美国律师协会《职业行为示范规则》（2）：范围
2014-04-20 18:02阅读：
ABA Model Rules of Professional
Conduct (2)
美国律师协会《职业行为示范规则》（2）
说明：本英汉对照文本是根据美国律师协会（American Bar
Association，ABA）2004年颁布的文本翻译整理而来，仅供个人作为完善中国律师行为准则参考和法律英语学习资料，请勿用于任何商业目的。
SCOPE
范围
[14] The Rules of Professional
Conduct are rules of reason.
They should be interpreted with
reference to the purposes of
legal representation and of the
law itself. Some of the
Rules are imperatives, cast in
the terms 'shall' or 'shall
not.' These define proper
conduct
for purposes of professional
discipline. Others, generally cast
in the term 'may,' are
permissive and define areas
under the Rules in which
the lawyer has discretion to
exercise professional judgment. No
disciplinary action should be
taken when the lawyer chooses
not to act or acts within
the bounds of such discretion.
Other Rules define the nature
of relationships between the
lawyer and others. The Rules
are thus partly obligatory and
disciplinary and partly constitutive
and descriptive in that they
define a lawyer's professional
role. Many of the Comments
use the term 'should.' Comments
do not add obligations to
the Rules but provide guidance
for practicing in compliance
with the Rules.
[14]《职业行为规则》是基于理性的规则，应当参照法律代理及法律本身的目的来解释。规则中有一些是强制性的，是用“必须”或“不得”这些术语表述的，它们为执行职业纪律的目的界定了什么是适当的行为。其它规则通常用“可以”这一术语表达，属于任意性规则，界定了律师在《规则》指导下运用职业判断能够自由裁量决定的范围，无论律师在此等自由裁量权范围内决定作为或者不作为，都不应当受到纪律处分。还有一些规则界定了律师与他人之间关系的性质。因此，《规则》一部分是义务性和纪律性的，一部分是构成性和描述性的，它们共同界定了律师的职业角色。“评注”部分中很多条款使用了“应当”一词，但是“评注”并不在《规则》之上增加义务，而只是为遵守《规则》提供指南。
[15] The Rules presuppose a
larger legal context shaping the
lawyer's role. That context
includes court rules and
statutes relating to matters of
licensure, laws defining specific
obligations of lawyers and
substantive and procedural law
in general. The Comments are
sometimes used to alert lawyers
to their responsibilities under
such other law.
[15]《规则》的制定有一个前提条件，即律师的角色已由一个更大的法律背景框架所界定和规范。这个背景框架包括与执业许可事项相关的法庭规则和制定法、规定律师特定义务的法律以及一般意义上的实体法和程序法。“评注”有时候会提醒律师注意他们在这些法律项下承担的责任。
[16] Compliance with the Rules,
as with all law in an
open society, depends primarily
upon understanding and voluntary
compliance, secondarily upon
reinforcement by peer and public
opinion and finally, when
necessary, upon enforcement through
disciplinary proceedings. The Rules
do not, however, exhaust the
moral and ethical considerations
that should inform a lawyer,
for no worthwhile human activity
can be completely defined by
legal rules. The Rules simply
provide a framework for the
ethical practice of law.
[16]遵守《规则》，就如同遵守一个开放社会所有法律一样，主要靠律师的理解和自觉遵守，其次是靠同行和公众舆论的强化，最后，在必要时，才是通过纪律处分程序来强制执行。《规则》并没有穷尽一个律师应当了解的所有道德和伦理考虑因素，因为任何有价值的人类活动都不可能由法律规则完全界定清楚。《规则》只为有道德的法律执业活动提供了一个参考框架。
[17] Furthermore, for purposes of
determining the lawyer's authority
and responsibility, principles of
substantive law external to
these Rules determine whether a
client-lawyer relationship exists. Most
of the duties flowing from
the client-lawyer relationship attach
only after the client has
requested the lawyer to render
legal services and the lawyer
has agreed to do so. But
there are some duties, such
as that of confidentiality under
Rule 1.6, that
attach when the lawyer agrees
to consider whether a
client-lawyer relationship shall be
established. See Rule
1.18. Whether a
client-lawyer relationship exists for
any specific purpose can depend
on the circumstances and may
be a question of
fact.
[17]而且，在确定律师的授权和责任范围时，是由外在于这些《规则》的实体法规则来决定是否存在委托人-律师关系的。只有在委托人已要求律师提供法律服务而且律师也已同意这样做时，由委托人-律师关系产生的大部分义务才发生。但有些义务，诸如“规则1.6”规定的保密义务，在律师同意考虑是否要建立委托人-律师关系时就发生了。请参见“规则1.18”。为特定目的之委托人-律师关系是否存在可能视情况而定，而且可能是一个事实问题。
[18] Under various legal
provisions, including constitutional,
statutory and common law, the
responsibilities of government lawyers
may include authority concerning
legal matters that ordinarily
reposes in the client in
private client-lawyer relationships.
For example, a lawyer for
a government agency may have
authority on behalf of the
government to decide upon
settlement or whether to appeal
from an adverse judgment. Such
authority in various respects is
generally vested in the attorney
general and the state's attorney
in state government, and their
federal counterparts, and the
same may be true of other
government law officers. Also,
lawyers under the supervision of
these officers may be authorized
to represent several government
agencies in intragovernmental legal
controversies in circumstances where
a private lawyer could not
represent multiple private clients.
These Rules do not abrogate
any such authority.
[18]根据各种法律规定，包括宪法、制定法和普通法的规定，政府律师的职责中可能包括涉及一些法律事项的授权，这些权利在私人性质的委托人-律师关系中一般应当由委托人自己保留和行使。例如，政府机构的律师可能有权代理政府决定和解或者是否就不利判决提起上诉。此等权利在很多方面通常是授予州政府中的总检察长和州律师以及联邦政府中职务相当的人，其它政府法律官员的情形也可能如此。而且，在此等官员督导下工作的律师也可能获得授权在政府内部纠纷中代表几个政府机构，而在类似情形下私人律师是不能代表数个私人委托人的。本《规则》并不否定此等授权的效力。
[19] Failure to comply with
an obligation or prohibition
imposed by a Rule is a
basis for invoking the
disciplinary process. The Rules
presuppose that disciplinary assessment
of a lawyer's conduct will
be made on the basis of
the facts and circumstances as
they existed at the time
of the conduct in question
and in recognition of the
fact that a lawyer often
has to act upon uncertain
or incomplete evidence of the
situation. Moreover, the Rules
presuppose that whether or not
discipline should be imposed for
a violation, and the severity
of a sanction, depend on
all the circumstances, such as
the willfulness and seriousness
of the violation, extenuating
factors and whether there have
been previous violations.
[19]如果违反某一条规则规定的一项义务或禁令，就构成了启动纪律处分程序的基础。《规则》的预设前提是，如果为惩戒的目的而评估一个律师的行为，应当以相关行为发生时的既存事实和情形为基础，并充分考虑这样一个事实，即特定情形下律师常常不得不依据不确定和不完整的证据而采取行动。而且，《规则》的另一个预设前提是，对于一个违反《规则》的行为是否给予纪律处分以及给予多重的处分，取决于所有的因素，比如，违规行为的主观恶意和严重程度、减轻责任的因素以及是否有前科等。
[20] Violation of a Rule
should not itself give rise
to a cause of action
against a lawyer nor should
it create any presumption in
such a case that a legal
duty has been breached. In
addition, violation of a Rule
does not necessarily warrant any
other nondisciplinary remedy, such
as disqualification of a lawyer
in pending litigation. The Rules
are designed to provide guidance
to lawyers and to provide
a structure for regulating
conduct through disciplinary agencies.
They are not designed to
be a basis for civil
liability. Furthermore, the purpose
of the Rules can be
subverted when they are invoked
by opposing parties as
procedural weapons. The fact
that a Rule is a just
basis for a lawyer's
self-assessment, or for sanctioning
a lawyer under the
administration of a disciplinary
authority, does not imply that
an antagonist in a collateral
proceeding or transaction has
standing to seek enforcement of
the Rule. Nevertheless, since
the Rules do establish standards
of conduct by lawyers, a
lawyer's violation of a Rule
may be evidence of breach
of the applicable standard of
conduct.
[20]对某一条规则的违反本身不应当构成对相关律师的诉因，也不应当在此等案件中作出该律师已违反法定义务的任何推定。此外，对一条规则的违反并不一定保证会有任何其它非纪律处分的救济途径，比如在某项未决诉讼中取消律师代理资格的情形。《规则》的设计旨在为律师提供指南，并为通过纪律执行机构规制律师行为提供一个框架，而不是旨在构成民事责任的基础。而且，如果被相互对抗的当事方援引作为程序性武器，则《规则》的目的就可能被颠覆。某一条规则是律师自我评估或者纪律执行机构据以处分律师的正当基础这一事实并不意味着在附带诉讼或交易中的对手有权起诉强制执行该条规则。尽管如此，由于《规则》确立了律师行为标准，律师违反某一条规则就可能构成违反适用的行为标准的证据。
[21] The Comment accompanying
each Rule explains and
illustrates the meaning and
purpose of the Rule. The
Preamble and this note on
Scope provide general orientation.
The Comments are intended as
guides to interpretation, but
the text of each Rule is
authoritative.
[21]伴随每一条规则的“评注”解释说明了该条规则的含义和目的。“前言”和“范围”提供了一般性的指导方向，“评注”旨在提供解释指南，但每条规则的条文本身则是权威性的。
