作者：周显根律师     2016-12-28

自1979年律师制度恢复重建以来，中国的律师管理模式一直是单一的行政管理。自1993年在国务院批准的《司法部关于深化律师工作改革的方案》中明确提出对律师体制实行 “两结合”管理以来，虽然对两“结合管理”有过不同的表述；这必竞是历史的进步，是管理体制的一种创新。经过近十五年的探索和实践，两结合管理体制改革并没有取得突破性的进展；律师行业自律性管理也没有达到改革所希望的结果。行业协会和司法行政机关在如何做好两结合管理问题上有时会发出不和谐声音，以至于大家对于为什么要建立“两结合”管理体制？如何进行两结合管理产生了困惑。我想，就地方律师协会而言，并不在于要不要行业管理的问题，而在于司法行政管理和行业管理的两结合比重大少问题。当前所为的“两结合”管理，实际上是“行政管理为主，行业管理为辅”的模式，行业协会还没有达到《律师法》规定的自律性程度。从今天的发展眼光看，地方律师协会，可能属于早晨七、八点钟的太阳，朝气可佳，基础稳健不足；从后天的发展来看，其组织架构、人员筛选和决策程序等方面有待于不断完善。我们有过为深圳直选会长而兴高采烈，也为此罢免风波而感慨和迷茫，这一切的一切，均是我们本身的制度造成的，这主要集中在：

困惑之一：法定地位的不确定性。新修改的《律师法》第43条第2款规定：设区的市根据需要可以设立地方律师协会。这种根据需要可以设立可不需要设立的地方律师协会，其法定地位是很薄弱的；今天我们所为的两结合管理体制中的“律师协会”，主要是中华全国律师协会和省级律师协会；由此也反映在两结合管理体制中，地方律师协会是很难发挥其作用的，导致许多地方律师协会只能按行政机关要求或意图对律师实行行业管理，没有其独立性。

困惑之二：职责行使的不明确性。《律师法》第46条规定的律师协会8项职责，是否是各级律师协会的共同职责，没有作出明确的界定，但从实际操作而言，主要是中华全国律师协会和省级律师协会的职责；比如：律师的培训问题、行业规范和惩戒规定的制定等；地方律师协会其职责是什么，至今没有一个专门的行政规章、行业规则予以确定。

困惑之三：人事、经费的不独立性。各地方律师协会虽然选举产生了理事会、常务理事会及会长、副会长、秘书长等组织管理机构，但这些机构人选的产生，大多是由司法行政机关的党组或党委确定的；作为一个组织机构的律师协会，其本身无人事推荐权。同时，许多地方律师协会的经费，其掌管者并非是理事会，会长甚至于根本无权顾问，更谈不上签字权的问题。

困惑之四：律师协会的属性仍是自律性组织。自律与自治，虽是一字之差，但其职责有着本质区别，我们从修改后的《律师法》律师执业许可、律师事务所设立、法律责任等章节中可以反映，律师协会的职责是极其有限的，律师协会还不能在律师或律师事务所执业许可准入等方面，发挥其应有的作用；在此情况下，地方律师协会要在两结合管理体制中发挥其作用，更是难上更难。

困惑之五：什么是两结合管理，至今没有一个明确的内涵，对“两结合”的管理职责、管理权限如何，我们也不是很清楚。根据2004年司法部发布的《中国律师产业政策发展报告》表述，在两结合管理体制中，司法行政机关对律师队伍的管理主要是管宏观、管政策、管协调；而律师协会管理为建立完善的律师行业管理组织体系。但两者之间如何结合，也没有给出明确的答案。

基于上述困惑，我认为，要发挥地方律师协会在两结合管理体制中的作用，我们必须寻找对策。在此过程中，我们不能把执业律师担任会长与两结合管理简单地划等号，执业律师担任会长，这只是两结合管理过程初级阶段的第一步。律师要实现真正意义上的两结合管理，行业成熟是关键，行业成熟的关键标志是这个行业具有强烈的社会责任感，能够为社会作出显著的贡献，律师能进入主流社会，得到主流社会的接纳和充分真实的尊重。现在律师协会也逐步吸纳执业律师到律师协会领导班子中来；律师协会领导由执业律师来担任，这对于作业行业的成熟和发展，都是无可厚非的。目前存在一种倾向，认为执业律师担任律协领导职务，就实现了两结合管理，这种看法是片面的。且从客观事实情况看，一些担任律师协会会长的执业律师，由于尽心于协会工作，使得自己逐渐由执业律师变成了“非执业律师”；而另一些会长则基本上是忙于执业，并不专注律师协会的工作，成了“名誉会长”，协会领导职务名存实亡。以上两种现象绝非是“两结合”构想的本质含义，但由于这种现象的普遍性，使我们不得不再对“两结合”的管理体制进行进一步的思考与探索。从国外律师管理体制大体上有两种：一种是司法行政机关监督、指导下的律师协会管理体制，这种管理体制以德国最为典型，但联邦律师协会仍有权代表全国律师界向司法机关、政府机关和其他有关部门反映及交涉涉及律师职业共同利益的问题，负责安排律师的继续教育和准备从事律师职业者的培训工作等；另一种是律师协会行业管理，这种方式以英美国家较为普遍。但实际上法院在律师资格的取得、对违纪律师的惩戒以及在制定律师法规等方面都有监管权。香港律师业的管理是政府进行立法管理、法院实施监督、律师专业管理团体进行行业性自律的管理模式。从我国“两结合”的管理体制深层面看，体现了国家公权力与社会权力如何结合的问题，但是社会权力的行使不得超出公权力的范围。我认为应当从以下几方面加以完善：

对策之一：理顺司法行政机关与律师协会之间的管理职能分工。这种管理职能的分工，必须以行政立法形式予以规范。司法行政机关主要负责做好以下几方面的工作：（1）制定行业发展政策，推动相关的法律法规以及规章制度的出台，以完善律师制度的法律体系；（2）严格执业律师的准入和退出，包括律师事务所和律师执业许可、吊销执业证许可、负责执业律师的年检注册、组织监督清算等；（3）协调改善执业环境，主要是协调公安、法院等相关部门保障律师调查取证、会见、阅卷等执业权利；（4）调整法律服务供需关系，包括履行法律援助义务，通过市场机制与政策调控手段的结合解决法律服务供需矛盾的问题；(5)监督指导律师协会工作，推进行业管理体制的完善。律师协会负责除上述职能之外的有关行业的全部事务包括：（1）组织实施《律师法》第46职责；（2）改进和加强党组织在律师协会中的作用。建立健全司法行政机关对律师协会的监督、指导工作机制；（3）建立健全律师协会与司法行政机关的律师管理机制，形成一个立体交叉，配合紧密的职能管理体系。

对策之二：理顺协会的组织架构管理体系。（1）理顺人事管理体系。律师协会要有专门的编制，这是人事方面保障的前提，特别是秘书处要专编专职，尽量不要把行政人员纳入秘书处；同时，律师协会有关理事、常务理事、会长、副会长必须是专职从事律师协会工作的人员，确保律师协会的公益心和公正性。（2）理顺组织架构自身管理规则，包括秘书长、副秘书长产生办法及程序，理事、常务理事、协会领导产生办法及程序；特别是推选程序，是以上一届协会为主推选还是司法行政推选等。（3）理顺并制定经费使用规则，确保律师协会独立开展活动的必要权力；避免深圳律师协会因购房之类产生的风波。目前最难的部分是律师协会的会费不由律师协会管理和自己支配，这将根本制约着律师协会独立性和管理职能的发挥。

对策之三：建立律师协会与司法行政、事务所固定联系制度，完善两结合管理。如工作汇报制度，内部纪律管理文件的备案制度，要充分发挥司法行政机关指导、监督作用；对于律师协会而言，应当加强与事务所的沟通联系，不断指导事务所管理、业务拓展等工作，完善律师执业环境，培育律师法律服务市场，制定事务所的文化、信仰、价值、管理、分配标准制度，使律师协会的在四位一体管理体系中即司法行政管理、律师协会行业管理、律师事务所自我管理、社会其他职能机构管理中起着桥梁、纽带作用，使协会真正成为律师自律管理之家。

对策之四：律师协会自身必须进行变革。为加强律师协会的自律性组织建设，为了律师协会的未来，律师协会必须进行变革；通过变革，引发律师对组织未来状态有清晰正面的期望；激发律师对这个行业的骄傲、自尊、活动力与成就感；设定出一个能反映这个行业有高度理想的卓越标准，制定符合行业的历史、文化和价值观；吸引律师对这个行业的远景目标引起广泛的关注并自觉地参与到该组织中来为此而进行奋斗。为此，必须建立、健全并完善律师协会内部的监督机制；发挥律协党组织在行业管理中的作用；加强律师诚信体系建设；制定行业规则、实施行业处分、引导行业规范发展，对违纪违法律师实行行业处分决不手软；避免行业协会遭遇角色的困惑。

总之探索两结合管理体制，重要的在于寻找规律；必竞规律是重要的，定律是简单的，最后我想把美国西点军校告诉即将毕业的学员两条必须铭记在心作战条例作为我的结语：第一，“重要的事总是简单的”；第二，“简单的事总是难做的”。

周显根律师整理

Author: Lawyer Zhou Xiangen, December 28, 2016

Since the restoration and reconstruction of the lawyer system in 1979, China's lawyer management model has always been a single administrative management. Since 1993, in the "Plan of the Ministry of Justice on Deepening the Reform of Lawyer Work" approved by the State Council, it was explicitly proposed to implement the "two combinations" management of the lawyer system, although there have been different expressions of the "two combinations" management; This must be a progress in history and an innovation in the management system. After nearly fifteen years of exploration and practice, there has been no breakthrough in the reform of the dual management system; The self-discipline management of the lawyer industry has not achieved the desired results of the reform. Industry associations and judicial administrative agencies sometimes have disharmonious voices on how to do a good job in the management of "dual integration", leading to concerns about why a "dual integration" management system should be established? How to carry out dual combination management has caused confusion. I think, as far as local bar associations are concerned, it is not about whether to manage the industry, but rather about the proportion of the combination of judicial administration management and industry management. The current "dual combination" management model is actually a "administrative management first, supplemented by industry management" model, and industry associations have not yet reached the level of self-discipline stipulated in the Lawyers Law. From today's development perspective, local bar associations may belong to the sun at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning, with good vitality and insufficient foundation; From the perspective of its future development, its organizational structure, personnel selection, and decision-making procedures need to be continuously improved. We have been overjoyed by the direct election of the president in Shenzhen, but also moved and confused by the recall scandal. All of this is caused by our own system, which mainly focuses on:

One confusion: the uncertainty of legal status. The newly revised Article 43, Paragraph 2 of the Lawyers Law stipulates that cities with districts may establish local lawyer associations as needed. The legal status of local bar associations that can be established according to needs but do not need to be established is very weak; The "Bar Association" in the dual management system we are working on today is mainly the All China Bar Association and the Provincial Bar Association; This is also reflected in the dual management system, where local bar associations find it difficult to play their role, resulting in many local bar associations only implementing industry management for lawyers according to the requirements or intentions of administrative agencies, without their independence.

Puzzlement 2: Uncertainty in the exercise of responsibilities. There is no clear definition as to whether the eight responsibilities of bar associations stipulated in Article 46 of the Lawyers Law are common responsibilities of all levels of bar associations. However, in practical operation, they mainly belong to the responsibilities of the All China Bar Association and provincial bar associations; For example, the training of lawyers, the development of industry norms and disciplinary regulations, etc; There is currently no specific administrative or industry rule to determine the responsibilities of local bar associations.

Puzzle 3: The lack of independence in personnel and funding. Although various local bar associations have elected governing bodies such as councils, executive councils, presidents, vice presidents, and secretaries, the selection of candidates for these bodies is mostly determined by the party groups or committees of judicial administrative organs; As an organizational structure, the Bar Association itself has no right to recommend personnel. At the same time, the funds of many local bar associations are not managed by the council, and the president even has no authority as an advisor, let alone the issue of signature rights.

Confusion 4: The nature of a bar association is still a self-discipline organization. Although there is a one-word difference between self-discipline and autonomy, there are essential differences in their responsibilities. We can reflect from the chapters on lawyer practice permits, establishment of law firms, and legal responsibilities in the revised Lawyers Law that the responsibilities of law associations are extremely limited, and law associations are still unable to play their due role in the admission of lawyers or law firms' practice permits; In this situation, it is even more difficult for local bar associations to play their role in the dual management system.

Puzzle 5: There is currently no clear connotation of what "dual combination management" means, and we are not very clear about the management responsibilities and permissions of "dual combination". According to the "Report on the Development of China's Lawyer Industry Policy" released by the Ministry of Justice in 2004, in the dual management system, the management of the lawyer team by judicial administrative organs mainly involves macro management, policy management, and coordination management; The management of the Bar Association aims to establish a sound organizational system for the management of the lawyer industry. But there is no clear answer on how to combine the two.

Based on the above confusion, I believe that in order to leverage the role of local bar associations in the dual management system, we must find countermeasures. In this process, we cannot simply equate the appointment of a practicing lawyer as the president with the appointment of a dual management team. The appointment of a practicing lawyer as the president is only the first step in the initial stage of the dual management process. Lawyers need to achieve a true sense of dual management, and industry maturity is the key. The key sign of industry maturity is that the industry has a strong sense of social responsibility and can make significant contributions to society. Lawyers can enter the mainstream society, receive acceptance and full and genuine respect from the mainstream society. Nowadays, the Bar Association is gradually recruiting practicing lawyers into the leadership team of the Bar Association; The leadership of the Bar Association is assumed by practicing lawyers, which is undoubtedly beneficial for the maturity and development of the industry. At present, there is a tendency to believe that practicing lawyers holding leadership positions in the legal association achieve a combination of two management, which is one-sided. From the objective facts, some practicing lawyers who serve as the president of the bar association have gradually transformed from practicing lawyers to "non practicing lawyers" due to their dedication to the work of the association; However, other presidents are basically busy practicing and do not focus on the work of the bar association, becoming "honorary presidents", and the leadership positions of the association are in name only. The above two phenomena are by no means the essential meaning of the concept of "two combinations", but due to the universality of this phenomenon, we have to further consider and explore the management system of "two combinations". There are generally two types of lawyer management systems in foreign countries: one is the management system of bar associations under the supervision and guidance of judicial administrative agencies. This management system is most typical in Germany, but the Federal Bar Association still has the power to represent the national legal community to reflect and negotiate issues involving the common interests of the lawyer profession to judicial, government, and other relevant departments, Responsible for arranging the continuing education of lawyers and preparing for the training of lawyers; Another type of industry management is the bar association, which is more common in British and American countries. But in reality, the court has regulatory power in obtaining lawyer qualifications, punishing lawbreakers, and formulating lawyer regulations. The management of the Hong Kong legal industry is a management model in which the government conducts legislative management, the courts implement supervision, and professional management groups of lawyers engage in industry self-discipline. From the perspective of China's "dual integration" management system, it reflects the issue of how to combine national public power with social power, but the exercise of social power must not exceed the scope of public power. I think it should be improved from the following aspects:

One of the countermeasures is to streamline the division of management functions between judicial administrative agencies and bar associations. The division of labor in this management function must be standardized in the form of administrative legislation. The judicial administrative organs are mainly responsible for the following aspects of work: (1) formulating industry development policies, promoting the introduction of relevant laws, regulations, and rules to improve the legal system of the lawyer system; (2) Strict admission and exit of practicing lawyers, including law firms and lawyers' practice licenses, revocation of practice license licenses, responsible for annual inspection and registration of practicing lawyers, and organizing supervision and liquidation; (3) Coordinate and improve the practice environment, mainly by coordinating with relevant departments such as public security and courts to ensure lawyers' rights to conduct investigations, gather evidence, meet, and review papers; (4) Adjusting the supply-demand relationship of legal services, including fulfilling legal aid obligations, and solving the contradiction between supply and demand of legal services through the combination of market mechanisms and policy regulation measures; (5) Supervise and guide the work of the Bar Association, and promote the improvement of the industry management system. The Bar Association is responsible for all affairs related to the industry, except for the above-mentioned functions, including: (1) organizing the implementation of Article 46 of the Lawyers Law; (2) Improve and strengthen the role of party organizations in lawyer associations. Establish a sound mechanism for the supervision and guidance of judicial administrative organs over bar associations; (3) Establish and improve the lawyer management mechanism between lawyer associations and judicial administrative agencies, forming a three-dimensional and closely coordinated functional management system.

Countermeasure 2: Streamline the organizational structure management system of the association. (1) Streamline the personnel management system. The Bar Association should have a dedicated staffing structure, which is a prerequisite for personnel protection. Especially, the Secretariat should have dedicated staff, and administrative personnel should not be included in the Secretariat as much as possible; At the same time, the relevant directors, executive directors, presidents, and vice presidents of the bar association must be full-time personnel engaged in the work of the bar association, ensuring the public welfare and fairness of the bar association. (2) Clarify the management rules of the organizational structure itself, including the methods and procedures for selecting the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General, as well as the methods and procedures for selecting directors, executive directors, and association leaders; Especially in the selection process, whether the previous association is the main selection or the judicial administrative selection, etc. (3) Clarify and formulate rules for the use of funds to ensure the necessary authority of the Bar Association to independently carry out activities; To avoid disputes caused by the Shenzhen Lawyers Association due to property purchases. The most difficult part at present is that the membership fees of the bar association are not managed and controlled by the bar association itself, which will fundamentally restrict the independence and management functions of the bar association.

Countermeasure 3: Establish a fixed contact system between lawyer associations, judicial administration, and law firms, and improve the management of the combination of the two. The work report system and the filing system for internal disciplinary management documents should fully leverage the guidance and supervision role of judicial administrative organs; For the bar association, it is necessary to strengthen communication and contact with the law firm, continuously guide the management and business expansion of the law firm, improve the lawyer's practice environment, cultivate the lawyer's legal service market, formulate the law firm's culture, beliefs, values, management, and distribution standard system, so that the bar association's management system in the four in one management system includes judicial administration management, bar association industry management, and law firm self-management In the management of other functional institutions in society, the association plays a role as a bridge and link, making it truly a home for lawyer self-discipline management.

Countermeasure 4: The bar association itself must undergo reforms. In order to strengthen the self-discipline organization construction of the Bar Association and for the future of the Bar Association, the Bar Association must undergo reforms; Through change, lawyers have clear and positive expectations for the future state of the organization; Stimulate lawyers' pride, self-esteem, activity, and sense of achievement in this industry; Set a standard of excellence that reflects the high ideals of the industry, and establish a standard that aligns with the industry's history, culture, and values; Attract lawyers to draw widespread attention to the vision and goals of this industry and consciously participate in the organization to strive for it. To this end, it is necessary to establish, improve and improve the internal supervision mechanism of the Bar Association; Give full play to the role of the Party organization of the Lawyers' Association in industry management; Strengthening the construction of a lawyer's integrity system; Formulate industry rules, implement industry sanctions, guide the development of industry norms, and never be lenient in imposing industry sanctions on lawyers who violate discipline and laws; Avoid confusion about roles for industry associations.

In short, exploring a dual management system is important in finding patterns; The law of competition is important, and the law is simple. Finally, I would like to conclude by telling the graduating students of the United States Military Academy at West Point that there are two rules to keep in mind: first, "important things are always simple"; Secondly, 'Simple things are always difficult to do'.

Organized by Lawyer Zhou Xiangen