| Abstract: | 法律服務具有公益性及獨立性，其形態有別於追求利潤最大化之商業經營模式。除傳統訴訟律師之外，律師可得執業範圍依隨各國法律規定而有所不同。律師執業範圍，目前所面臨之問題包括：如何對外擴張律師可得參與之任務？對內如何固守既有執業領域不被其他專門職業者所取代？而在資訊時代，律師工作任務亦出現新的危機或契機。另因應數位化、全球化等因素帶來之影響，律師（法律）服務之發展策略大致可歸納為兩條路徑：一、跨專業領域合作；二、法律服務技術創新。各國對於律師（法律）服務型態之監理模式亦存在不同程度的轉變，例如，德國的律師壟斷主義，自 20 世紀末開始鬆動。英國則傾向法律執業自由化，容許非律師人士經由「替代經營模式」（Alternative Business Structures, ABS）之核准登記制度，直接或間接參與法律服務或律師事務所之經營。美國雖仍以法律執業壟斷化為基本原則，但在符合一定規定下有限度地開放律師或事務所得從事與律師業務相關之服務。各國發展情形不一，均有借鏡之價值。
Legal service goes far differently from the maximum-interest-pursuing business model due to its nature of public interest as well as independence. in order to assure people of middle class can access to justice under sufficient legal protection, and to response to the impact drove by digitalization, globalization, etc., two strategic paths are possibly relied on: (1) Cross-discipline cooperation, (2) Legal-Tech innovation. Further, regulator’s concentration regarding legal practice varies in different jurisdictions. For instance, in Germany, the legal monopolism has been loosened since the end of the 20th century and the revolution towards more liberal legal practice is underway. The British regulators, for another example, take the position of liberalization, which means non-lawyers are allowed to participate in legal services, directly or indirectly, through the ABS application and registration system. In the United States, legal monopoly is still the dominant principle currently. Lawyers or legal firms are allowed, however, to conduct law-related services, either performed by lawyer or non-lawyer, subject to some limitations. In short, any legal services should be conducted according to professional judgment by law without any other interference. Also, it is required to take reasonable measures to assure that a person obtaining the law-related services knows that the services are not legal ones. |
