| extrajudicial statement refer to the remarks made by the undertaking lawyers publicly outside the court in the cases they represent or defend.In the self-media environment,the extrajudicial statement can quickly spread through the convenience of network technology,showing a different social influence than before.In recent years,extrajudicial statement of lawyers in our country can be said to be "a mess of chaos," and some lawyers have frequently created public opinion in hot social cases and interfered with judicial trials.This article analyzes the current situation of lawyers’ extrajudicial statement under the self-media environment from two aspects: subjective purpose and objective environment: For subjective purposes,lawyers use the issue ofextrajudicial statement as a litigation strategy in pursuit of the benefit of winning a lawsuit,and they are mixed In the objective environment,the advantages of self-media communication create objective and convenient conditions for the widespread dissemination of extrajudicial statement.The lack of judicial information disclosure provides a living space for extrajudicial statement.Therefore,in order to maintain judicial justice,protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties,and improve the judicial credibility,it is necessary to regulate the speech of the lawyer’s court.In response to this problem,China has incorporated some of the external speech regulations of the lawyers into the "Criminal Law Amendment(9)",and successively issued the "Administrative Measures for Lawyer Practice" and "Administrative Measures for Law Firms",and local lawyers associations have also issued local Industry norms have achieved results to a certain extent,and have the legitimate meaning of ensuring the independence and fairness of judicial trials.However,while strictly regulatingextrajudicial statement,we should recognize the positive value ofextrajudicial statement in promoting judicial disclosure,ensuring citizens’ right to know,and promoting judicial reform.At present,in China’s regulatory system,the laws and regulations in various regionsare not uniform,and the scope of regulation ofextrajudicial statement is too strict.In practice,the administrative supervision is too rigid,and it is not clear for lawyers to makeextrajudicial statement.Guidelines.In this regard,we need to improve the standardization and governance ofextrajudicial statement in legislation,administrative supervision and industry self-discipline as soon as possible.Foreign countries have rich experience in the regulation of speeches outside lawyers’ courts,which deserves attention and research.Generally speaking,in terms of regulatory models,there are mainly "strictly prohibited" models represented by the United Kingdom and "bottom line standards" models represented by the United States.Through comparative analysis,we can see that the "strict prohibition" model does not distinguish the types of speeches outside the lawyer’s court.Lawyers are prohibited from commenting on cases that have not yet been concluded.The "bottom line standard" model establishes substantive risk standards and summarizes The method clarifies the types of extrajudicial statement that lawyers can publish,and better balances between freedom of speech and judicial justice.In view of China ’s current special judicial environment,the author believes that it is not possible to directly copy foreign experience in the choice of regulatory model,and it is preferable to establish a “strict and wide” regulatory model based on the “bottom line standard” model,which can prevent The risks of the rule of law caused by excessive regulation outside the lawyer’s court can be vigilant and avoid the spread of legal patriarchal ideas.In terms of legislative principles,the author advocates clarifying the principles of legality,rationality,and the principle of simultaneous limitation and protection of the regulation of foreign speech in the lawyer ’s court,distinguishing general standards and exceptions in the regulatory standards,and sparse regulatory standards and inconsistent local regulations,The rigidity of the disciplinary mechanism,the lack of relief procedures,and other external issues made targeted recommendations;at the same time,improve the diversified regulatory measures,the lawyers ’out-of-court speech as an element of the lawyer ’s rating assessment into the construction of the lawyer ’s credit information system,improve the public opinion monitoring system,and establish judicial administration The main position of the organ in the reliefprocedure,and the disciplinary decision of the bar association industry is included in the judicial review.In addition,the law is not omnipotent.Therefore,the author believes that other rules and legal rules should be organically linked in the field of social rules to integrate responses.The author analyzes and explores the cultivation and construction of lawyer professional ethics,reflects on the disconnection between legal professional ethics legal education and practice,and puts forward suggestions for establishing a rational network of lawyers and building a legal community. |
