律师持令取证的实践现状与制度构建——以浙江省为例的实证研究  

Practicing Status and System Construction of Lawyers’Evidence Collection by Investigation Order——Empirical Study with Zhejiang Province as An Example

作　　者：胡铭[1] 赵青航[1,2] Hu Ming;Zhao Qinghang(Guanghua Law School,Zhejiang University,Hangzhou 310008)

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院,杭州310008 [2]国家“2011计划”浙江大学司法文明协同创新中心

出　　处：《浙江社会科学》2022年第3期58-68,158,共12页Zhejiang Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社科基金重大项目(18ZDA137);浙江大学国家制度研究院和国家“2011计划”司法文明协同创新中心的研究成果。

摘　　要："律师取证难"是困扰民事诉讼司法实践的突出问题。本文以浙江省的裁判文书和律师访谈为样本,对律师取证方式进行实证研究,以便揭示律师取证的实践现状。实证分析显示,律师自行取证和申请取证这两种传统的法定取证方式的效果不佳,而地方自行推行二十余年的律师持令取证展现出强劲的现实需求和实践效果。但调查令制度存在缺乏法律依据、有地域适用限制等问题,导致律师持令取证时常受阻。从立法层面亟需建立一套系统的调查令法律制度,从而适度拓宽律师的取证渠道,助力法院更加准确、全面地查清案件事实,促进司法公正。The difficulty for lawyers to obtain evidence has always been a prominent problem that plagues judicial practice in civil litigation.The paper takes the judicial documents and interviews of lawyers in Zhejiang Province as samples,and conduct an empirical study on lawyers’evidence collection methods,in order to reveal the practical status of evidence obtaining.Empirical analyses illustrate two traditional legal evidence collection methods,collecting evidence by lawyers themselves and by applying to court,are not effective,while the method of investigation order can otherwise meet actual demand and show practical results after having been promoted over 20 years in some regions.However,the investigation order system has problems such as lack of legal basis and geographical limitations,which often hinders lawyers from obtaining evidence with the order.The cooperation pattern of litigation can provide theoretical support for the investigation order system,and can satisfy the urgent need to establish a complete investigation order rule system.Accordingly,it can appropriately broaden the lawyers’channels to find evidence,help the court to solve fact issues more accurately and comprehensively,and promote justice of judicial system.

关 键 词：自行取证 申请取证 持令取证 协同主义诉讼模式 

分 类 号：D926.5[政治法律—法学] D925.1