作为司法程序中证据的律师之间的私人交流:一次比较之旅

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1177/13657127211055232
Joan Pico i Junoy, J. López
{"title":"作为司法程序中证据的律师之间的私人交流:一次比较之旅","authors":"Joan Pico i Junoy, J. López","doi":"10.1177/13657127211055232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In professional negotiations between lawyers, it is usual to share information, data and documents that could be protected with legal privilege. This paper analyses, from a comparative perspective, the possible evidentiary use of the documents that a lawyer obtains from the opposing lawyer in a subsequent judicial process. A conflict is presented here between two fundamental procedural guarantees: The right to evidence of the party that possesses the documents and the right to defence and legal privilege of the party that delivered them in the prior negotiation to the lawsuit. The solution provided by different legal systems is therefore not always straightforward, because some legal systems do protect legal privilege and others protect the right to evidence, with different solutions for the rights put in balance here.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"61 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Private communication between lawyers as evidence in a judicial process: A comparative journey\",\"authors\":\"Joan Pico i Junoy, J. López\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13657127211055232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In professional negotiations between lawyers, it is usual to share information, data and documents that could be protected with legal privilege. This paper analyses, from a comparative perspective, the possible evidentiary use of the documents that a lawyer obtains from the opposing lawyer in a subsequent judicial process. A conflict is presented here between two fundamental procedural guarantees: The right to evidence of the party that possesses the documents and the right to defence and legal privilege of the party that delivered them in the prior negotiation to the lawsuit. The solution provided by different legal systems is therefore not always straightforward, because some legal systems do protect legal privilege and others protect the right to evidence, with different solutions for the rights put in balance here.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"61 - 80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211055232\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211055232","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在律师之间的专业谈判中,通常会共享可能受到法律特权保护的信息、数据和文件。本文从比较的角度分析了律师从对方律师那里获得的文件在随后的司法程序中可能的证据用途。这里出现了两种基本程序保障之间的冲突:拥有文件一方的证据权和在诉讼前协商中交付文件一方的辩护权和法律特权。因此,不同法律制度提供的解决方案并不总是直截了当的,因为一些法律制度确实保护法律特权,而另一些法律制度保护证据权,在这里对权利的不同解决方案进行了平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Private communication between lawyers as evidence in a judicial process: A comparative journey
In professional negotiations between lawyers, it is usual to share information, data and documents that could be protected with legal privilege. This paper analyses, from a comparative perspective, the possible evidentiary use of the documents that a lawyer obtains from the opposing lawyer in a subsequent judicial process. A conflict is presented here between two fundamental procedural guarantees: The right to evidence of the party that possesses the documents and the right to defence and legal privilege of the party that delivered them in the prior negotiation to the lawsuit. The solution provided by different legal systems is therefore not always straightforward, because some legal systems do protect legal privilege and others protect the right to evidence, with different solutions for the rights put in balance here.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1