Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKao, Shu-Ningen_US
dc.contributor.authorChen, Chih-Hisungen_US
dc.description.abstract受僱律師離開原事務所至他事務所任職或自行創業,為了確保新工作穩定之客源,常會對當事人作「離職通知」。目前我國對於「受僱律師離職通知」之問題,實務、學界鮮少討論,無標準可循。 美國法對此問題曾有爭議,但在美國律師協會作出99-414號倫理意見後,此爭議已劃下句點。該意見認為,此問題應以當事人之利益保障為思考出發點,因此依當事人之類型及利益程度設定離職通知之界線。若當事人有進行中案件時,為保障其律師權,受僱律師「應」作離職通知;若當事人為與律師先前有過專業關係,因與律師間之信賴關係亦值得保障,故「宜」通知之;非前兩種情形時,則「得」對其作離職通知。受僱律師及事務所利益之考量,則表現於離職通知之界線─內容、時點、方式上。 本文參考美國法及國內實證研究之結果後,提出以下架構,期供受僱律師離職時遵循。首先區分通知對象,若屬現委任人時,保護需求較高,應以其利益保障為優先,事務所利益之兼顧,則在通知時點及方式上表現。故受僱律師有通知義務。若通知對象非屬現委任人時,因保護需求較不殷切,此時則以受僱律師或事務所之考量作出發,進一步區分該當事人之案件所委任的對象,惟注意當事人利益之保障仍不得忽略,重點在於招攬規定之遵守。在當事人之案件係委任受僱律師時,受僱律師得通知之;通知內容得促使轉委任,但須遵守招攬規定。在當事人之案件係委任事務所其他律師時,受僱律師離職前不得通知;若有簽署競業禁止條款,離職後在競業禁止期間內不得通知。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractWhen associates leave original firms to join other firms or to start their own business, “notifications of leaving” would usually be given. In Taiwan, the issue of giving clients such notification seldom catches the attention of practitioners and scholars, and basically there are no standards to follow. In the U.S, disputes about giving such notifications had been put to an end due to ABA’s Formal Op. 99-414. ABA opined that clients’ interests should always come first, and it classified clients into several groups: 1. associates “should” give notices to clients whose cases are now in the ongoing procedure, 2. it is “better” for associates to give notifications to clients who have had prior professional relationships with them due to the trust they had before, and 3. associates “may” choose to notify clients who do not belong to the above two groups. The concern for interests of associates and original firms is reflected on the content, timing and method of notification. After examining solutions proposed by the U.S and results of empirical studies, this thesis proposes the following structure, hoping to provide standards of notification. First, clients should be classified. When associates are in retainer agreements with clients, the interests of these clients should come first because they deserve higher level of protection. The interests of original firms can be protected by the timing and method of the notification. As to clients who are not in retainer agreements with associates, the interests of associates and their original firms come first. However, the protection for these clients cannot be overlooked, and laws of solicitation should still be obeyed. As to clients who once retained associates, notification may be given. Associates may urge the clients to sever their relationships with the firm, and laws of solicitation should be obeyed. For clients who once retained other lawyers in the original firms, notification should not be given before the departure. When there is a covenant not to compete, notification should not be given during the non-competition time period.en_US
dc.subjectnotice of leavingen_US
dc.subjectprotection of client’s interesten_US
dc.subjectchoice of counselen_US
dc.titleWhen Associates Leave- The Ethical Problem of Client Notificationen_US
Appears in Collections:Thesis

Files in This Item:

  1. 850701.pdf

If it is a zip file, please download the file and unzip it, then open index.html in a browser to view the full text content.