초록 close

- 결론에 대신하여미국의 법관윤리장전(모델)에서 전문(Preamble)과 Canon 1은 다른 규정들에 비해 상당히 추상적이고 선언적인 의미를 갖는다고 볼 수 있다. 즉 전문은 사법권의 근거 혹은 사법의 독립의 근거로서보다는 법관이 그 직무집행과 관련하여 따라야할 기본지침으로서의 성격을 가지며, 법관에 대하여 사법의 성실성과 공정성에 대한 국민의 신뢰를 조장하는 고도의 윤리적 기준을 준수하도록 요구한다. 아울러 전문은 법관윤리장전이 사법권의 독립성을 해치기보다는 오히려 사법의 독립을 확고히 유지하기 위한 것임을 명시하고 있다. 장전규정의 위반이 징계의 근거는 될 수는 있지만, 민형사책임의 근거로 되지는 않는다고 한 것이 그것이다.장전의 전문은 그 자체로 징계의 직접적인 근거로 되지는 않지만, 법관징계 관련사건이나 법관윤리기구의 자문의견 등에서 자주 인용되고 있다.장전의 Canon 1은 사법의 성실성과 독립성을 유지하기 위한 법관의 의무를 정하고 있다. 이 규정은 1972년 장전에서 처음으로 추가되어 1990년 및 2003년에 추가적인 개정이 이루어졌다.Canon 1은 ‘shall’이라는 용어를 사용하여 동 규정의 명령적인 성격을 강조하였다. 그러나 Canon 1 규정이 단독으로 징계의 근거로 되기는 매우 어렵다. 말하자면 장전의 다른 규정의 위반을 주된 근거로 하면서, Canon 1 규정을 보완적 규정으로 인용되는 경우가 일반적이다. Canon 1은 전문에서 표명한 사법의 역할의 중대성을 구체화한 것으로, 독립적이고 열의있는 사법이 시민의 권리를 보호하기 위한 최후의 보루로서의 의미를 가진다는 점을 표명하고 있다. 이러한 사법에 대한 국민의 신뢰는 법률과 장전을 준수하려는 법관의 책임에 의하여 유지된다. 법관이 법률과 장전을 준수하지 못할 때에는 곧바로 Canon 1을 위반하게 되고 이에 대하여 징계책임을 면하기 어렵다. 법관직은 단순히 직업에 그치는 것이 아니며 사회의 가장 소중한 자산인 정의를 다루는 특권이다.Canon 1의 주석은 성실한 사법(a judiciary of integrity)의 요소로서, 법관들의 청렴성, 공정성, 정직성, 강직성 및 건전성을 들고 있다. 이러한 법관의 성실성의 요소들을 위반하는 경우에는, 징계책임을 면하기 어렵다. 법관이 사법의 독립성을 유지하기 위해서는, 재판절차에서의 법관의 독립성과 공정성에 관련되는 것이다. 재판절차에서 소송당사자 일방을 편파적으로 옹호하는 것은 재판의 공정성을 해칠 가능성이 매우 크며, 재선을 위한 선거운동의 경우에도 부적절한 행동으로 사법의 독립성과 공정성을 침해할 수 있다.오늘날 특히 주목되고 있는 점은 법관의 언론의 자유와 장전의 관계의 문제이다. 법관의 정치적 활동에 대해서는 Canon 5에서 상세히 정하고 있지만, 이것은 법관선거운동에서만 문제되는 것은 아니다. 법관도 일반 시민으로서의 지위를 갖는 만큼 기본적인 언론의 자유를 가짐은 당연하다고 할 수 있으며, 다만 법관으로서의 지위의 특수성에 따라 일반시민과는 다르다고 할 것이다. 법관의 법률적 과오와 부주의 및 무지는 법관의 직무수행과 관련하여 사법의 성실성과 독립성을 침해할 가능성이 크다. 장전은 Canon 3에서 이에 관하여 상세히 규정하고 있으며, 따라서 Canon 3의 위반에 수반하여 Canon 1이 함께 거론되는 것이 일반적이다.李憲煥미국법관윤리장전(모델)(ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct), 법관윤리(judicial ethics)사법의 성실성과 독립성(the integrity and independence of judiciary)법관의 언론의 자유(free speech of judge)법관징계(discipline of judges)[國文抄錄]


[Abstract] A Study on ABA's Model Code of Judicial Conduct(II) Lee, Heon-Hwan* The american Model Code of Judicial Conduct, adopted first in 1924 and significantly revised in 1972, 1990 and 2003, is designed to provide guidance to judges and candidates for judicial office and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. The Code requires judges, in their professional and personal lives, to adhere to a high ethical standard that evokes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. It would not be applied in a manner that impinges on judicial independence, nor should it be utilized in an effort to gain a mere tactical advantage in a proceeding. The Code is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct of judges, but to state basic standards to govern the conduct of all judges and to provide guidance to assist judges in establishing and maintaining high standards of judicial and personal conduct. The Preamble stresses that the overall purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct is to provide guidance for judges regarding permissible and impermissible behavior. The 1990 Model Code primarily uses the word 'shall' to express a mandatory obligation and 'should' to express a desirable though not mandatory standard of conduct. The intent of the 1990 Code has been to make explicit, which ethical standards are binding and which are hortatory. The Preamble to the Code underscores the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary. Judicial independence is necessary to insure public confidence in the fairness of judicial decisions. To insure that judges remain independent intheir decision-making, the Preamble provides that, although a violation of the Code's ethical standards may be the judicial discipline, it is not a separate basis for civil or criminal liability. Canon 1 of the Code was provided first in the 1972 Code and remained unchanged in the 1990 Code. In August 2003, the ABA adopted an amendment to the Commentary to Canon 1 that defined the concepts of 'a judiciary of integrity' and 'an independent judiciary'. As the Code's Preamble clarifies, use of the word 'shall' suggests that this rule is imperative rather than merely hortatory. Nevertheless, a few jurisdictions have chosen not to use Canon 1 as a basis of discipline at all. In most instances wherein Canon 1 is cited as a basis for imposing discipline, other Canons are also cited. The Code's Preamble states that 'The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law ...'. Canon 1 embodies this idea. These ideals are also reflected in the case law. Canon 1 imposes an obligation upon judges to participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct. Judges are sworn to uphold and apply the law in their official capacity as judges. Judges have been disciplined under Canon 1 for behaving disrespectfully while on the bench. Judges have also been sanctioned under Canon 1 for disrespectful conduct toward individuals appearing in their courtroom. Courts considering the relative significance of off-bench vs. on-bench misconduct of judges have generally found that official misconduct is more significant. Nonetheless, a wide variety of off-bench conduct has been found sanctionable under Canon 1. The Commentary to Canon 1 describes a judiciary of integrity as one characterized by judges known for their probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness and soundness of character. A lack of these attributes has often resulted in discipline for judges under Canon 1. A number of recent cases have focused on the First Amendment concerns related to judicial activity. This First Amendment concerns regarding judicial speech are not limited to a judge's campaign speech. There is the issue of whether a judge's legal error rises to the level of sanctionable conduct under Canon 1 and other provisions of the Code. Negligence and ignorance of the law, and judge's incompetence are sufficient for judge to be disciplined.


[Abstract] A Study on ABA's Model Code of Judicial Conduct(II) Lee, Heon-Hwan* The american Model Code of Judicial Conduct, adopted first in 1924 and significantly revised in 1972, 1990 and 2003, is designed to provide guidance to judges and candidates for judicial office and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. The Code requires judges, in their professional and personal lives, to adhere to a high ethical standard that evokes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. It would not be applied in a manner that impinges on judicial independence, nor should it be utilized in an effort to gain a mere tactical advantage in a proceeding. The Code is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct of judges, but to state basic standards to govern the conduct of all judges and to provide guidance to assist judges in establishing and maintaining high standards of judicial and personal conduct. The Preamble stresses that the overall purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct is to provide guidance for judges regarding permissible and impermissible behavior. The 1990 Model Code primarily uses the word 'shall' to express a mandatory obligation and 'should' to express a desirable though not mandatory standard of conduct. The intent of the 1990 Code has been to make explicit, which ethical standards are binding and which are hortatory. The Preamble to the Code underscores the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary. Judicial independence is necessary to insure public confidence in the fairness of judicial decisions. To insure that judges remain independent intheir decision-making, the Preamble provides that, although a violation of the Code's ethical standards may be the judicial discipline, it is not a separate basis for civil or criminal liability. Canon 1 of the Code was provided first in the 1972 Code and remained unchanged in the 1990 Code. In August 2003, the ABA adopted an amendment to the Commentary to Canon 1 that defined the concepts of 'a judiciary of integrity' and 'an independent judiciary'. As the Code's Preamble clarifies, use of the word 'shall' suggests that this rule is imperative rather than merely hortatory. Nevertheless, a few jurisdictions have chosen not to use Canon 1 as a basis of discipline at all. In most instances wherein Canon 1 is cited as a basis for imposing discipline, other Canons are also cited. The Code's Preamble states that 'The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law ...'. Canon 1 embodies this idea. These ideals are also reflected in the case law. Canon 1 imposes an obligation upon judges to participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct. Judges are sworn to uphold and apply the law in their official capacity as judges. Judges have been disciplined under Canon 1 for behaving disrespectfully while on the bench. Judges have also been sanctioned under Canon 1 for disrespectful conduct toward individuals appearing in their courtroom. Courts considering the relative significance of off-bench vs. on-bench misconduct of judges have generally found that official misconduct is more significant. Nonetheless, a wide variety of off-bench conduct has been found sanctionable under Canon 1. The Commentary to Canon 1 describes a judiciary of integrity as one characterized by judges known for their probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness and soundness of character. A lack of these attributes has often resulted in discipline for judges under Canon 1. A number of recent cases have focused on the First Amendment concerns related to judicial activity. This First Amendment concerns regarding judicial speech are not limited to a judge's campaign speech. There is the issue of whether a judge's legal error rises to the level of sanctionable conduct under Canon 1 and other provisions of the Code. Negligence and ignorance of the law, and judge's incompetence are sufficient for judge to be disciplined.