前 Bates 案時代

任守則(Model Code of Professional Responsibility)後，並無多大改變。廣告方面，如 其紀律規則(Displinary Rules，簡稱 DR)第 2-101 條第 B 項部分規定:「律師不得自

53 專業責任守則(Model Code of Professional Responsibility)，由美國律師協會在 1969 年制定，用以 取代專業倫理準則。1983 年被專業行為模範規則(Model Rules of Professional Conduct)取代。

54 關於專業行為模範規則(Model Rules of Professional Conduct)之簡介，參見前揭註 24。

55 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

56 HENRYS. DRINKER, LEGAL ETHICS 210 (1953).

57 Id. at 211.

58 ABA CANONS OF PROF’L ETHICS, CANONS 7 (1943) (stating that “Efforts, direct and indirect, in any way to encroach upon the employment of another lawyer, are unworthy of those who should be brethren at the Bar”).

59 ABA CANONS OF PROF’L ETHICS, CANONS 27 (1908) (stating that “The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards… is not per se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews, not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind…and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable”). See also Monica R. Richey, Comment, Modern trends of Restrictions on Lawyer Solicitation Laws, 29 J. Legal Prof. 281, at 281-82 (2004-2005).

60 MODEL CODE OF PROF’L RESPONSIBILITY DR 2 -101(1969) (stating that “(B) A lawyer shall not

A 項規定：「除非為紀律規則第 2-101 條第 B 項所許之情形，對於未就委任之事項向 Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizen's Consumer Council 案⁶⁵，認為商業言論受 美國憲法第一修正案所保護後，開始受到質疑⁶⁶。隔年，即 1977 年，美國最高法院 lawyer through newspaper or magazine advertisements, ratio or television announcements, display advertisements in the city or telephone directories or other meansof commercial publicity, nor shall he authorize or permit others to do so in his behalf ”) See also Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 355 (1977).

61 MODEL CODE OF PROF’L RESPONSIBILITY DR 2 -103 (A) (1969) (stating that “A lawyer shall not recommend employment, as a private practitioner, of himself, his partner, or associate to a non- lawyer who has not sought his advice regarding employment of a lawyer.”) ; Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S.

447, 454 n. 9 (1978).

62 MODEL CODE OF PROF’L RESPONSIBILITY DR 2-104 (A) (1969) ( provides in relevant part that “A lawyer who has given unsolicited advice to a layman that he should obtain counsel or take legal action shall not accept employment resulting from that advice…) ; Ohralik, 436 U.S. 447, 454 n. 9 (1978).

63 MODEL CODEOF PROF’L RESPONSIBILITY DR 2-104(A)(1)-(5) (1969) (states that “ (1) A lawyer may accept employment by a close friend, relative, former client (if the advice is germane to the former employment), or one whom the lawyer reasonably believes to be a client. (2)A lawyer may accept employment that results from his participation in activities designed to educate laymen to recognize legal problems, to make intelligent selection of counsel, or to utilize available legal services if such activities are conducted or sponsored by a qualified legal assistance organization. (3) A lawyer who is recommended, furnished or paid by any of the offices or organizations enumerated in DR 2-103(D)(1) through (4) may represent a member or beneficiary thereof, to the extent and under the conditions prescribed therein. (4) Without affecting his right to accept employment, a lawyer may speak publicly or write for publication on legal topics so long as he does not emphasize his own professional experience or reputation and does not undertake to give individual advice.(5) If success in asserting rights or defenses of his client in litigation in the nature of a class action is dependent upon the joinder of others, a lawyer may accept, but shall not seek, employment from those contacted for the purpose of obtaining their joinder”).

64 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

65 Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizen's Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976). 本案中，

聯邦最高法院宣告該州禁止藥劑師對藥物價格作廣告之規定違憲，並說明商業言論受美國第一修正 案所保護。

66 參見林利芝，「律師業務─廣告與招攬行為之探討」，月旦法學雜誌，第 188 期，頁 138 ( 2011)。

See also Richey, supra note 59, at 284-85 (2004-2005).

67 Bates, 433 U.S. 350.

專業責任守則紀律規則第 2-101 條第 B 項⁶⁸之規定，Arizona 州律師協會理事會作出

最後最高法院強調，雖全盤禁止律師廣告乃違憲，但仍可禁止虛偽不實、詐欺 或引人錯誤之廣告。本案中，列舉例行性法律服務價格之廣告，非本質上即屬虛偽 不實、詐欺或引人錯誤，故州對此之禁止乃違憲。

三、 Bates⁸³案影響

受 Bates⁸⁴案影響所及，開始出現眾多企圖比附援引該案之招攬案件，挑戰倫理 規範對於律師招攬行為限制之妥當性。惟若觀察法院對於當面招攬及書面招攬之態 度，可謂大異其趣。

第二項 當面招攬與書面招攬

美國法上之招攬(Solicitation)即律師或其所屬人員為拓展業務，主動以書面或親 自以電話聯繫等方式，對特定人拓展業務者⁸⁵。故事實上招攬之要件有三：一、主 動為之；二、獲取金錢利益(拓展業務)；三、對特定人為之。

受僱律師作離職通知，為其主動與當事人間溝通；又，作離職通知，乃為了新 任職處所之客源，目的在獲取金錢利益；另溝通之對象方面，不是現正處理案件之 當事人，就是以前處理過案件之當事人，皆為特定人，原則上，已符合美國法上招 攬之要件。故本文以下先就美國法招攬之相關規規定發展介紹之，其次再就受僱律 師離職通知與招攬規範之關係作一說明。

一、 當面招攬

美國律師倫理規範從專業倫理準則，經專業責任守則，演變到至今之專業行為 模範規則，歷經長久時代之數度變遷，法院及美國律師協會，對當面招攬之態度可 謂始終如一，採取禁止之態度。其理由為何? 最早可追溯自 1978 年之 Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n ⁸⁶一案。

Ohralik⁸⁷案為一典型之追逐救護車案例⁸⁸。本案律師得知汽車駕駛人 McClintock 與車上乘客 Wanda 被他人撞傷之車禍事故後，至醫院探訪臥病在床之駕駛人 McClintock，表示願意就其案件接受委任，經其口頭同意後，要求其簽署委任書⁸⁹；

83 Bates, 433 U.S. 350.

84 Id.

85 參見王惠光，前揭註 20，頁 148。

86 Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447 (1978).

87 Id.

88 美國由於律師人數眾多，曾出現律師主動至醫院招攬車禍案件當事人之情況，被以追逐救護車者

(ambulance chaser)戲稱之。

89 Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 450.

其後該律師並在未經邀請下親自到 Wanda 家拜訪，亦表示願意代理其案件，Wanda

會得知後，該會認定 Primus 違反專業責任守則之紀律規則之招攬規定¹⁰³，並建議該 Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel ¹¹³案、Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association

114案一再重申，最後並影響現今專業行為模範規則之立法。 recommend employment, as a private practitioner, of himself, his partner, or associate to a non- lawyer who has not sought his advice regarding employment of a lawyer”).

112 Id. DR 2 -104(1969) (stating that “ (A) A lawyer who has given unsolicited advice to a layman that he should obtain counsel or take legal action shall not accept employment resulting from that advice…).

113 Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).

114 Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988).

115 Zauderer, 471 U.S. 626.

律師 Zauderer 分別在報紙上刊登兩則招攬業務之廣告，第一則表示願意代理酒 駕肇事之當事人，並表明若判決結果有罪，則律師費全退；另一則表示願意代理使 用 Dalkon Shiled 子宮內避孕器的婦女提起訴訟。系爭廣告內容為「Dalkon Shiled 子 宮內避孕器造成婦女嚴重骨盆炎，致必須就醫治療、輸卵管受損傷、不孕症及切除 子宮。Dalkon Shiled 亦會導致計畫外受孕，將造成墮胎、流產、因敗血症而墮胎、

輸卵管或異位受孕、早產。如果你或你的朋友有類似遭遇，現在控告廠商還不遲。

本所目前正就此案替某些婦女辯護，律師費將依後謝金方式計算¹¹⁶。」該州律師懲 戒委員會控告 Zauderer 該二則廣告違反該州數則專業責任守則紀律規則之規定¹¹⁷。 該州最高法院懲戒委員認為其中 Dalkon Shiled 子宮內避孕器違反廣告規定、第 2-103 條第 A 項、第 2-104 條第 A 項招攬規定¹¹⁸，故對其公開譴責¹¹⁹。Zauderer 則認為該 lawyer's pecuniary gain. the term “solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone or telegraph, by letter or other writing or by other communication directed to a specific recipient, but does not include letters addressed or advertising circulars distributed generally to persons not known to need legal services of the kind provided by the lawyer in a particular matter, but who are so situated that they might in general find

高法院在 In re Primus¹²⁴案中，招攬目的非出於金錢利益，則不應被禁止之見解¹²⁵。 不過，其仍未採納最高法院區分當面招攬、書面招攬之見解。該第 7.3 條認為律師 對「不知其是否需要律師就特定事件所提供之法律服務之人」(以下簡稱不特定人) 寄送信件(Mass mailing)，為廣告，不屬於招攬，原則上不禁止¹²⁶；惟，律師對「知 其需要該律師就特定事件所提供之法律服務之人」(以下簡稱特定人)寄發信件

such services useful”).「前專業關係之人」，美國法上一般稱簡稱「前當事人」(Former Client)。

124 Primus, 436 U.S. 412.

125 See Ronald D. Rotunda & John S. Dzienkowski, LEGAL ETHICS- THE LAWYER'S DESKBOOK ON PROF’L RESP. LEGAL §7.3–1(a) (2011-12 ed.).

126 Id.

127 Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988).

128 Id.

129 See id. at 470 n. 2.

130 Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1985).

131 Id.

132 Shapero, 486 U.S. at 469-71.

美國最高法院認為，律師招攬為商業言論，受憲法保障；對於無不實或引人錯 live telephone contact solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain ”);Id. R.7.3(b)(stating that “A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client by written or recorded communication or by in-person or telephone contact even when not otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a)…”)

139 MODEL RULESOF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.3 cmt. 1 (1989) (stating that “There is a potential for abuse inherent in direct in-person or live telephone contact by a lawyer with a prospective client known to need legal services. These forms of contact between a lawyer and a prospective client subject the layperson to the private importuning of the trained advocate in a direct interpersonal encounter. The prospective client, who may already feel overwhelmed by the circumstances giving rise to the need for legal services, may find it difficult fully to evaluate all available alternatives with reasoned judgment and appropriate self-interest in the face of the lawyer's presence and insistence upon being retained immediately. The situation is fraught with the possibility of undue influence, intimidation, and over-reaching”).

140 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.3 cmt. 2 (1989) (stating that “Advertising and written and recorded communications which may be mailed or autodialed…without subjecting the prospective client to direct in-person or telephone persuasion that may overwhelm the client's judgment.)

正相較於 1989 年，主要因應科技之進步，增列規範電子通訊之方式，並將即時電子 telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment from a prospective client when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain…”)

142 Id. R.7.3 (a) (the exceptions: “…unless the person contacted: (1) is a lawyer; or (2) has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer”).

143 Id. R. 7.3 (b) (stating that “A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client by written, recorded or electronic communication or by in-person, telephone or real-time electronic contact even when not otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a), if: (1) the prospective client has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or (2) the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment”).

144 See id. R.7.3 cmt. 1.內容與 1989 年之 7.3 條評述 1 相同。關於 1989 年之 7.3 條評述 1 之內容，參 見前揭註 139。

存在律師施加不當影響力或使用詐欺脅迫手段之危險性¹⁴⁵。而當招攬對象為與律師 有前專業關係之人時，由於其之前已有被提供過服務之經驗，知道自己滿不滿意律 師提供之服務，有能力判斷此次是否要再找該律師¹⁴⁶；當招攬對象為與律師有密友 關係之人時，因其了解該律師之為人，有能力判斷，知道要不要找其解決法律問題，

且律師利用其密友之可能性低¹⁴⁷；又當招攬對象為與律師有親屬關係之人時，除其 了解該律師之為人，有能力判斷外，不許律師用此種方式，難免不近人情；當招攬 對象為律師時，因律師與當事人二者有同等法律專業知識，不易受害。故，基於上 述理由，此些人較無保護必要性，即便當面、電話、即時電子通訊招攬有前述危險 性，仍無禁止必要。而另一方面，若招攬對象非上述此些人時，則因有保護必要，

故應禁止對其用當面、電話、即時電子通訊之方式招攬。

不過最後需注意者係，即便在符合第 7.3 條第 a 項之情形下，若一、當事人已 明白表示不願被招攬；或二、律師行為構成強暴脅迫或騷擾，律師仍不得用任何方 式招攬¹⁴⁸，此乃為保障當事人意思自由之故。

至於現行專業行為模範規則 7.1 條，本條為原則性規定，適用於所有律師之陳 述，故招攬行為自需符合之。其內容為：「律師不得就其本人或其服務作出任何不實 或引人錯誤之陳述，如該陳述之內容對事實或法律為重大不實陳述，或遺漏必要事 實導致言論整體觀之構成嚴重引人錯誤之陳述，該陳述之內容即屬不實或引人錯誤

至於現行專業行為模範規則 7.1 條，本條為原則性規定，適用於所有律師之陳 述，故招攬行為自需符合之。其內容為：「律師不得就其本人或其服務作出任何不實 或引人錯誤之陳述，如該陳述之內容對事實或法律為重大不實陳述，或遺漏必要事 實導致言論整體觀之構成嚴重引人錯誤之陳述，該陳述之內容即屬不實或引人錯誤