested with right of investigation and why the right of investigation is vested. What is more, by discussing the difference and relation with other right of investigations from a development perspective, it is concluded that lawyers should be vested with adequate right of investigation, which lays a hint for vesting lawyers with the right of investigation in legislature.
Part3: the reason for the limited right of investigation of lawyers. That the imperfect legislation is the direct cause for the limited right of investigation of lawyers is indicated, furthermore, the confusion of subjects served by law is the inner reason why lawyers’right of investigation is limited. When analyzed on the internal factors of the limited right of investigation for lawyers, the author points out the internal factors of imperfect legislation of lawyers’right of investigation by the way of comparing features of all subjects served by law, the source of reference, the length of vitality and the mission in the service.
Part4: the necessity of enduing adequate right of investigation to lawyers. Firstly, a critical conclusion is made that enduing adequate right of investigation to lawyers is the inherent requirement of democratic politics and the important condition of realizing judicial justice. The basis of lawyers to survival is the right of investigation. The reason why vesting lawyers with adequate right of investigation is discussed from four aspects: first, what the result could be if lawyers have no adequate right of investigation; second, low social status due to the lacks of adequate right of investigation, the reform of the trial form and the change of judicial function of the court urgently demand to vest lawyers with adequate right of investigation; third, the gradually improvement of lawyers’system provide legal protection for vesting lawyers with the right of investigation; forth, it is in accordance with the common international practice to vest lawyers with the right of investigation.
Part5: several principles and notices that must be carried out by the legislation of lawyers’right of investigation. The right of investigation of lawyers is the one vested to lawyers. It is indicated by Marx that there is no right with obligation and also no obligation with right. When one right is expanded without limit, another obligation is expanded too; when one right is narrowed without limit, another obligation is narrowed too. Therefore, lawyers’right of investigation can not be expanded boundlessly, moreover, objective and legal principles of consistent obligations and rights should be followed when lawyers’right of investigation is vested, that is to say, during the process of legislation, not only the right is vested but also the statutory obligation of lawyers should be taken into consideration when exercising the right of investigation. Only organically keeping obligations and rights in consistency can the development of the lawyer profession and the reform progress of legal system of our country can be accelerated. Based on this, the author further points out the necessity and importance to keep balance in prosecution and defense, and cancel the authority investigation to the judge gradually.
Part5: designs about the legislature of lawyers’right of investigation. This is the essence of this paper while the former discussion is for this part. The author indicates flaws of lawyers’right of investigation invested by present laws in every stage, and brings forward the scope of investing the right of investigation, how and why to invest, besides what obligations should be taken in every stage of the exercise of the right of investigation, and resolutions to difficult problems of lawyers’right of investigation from the aspect of legislature.
引文
[1]陈卫东、王福家主编:《中国律师学》,中国人民大学出版社 1990 年1 月第 1 版,第 49 页。
[2]燕广:《关于律师调查研究的几个问题》,中国律师网。
[3]马克思著:《摩尔根〈古代社会〉一书摘要》,人民出版社 1965 年版,第 191 页。
[4]刘同航主编:马克思主义基本原理》,人民出版社 2006 年 2 月第 1 版,第 83 页。
[5]庄福龄主编:《毛泽东思想概论》,人民大学出版社 2003 年 1 月第 1版,第 26 页。
[6]燕广:《关于律师调查研究的几个问题》,中国律师网。
[7]陈卫东、王福家主编:《中国律师学》,中国人民大学出版社 1990 年1 月第 1 版,第 51-53 页。
[8]赵黎明:《浅论中国律师的性质》,中国律师网。
[9]张曙:《律师调查取证》,“法制建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目结项成果”栏目。
[10]赵黎明:《律师眼中的刑法第 306 条》,中国律师网。
[11]任秉铎:《律师现状及其发展之思考》,中国律师网。
[12]邱旭瑜著:《穷律师富律师》,法律出版社 2006 年 8 月第 1 版,第169 页。
[13]孟德斯鸠著,张雁深译:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆 1982 年版,第211 页。
[14]王宇、邱旭瑜、吕良彪著:《从实习律师走向大牌》,法律出版社 2006年 9 月第 1 版,第 170-171 页。
[15]尤正海:《赋予律师充分调查权是律师业生存的基础》,中国律师网。
[16]王利明总主编:《民事证明制度与理论》,法律出版社 2003 年 2 月版,第 2-3 页。
[17]毕玉谦著:《民事证据原理与实务研究》,人民法院出版社 2003 年 1月版,第 455-459 页。
[18]程根球著:《境界:律师策划》,法律出版社 2006 年 10 月第 1 版,第 121 页。
[19]秦甫、陈显明、朱顺德、倪为明编著:《律师证据实务》,法律出版社 2000 年 5 月版,第 178-179 页。
[20]张文显:《法理学》,北京大学出版社 1999 年 10 月第 1 版,第 88-89页。
[21]谭世贵主编:《刑事诉讼原理与改革》,法律出版社 2002 年 4 月版,第 230 -233 页。
[22]王利明总主编:《民事证明制度与理论》,法律出版社 2003 年 2 月版,第 345-349 页。
[23] 陈刚:《浅谈律师调查权的立法完善》,中国律师网。
[24] 国辉:《律师调查权制度的立法思考》,《中国律师》2003 年第 8 期。
[25] 罗力彦:《律师在审前程序中如何行使调查取证权》,中国律师网。
1.刘怀玉著:《马克思的交往实践观与哈贝马斯的交往理性观》,《中州学刊》1994 年第 4 期。
2.魏鸣镝、叶仁文:《律师在刑事诉讼中的调查取证权》,《律师世界》1996 年第 9 期。
3.周福民、洪晴:《中国律师如何面对 WTO》,《中国律师》2000 年第 1期。
4.杨永昌、张鉴康:《律师被侵权与立法歧视》,《中国律师》2000 年第9 期。
5.潘传平、伍始真:《刑事诉讼中律师调查取证权之我见》,《中国律师》2001 年第 5 期。
6.韩立收、魏淑芹著:《律师与当事人关系的社会学分析》,《吉林省经济管理干部学院学报》2002 年 4 月。
7.姚秀兰:《台湾、香港律师惩戒制度比较研究》,《深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版)》 2002 年 3 月。
8.刘桂明:《中国律师何处去》,《中国律师》2003 年第 7 期。
9.刘桂明:《中国律师业面临十大难题》,《中国律师》2002 年第 11 期。
10.刘武俊:《解构中国语境的律师角色》,《燕园评论》2003 年第 2 期。
11.梁志勇著:《信息不完备不对称危害的治理—兼论技术创新和制度创新》,《学术探索》2003 年第 7 期。
12.国辉:《律师调查权制度的立法思考》,《中国律师》2003 年第 8 期。
13.孙谦:《保障律师权利促进公正执法》,载《中国律师》2004 年第 4期。
14.张绍明:《律师为何要行贿法官?》,《律师与法制》2004 年第 8 期。
15.杭正亚:《试论律师业务正当行为及刑事责任豁免》,《中国司法》2005年第 5 期。
16.张曙:《律师调查取证》,“法制建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目结项成果”栏目。
17.刘红、赵素敏:《律师的调查取证权立法的法理学评析》,《华中农业大学学报 (社会科学版)》2005 年第 1 期。
18.郭晓宇:《律师呼吁取消“律师伪证罪”列举三条理由》2005 年 6月 1 日《法制日报》。
1.孟德斯鸠,张雁深译:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆 1982 年版。
2.青锋编著:《美国律师制度》,中国法制出版社 1995 年版。
3.陈瑞华:《刑事审判原理论》,北京大学出版社 1997 年版。
4.张耕主编:《中国律师制度发展的里程碑》,法律出版社 1997 年 2 月第 1 版。
5.谢佑平著:《社会秩序与律师职业---律师角色的社会定位》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
6.贺卫方著:《司法的理念与制度》,中国政法大学出版社 1998 年版;
7.程荣斌主编:《中国律师制度原理》,中国人民大学出版社 1998 年 5 月第 1 版。
8.鲁嵩岳:《慎刑宪》,法律出版社 1998 年第 1 版。
9.熊秋红:《刑事辩护论》,法律出版社 1998 年 7 月第 1 版。
10.张文显:《法理学》,北京大学出版社 1999 年 10 月第 1 版。
11.苏力著:《送法下乡——中国基层司法制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年版。
12.秦甫、陈显明、朱顺德、倪为明编著:《律师证据实务》,法律出版社 2000 年 5 月版。
13.石毅主编:《中外律师制度综观》,群众出版社 2000 年 12 月第 1 版。
14.樊崇义:《证据学》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2001 年第 1 版。
15.[美]唐?布莱克著,唐跃、苏力译:《法律的运作行为》,中国政法大学出版社,2001 年版。
16.孙万胜著:《司法权的法理之维》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
17.[美]唐?布莱克著,郭新华等译:《社会学视野中的司法》,法律出版社 2002 年 4 月版。
18.谭世贵主编:《刑事诉讼原理与改革》,法律出版社 2002 年 4 月版。
19.杨荣馨主编:《民事诉讼原理》,法律出版社 2003 年版。
20.王进喜:《刑事诉讼法学》,中国法制出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
21.毕玉谦著:《民事证据原理与实务研究》,人民法院出版社 2003 年 1月版。
22.王利明总主编:《民事证明制度与理论》,法律出版社 2003 年 2 月版。
23.樊崇义等著:《刑事证据法原理与适用》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003 年 1 月第 1 版。
24.宋英辉:《刑事诉讼原理》,法律出版社 2003 年 4 月第 1 版。
25.周国均:《律师制度理论与实务技巧》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2003 年 1 月第 1 版。
26.谢佑平:《刑事司法程序的一般理论》,复旦大学出版社 2003 年 12月第 1 版。
27.谭世贵著:《司法独立问题研究》,法律出版社 2004 年版。
28.陈卫东主编:《刑事审前程序研究》,中国人民大学出版社 2004 年12 月第 1 版。
29.罗瑜平:《试论我国律师在刑事诉讼中的行为规则--调查取证规则》,《律师职业行为规则与律师事务所管理论文集》。
30.王进喜著:《美国律师职业行为规则理论与实践》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2005 年 1 月第 1 版。
31.樊崇义主编:《刑事审前程序改革与展望》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2005 年 3 月第 1 版。
1.张志铭:《我国法律服务市场监管不力的原因与思考 》,中国律师网。
2.田文昌:《法律服务需要综合化团队化》,中国律师网。
3.刘海亮:《中小城市律师法律服务市场分析 》,中国律师网。
4.赵黎明:《浅论中国律师的性质》,中国律师网。
5.赵宏瑞、徐海凌、王晋刚:《打造律师的业务能力》,中国律师网。
6.张要伟:《法律服务行业的现状及原因初探》,中国律师网。
7.周建军:《WTO 背景下律师队伍管理面临的挑战和对策》,中国律师网。
8.邓利强:《对律师查房制度的思考》,中国律师网。
9.魏家林:《律师作用的再认识》,中国律师网。
10.赵黎明:《律师眼中的刑法第 306 条》,中国律师网。
11.陈卫东:《诉讼中的“真实”与证明标准》,中国民商法律网。
12.何宁湘:《诉讼中的客观事实与法律事实》,中国法院网。
13.罗巧根、罗洪根:《悬赏广告—关于律师风险代理的法经济学分析模型》,中国期刊网。
14.樊斌杰:《律师文化之思考》,中国律师网。
15.薛建园:《律师团体文化浅析》,中国律师网。
16.吴清旺:《中国律师“边缘化”之思考》,中国律师网。
17.杨扬:《目前律师业发展亟待解决的若干问题》,中国律师网。
18.冯兴吾、刘金海、余光义:《律师行业不正当竞争的问题及对策》,中国律师网。
19.任秉铎:《律师现状及其发展之思考》,中国律师网。
20.尤正海:《赋予律师充分调查权是律师业生存的基础》,中国律师网。
21.王亦君、董晓瑞:《北京保障律师调查取证权》,中国律师网。
22.倪振杨:《秀才碰上大兵!再说律师调查取证权》,中华律师协会网。
23.白冬:《辩护律师调查取证权的程序价值》,中华律师协会网。
24.陈刚:《浅谈律师调查权的立法完善》,中国律师网。
25.徐尉:《论刑事诉讼中辩护律师的调查取证规则》,中国律师网。
26.罗力彦:《 律师在审前程序中如何行使调查取证权》,中国律师网。
27.燕广:《关于律师调查研究的几个问题》,中国律师网。
28.罗力彦:《律师在审前程序中如何行使调查取证权》,中国律师网。
[2]燕广:《关于律师调查研究的几个问题》,中国律师网。
[3]马克思著:《摩尔根〈古代社会〉一书摘要》,人民出版社 1965 年版,第 191 页。
[4]刘同航主编:马克思主义基本原理》,人民出版社 2006 年 2 月第 1 版,第 83 页。
[5]庄福龄主编:《毛泽东思想概论》,人民大学出版社 2003 年 1 月第 1版,第 26 页。
[6]燕广:《关于律师调查研究的几个问题》,中国律师网。
[7]陈卫东、王福家主编:《中国律师学》,中国人民大学出版社 1990 年1 月第 1 版,第 51-53 页。
[8]赵黎明:《浅论中国律师的性质》,中国律师网。
[9]张曙:《律师调查取证》,“法制建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目结项成果”栏目。
[10]赵黎明:《律师眼中的刑法第 306 条》,中国律师网。
[11]任秉铎:《律师现状及其发展之思考》,中国律师网。
[12]邱旭瑜著:《穷律师富律师》,法律出版社 2006 年 8 月第 1 版,第169 页。
[13]孟德斯鸠著,张雁深译:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆 1982 年版,第211 页。
[14]王宇、邱旭瑜、吕良彪著:《从实习律师走向大牌》,法律出版社 2006年 9 月第 1 版,第 170-171 页。
[15]尤正海:《赋予律师充分调查权是律师业生存的基础》,中国律师网。
[16]王利明总主编:《民事证明制度与理论》,法律出版社 2003 年 2 月版,第 2-3 页。
[17]毕玉谦著:《民事证据原理与实务研究》,人民法院出版社 2003 年 1月版,第 455-459 页。
[18]程根球著:《境界:律师策划》,法律出版社 2006 年 10 月第 1 版,第 121 页。
[19]秦甫、陈显明、朱顺德、倪为明编著:《律师证据实务》,法律出版社 2000 年 5 月版,第 178-179 页。
[20]张文显:《法理学》,北京大学出版社 1999 年 10 月第 1 版,第 88-89页。
[21]谭世贵主编:《刑事诉讼原理与改革》,法律出版社 2002 年 4 月版,第 230 -233 页。
[22]王利明总主编:《民事证明制度与理论》,法律出版社 2003 年 2 月版,第 345-349 页。
[23] 陈刚:《浅谈律师调查权的立法完善》,中国律师网。
[24] 国辉:《律师调查权制度的立法思考》,《中国律师》2003 年第 8 期。
[25] 罗力彦:《律师在审前程序中如何行使调查取证权》,中国律师网。
1.刘怀玉著:《马克思的交往实践观与哈贝马斯的交往理性观》,《中州学刊》1994 年第 4 期。
2.魏鸣镝、叶仁文:《律师在刑事诉讼中的调查取证权》,《律师世界》1996 年第 9 期。
3.周福民、洪晴:《中国律师如何面对 WTO》,《中国律师》2000 年第 1期。
4.杨永昌、张鉴康:《律师被侵权与立法歧视》,《中国律师》2000 年第9 期。
5.潘传平、伍始真:《刑事诉讼中律师调查取证权之我见》,《中国律师》2001 年第 5 期。
6.韩立收、魏淑芹著:《律师与当事人关系的社会学分析》,《吉林省经济管理干部学院学报》2002 年 4 月。
7.姚秀兰:《台湾、香港律师惩戒制度比较研究》,《深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版)》 2002 年 3 月。
8.刘桂明:《中国律师何处去》,《中国律师》2003 年第 7 期。
9.刘桂明:《中国律师业面临十大难题》,《中国律师》2002 年第 11 期。
10.刘武俊:《解构中国语境的律师角色》,《燕园评论》2003 年第 2 期。
11.梁志勇著:《信息不完备不对称危害的治理—兼论技术创新和制度创新》,《学术探索》2003 年第 7 期。
12.国辉:《律师调查权制度的立法思考》,《中国律师》2003 年第 8 期。
13.孙谦:《保障律师权利促进公正执法》,载《中国律师》2004 年第 4期。
14.张绍明:《律师为何要行贿法官?》,《律师与法制》2004 年第 8 期。
15.杭正亚:《试论律师业务正当行为及刑事责任豁免》,《中国司法》2005年第 5 期。
16.张曙:《律师调查取证》,“法制建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目结项成果”栏目。
17.刘红、赵素敏:《律师的调查取证权立法的法理学评析》,《华中农业大学学报 (社会科学版)》2005 年第 1 期。
18.郭晓宇:《律师呼吁取消“律师伪证罪”列举三条理由》2005 年 6月 1 日《法制日报》。
1.孟德斯鸠,张雁深译:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆 1982 年版。
2.青锋编著:《美国律师制度》,中国法制出版社 1995 年版。
3.陈瑞华:《刑事审判原理论》,北京大学出版社 1997 年版。
4.张耕主编:《中国律师制度发展的里程碑》,法律出版社 1997 年 2 月第 1 版。
5.谢佑平著:《社会秩序与律师职业---律师角色的社会定位》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
6.贺卫方著:《司法的理念与制度》,中国政法大学出版社 1998 年版;
7.程荣斌主编:《中国律师制度原理》,中国人民大学出版社 1998 年 5 月第 1 版。
8.鲁嵩岳:《慎刑宪》,法律出版社 1998 年第 1 版。
9.熊秋红:《刑事辩护论》,法律出版社 1998 年 7 月第 1 版。
10.张文显:《法理学》,北京大学出版社 1999 年 10 月第 1 版。
11.苏力著:《送法下乡——中国基层司法制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年版。
12.秦甫、陈显明、朱顺德、倪为明编著:《律师证据实务》,法律出版社 2000 年 5 月版。
13.石毅主编:《中外律师制度综观》,群众出版社 2000 年 12 月第 1 版。
14.樊崇义:《证据学》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2001 年第 1 版。
15.[美]唐?布莱克著,唐跃、苏力译:《法律的运作行为》,中国政法大学出版社,2001 年版。
16.孙万胜著:《司法权的法理之维》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
17.[美]唐?布莱克著,郭新华等译:《社会学视野中的司法》,法律出版社 2002 年 4 月版。
18.谭世贵主编:《刑事诉讼原理与改革》,法律出版社 2002 年 4 月版。
19.杨荣馨主编:《民事诉讼原理》,法律出版社 2003 年版。
20.王进喜:《刑事诉讼法学》,中国法制出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
21.毕玉谦著:《民事证据原理与实务研究》,人民法院出版社 2003 年 1月版。
22.王利明总主编:《民事证明制度与理论》,法律出版社 2003 年 2 月版。
23.樊崇义等著:《刑事证据法原理与适用》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003 年 1 月第 1 版。
24.宋英辉:《刑事诉讼原理》,法律出版社 2003 年 4 月第 1 版。
25.周国均:《律师制度理论与实务技巧》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2003 年 1 月第 1 版。
26.谢佑平:《刑事司法程序的一般理论》,复旦大学出版社 2003 年 12月第 1 版。
27.谭世贵著:《司法独立问题研究》,法律出版社 2004 年版。
28.陈卫东主编:《刑事审前程序研究》,中国人民大学出版社 2004 年12 月第 1 版。
29.罗瑜平:《试论我国律师在刑事诉讼中的行为规则--调查取证规则》,《律师职业行为规则与律师事务所管理论文集》。
30.王进喜著:《美国律师职业行为规则理论与实践》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2005 年 1 月第 1 版。
31.樊崇义主编:《刑事审前程序改革与展望》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2005 年 3 月第 1 版。
1.张志铭:《我国法律服务市场监管不力的原因与思考 》,中国律师网。
2.田文昌:《法律服务需要综合化团队化》,中国律师网。
3.刘海亮:《中小城市律师法律服务市场分析 》,中国律师网。
4.赵黎明:《浅论中国律师的性质》,中国律师网。
5.赵宏瑞、徐海凌、王晋刚:《打造律师的业务能力》,中国律师网。
6.张要伟:《法律服务行业的现状及原因初探》,中国律师网。
7.周建军:《WTO 背景下律师队伍管理面临的挑战和对策》,中国律师网。
8.邓利强:《对律师查房制度的思考》,中国律师网。
9.魏家林:《律师作用的再认识》,中国律师网。
10.赵黎明:《律师眼中的刑法第 306 条》,中国律师网。
11.陈卫东:《诉讼中的“真实”与证明标准》,中国民商法律网。
12.何宁湘:《诉讼中的客观事实与法律事实》,中国法院网。
13.罗巧根、罗洪根:《悬赏广告—关于律师风险代理的法经济学分析模型》,中国期刊网。
14.樊斌杰:《律师文化之思考》,中国律师网。
15.薛建园:《律师团体文化浅析》,中国律师网。
16.吴清旺:《中国律师“边缘化”之思考》,中国律师网。
17.杨扬:《目前律师业发展亟待解决的若干问题》,中国律师网。
18.冯兴吾、刘金海、余光义:《律师行业不正当竞争的问题及对策》,中国律师网。
19.任秉铎:《律师现状及其发展之思考》,中国律师网。
20.尤正海:《赋予律师充分调查权是律师业生存的基础》,中国律师网。
21.王亦君、董晓瑞:《北京保障律师调查取证权》,中国律师网。
22.倪振杨:《秀才碰上大兵!再说律师调查取证权》,中华律师协会网。
23.白冬:《辩护律师调查取证权的程序价值》,中华律师协会网。
24.陈刚:《浅谈律师调查权的立法完善》,中国律师网。
25.徐尉:《论刑事诉讼中辩护律师的调查取证规则》,中国律师网。
26.罗力彦:《 律师在审前程序中如何行使调查取证权》,中国律师网。
27.燕广:《关于律师调查研究的几个问题》,中国律师网。
28.罗力彦:《律师在审前程序中如何行使调查取证权》,中国律师网。