2005法律扶助國際論壇》議題討論一：「組織型態」

Issue I: Organization
議題討論一：「組織型態」

Discussant:
與談人：
Dr. Mattias Kilian (Cologn University, Germany)
馬提雅斯‧基利安博士[1] ﹝科隆大學資深研究員，德國﹞
Most countries looked with envy to England and Wales at their extremely developed legal aid systems, headed by a highly professional Legal Services Commission and its Research Centre. What I would like to do in the next 10 minutes or so as the Discussant is to analyse the organization of the different legal aid systems found worldwide, and to highlight their obvious advantages and disadvantages.
大部分的國家均羨妒英格蘭暨威爾斯﹝England and Wales﹞擁有發展極度完備的法律扶助制度，並持續關注這個由高度專業的法律服務委員會﹝Legal Services Commission﹞及其研究中心﹝Research Centre﹞所領導的法律扶助系統。身為本議題討論的與談人，我在以下的十分鐘左右將分析探討世界各地現存不同的法律扶助制度之組織，並分別點出其各自擅場與不足之處。

A model well known to most of you is what I would like to call the “board model”, in which legal aid is provided on a national and community level, and administered through a body which is often quite independent from the government but funded by the public purse. We have just heard a lot about such a system from Mike. England and Wales seem to have adopted the most developed of such system through its Legal Services Commission. Most common law jurisdictions have similar systems, for example Finland, the Netherlands and Japan.
大多數人知之甚詳的模式是我所稱之為「委員會模式」﹝board model﹞者。所謂的「委員會模式」，是由國家與社區層級提供法律扶助，而由一個多半相當獨立於政府、但由公費﹝public purse﹞資助的團體所管理。關於這樣的制度，我們已從英國法律服務委員會服務部門執行長邁克‧吉卡科﹝Mike Jeacock﹞先生處聽取了許多相關介紹。英格蘭暨威爾斯似乎已透過其法律服務委員會採行了目前發展最完善的委員會模式制度。大部分普通法司法管轄區﹝common law jurisdiction﹞[2] 均有相似的系統，例如芬蘭、荷蘭及日本﹝譯註：馬提雅斯‧基利安博士於此或有小誤，日本係成文法系，並非普通法國家，應屬非普通法司法管轄區﹝non-common law jurisdiction﹞﹞。

Another model that can be found is where legal aid is in the hands of the legal profession, which is either self or government funded, for example Turkey, and to some extend Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and Hong Kong. In Turkey, the government provides an annual fund from which the local bar sets up regional legal aid bureaus. There is no government interference as to how the services are provided. The government simply spends money and leaves everything else to the legal profession.
另一種可見的模式是由法律專業社群﹝律師公會﹞扶持運作的法律扶助制度，其或由私人襄贊、或由政府資助，舉例如土耳其，某種程度而言新加坡、馬來西亞、菲律賓及香港亦算是。在土耳其，政府提供年度預算，地區律師公會藉由該筆預算成立區域性的法律扶助局。至於相關法律扶助服務如何提供，土耳其政府則並無介入干預。政府只是花錢，而將一切法律扶助事業委由法律專業社群運行。

The third model is what can be described as the “court-adjunct” model. Examples are Germany, the Czech Republic, Belgium and Austria. In Germany, all legal aid matters are handled by the courts, and no centralized legal aid body exists. In this system there is not even a specialized department within the court that is in charge of legal aid matters. They are handled by Judges and clerks who hear and eventually decide the case. It is a very lean structure and lacks legal aid specialists.
第三種模式可被稱為「法院附屬」﹝court-adjunct﹞模式。舉例來說，德國、捷克共和國、比利時及奧地利均屬此類。在德國，所有的法律扶助事務全由法院掌管，其他並無全國性中央級法律扶助團體存在。於此制度中，法院內甚至並無一個專門的部門處理法律扶助事務。法律扶助相關事宜均由聽審的法官﹝Judges﹞及法院職員﹝clerks﹞做最終的決定與處理。此種模式只具非常精瘦極簡的架構，且缺乏法律扶助專業人才。

I would now like to briefly address the advantages and the disadvantages of the different systems I’ve identified, and to bring forward the problems for further discussion. They are: scope and flexibility, professionalism and quality, priorities, gate-keeping, providers, infrastructure and access.
現在我想簡單地介紹方才我所定義的三種不同法律扶助制度之優缺點，並用以下的分類進行更深層的討論分析，也就是：一、範圍與彈性；二、專業與品質；三、提供法律扶助的優先順序；四、篩選受扶助案件之機制；五、法律扶助提供者；六、基礎組織建設與接近使用管道。

Starting with scope and flexibility - adjunct systems tend to focus on court proceedings. While these are funded generously, they are less available at the pre-trial stage. A good example of this problem is Germany where there is no prioritization in the area of civil legal aid, and very limited for criminal legal aid, as far as court proceedings are concerned. However for most civil disputes settled out of court, the court-adjunct models worldwide are less sophisticated in providing legal services at the pre-trial stage, such as legal advice services, duty lawyer services, telephone information, community legal education and alternative dispute resolution. As the court-adjunct model is by its name adjunct, it very effectively supports what it is adjunct to but very poorly in matters that does not relate to court proceedings. Legal advice services, telephone information, community legal education and ADR services often require an infrastructure and location that courts and to some extend Law Societies can offer and for which personnel is trained for.
我們先自「法律扶助的範圍與彈性」﹝Scope and Flexibility﹞談起─法院附屬模式所提供的法律扶助傾向針對法院審判程序。雖然法院提供此類法律扶助頗為慷慨，但審判前的偵訊、準備程序階段中法律扶助則少有可得。德國即是這個問題相當好的例子，就法院審判程序所提供的法律扶助服務的實務面論之，其於民事法律扶助領域內並無優先提供法扶的分級順序或差別待遇﹝prioritization﹞，而於刑事法律扶助領域只有極少數的優先處理案件類別。然而，就大部分於法院外解決的民事爭端來說，全世界現存的法院附屬模式之法律扶助制度對於審判前階段所提供的法律扶助較欠缺經驗，例如法律建議服務，當值律師服務，電話熱線法律諮詢、社區法律教育、以及訴訟外替代性紛爭解決機制﹝Alternative Dispute Resolution processes, ADR﹞等，均需法院、或某種程度由律師公會提供之法律扶助基礎建設及地點，並且需受過專業訓練人員於其中提供服務。

The board model is not adjunct to the traditional delivery forms, and through its functions policy-makers can often leave the beaten paths and take new approaches to legal aid. It does not simply fund the procedures contained in court-centered procedures, but is able to develop alternative and innovative forms of dispute resolution by taking a more holistic approach to the problem. This obvious advantage to some extend passes the problem that Boards tend to be regarded or even worse act as monopoly providers of legal aid, and they leave little room for additional providers, either because no funding is allocated or the existence of a more or less self-regulating Board is a welcome excuse for others not to become involved in free legal services.
委員會模式之法律扶助制度則並不附屬固著於傳統的法扶提供形式，而是透過法律扶助功能論的指引，政策制定者多半能跳脫前人走出來的既成道路，爲法律扶助另闢新途。委員會模式之法扶制度不只是資助以法院為中心之程序內所需的法律扶助外，藉由採取更全面性處理問題的方式，其更發展出替代性、創新性的爭端解決形式。這樣一個明顯的優勢，某種程度形成了另一個問題，也就是委員會傾向被認為，或者更糟，其本身就如此自我定位，成為法律扶助提供的獨占者，如此不管是因為沒有分配到資助經費，抑是因為一個或多或少具有自我管理、自我規範、自我定位之性質的委員會存在，對其他人來說，是避免自己涉入、或被收編為免費法律服務的體系之中的一個令人歡迎的好藉口，畢竟包山包海的法律扶助委員會已未留給其他法律扶助提供者太多插手的空間。

Closely linked to this aspect is the observation that board models seem to be more needs focused while adjunct models tend to be purely demand driven. Adjunct models offer unlimited funding often in a single delivery method, for example, court proceedings. Adjunct systems tend to focus on individual legal aid while board systems take a more advanced approach by providing or aiming at structural legal aid.
與此層面最相近的觀察是，委員會模式似乎是專注在滿足民眾對法律扶助的「需求」﹝needs﹞，而法院附屬模式則傾向純粹是由「法院認定其需要﹝demand﹞之法律扶助」所驅使。法院附屬模式以單一法扶提供形式供給無限制的資助，舉例來說，法院審判程序中之法律扶助。法院附屬制度傾向專注於個人的法律扶助需要，而委員會制度則藉由提供或針對結構性的法律扶助採取更先驅進步的法扶路徑。

Professionalism and quality - adjunct models leave little room for the emergence of specialists. Those dealing with legal aid matters, be they lawyers who organize legal aid work on behalf of the Law Society or Judges who assess legal aid applications, usually do so on top of their normal legal work. Either they have opportunities to build up routine or they are selected and trained for that kind of work. I can highlight this observation with an example from Germany where judges decide legal aid applications, and the commonly heard complaint is that they apply the means test too leniently resulting in too many applicants are granted legal aid without being required to pay contributions. Judges simply do not have the training, time and routine to identify the loopholes of the means test, resulting in a waste of resources that would and should be spend more effectively on other forms of legal aid. Another aspect of professionalism is that board models seem to be more interested in the results of their spending - they very carefully evaluate the effects of its work with the help of empirical research. A good example is the Legal Services Commission’s Research Centre that is well-staffed that does extensive empirical research on all aspects of legal aid. Adjunct models tend to regard legal aid as something to be done but nothing to deserve continuous analysis, evaluation and improvement. Thus from an organizational point of view, adjunct models are more reactive while board models are proactive.
二、「專業與品質」﹝Professionalism and Quality﹞─法院附屬模式使得專門從事法律扶助的專業人才相當難以出現。目前這些處理法律扶助事項者，不管是代表律師公會組織法律扶助工作的律師，或是評估法律扶助申請的法官，均於其日常法律業務上額外從事法律扶助服務。其要不是有機會建立從事法律扶助的慣例，否則就是被檢選出來加以訓練以擔負這類的工作。我可以舉德國為例佐證以上的觀察。在德國是由法官決定是否核准法律扶助之申請，而最常聽到的抱怨，即是法官在適用資力審查﹝means test﹞太過於寬大，以致於太多法律扶助申請人未被要求支付分擔金就獲得法律扶助。法官只是因為未受過相關訓練、沒有時間及缺乏慣例以認定、辨別這些鑽逃資力審查漏洞之企圖，以致於形成資源上的浪費，而這些資源原本將要且應該更有效率地運用在其他形式的法律扶助上。專業主義的另一個層面是委員會模式似乎對於他們花費的成果更有興趣─他們藉由經驗主義研究方法﹝empirical research﹞，非常仔細評估計算其工作的成果。最佳例證即是英國的法律服務委員會所屬、學術精英雲集的研究中心，其對於法律扶助的各個相關層面均做了廣泛的經驗研究。法院附屬模式則傾向只是把法律扶助視為應該做的某件事，而非值得持續分析、評估與改進的志業。因此自組織的觀點而言，較之於委員會模式主動發展提供法律扶助﹝proactive﹞，法院附屬模式提供法律扶助的方式是較為被動因應的﹝reactive﹞。

Priorities – board models are more expensive and because of its visibility for the public, it triggers more demand than other models do. There is a tendency to its defining priorities. The board sets up rules on the cases that it intends to fund and those that it does not. There are cases to be settled in court while others are not regardless of their merits. Such an approach indeed raises fundamental questions as to whether there should be distinctions between good cases and bad cases.
三、「提供法律扶助的優先順序」﹝Priorities﹞─委員會模式花費較高昂，且因其對公眾而言具有高能見度，委員會較之其他模式觸發了更多法律扶助的需求。於是委員會所定義的提供法律扶助優先順序呈現出一種趨勢。委員會制定一套規則決定哪些案件是其傾向資助的，哪些則否。有些案件將於法院內訴訟解決，其他則否，而此與案件本身的法律根據、抗辯理由等案情並無相關。如此處理法律扶助的方式確實引發一個基本性的問題，亦即是否真有必要有好案件與壞案件之區別。

Gate-keeping – both the Law Society based and court-adjunct models do as board models do. As I said earlier, the lack of priorities may not necessarily be a bad thing. However I’m talking about the means and merits tests and both need to be applied carefully in order to be effective. The means test in particular is a highly technical matter and most countries require considerable knowledge and experience to carry it out effectively. Experiences show that in an adjunct model which usually lack specialists, means tests are often applied very leniently, as thorough investigations require substantial resources to be directed away from the court’s or the Law Society’s main areas of work.
四、「篩選受扶助案件之機制」﹝Gate-keeping﹞─由律師公會所主導的模式，及附屬於法院之下的模式，和委員會模式的作法相同，均擁有篩選受扶助案件之機制。如我稍早提及者，欠缺提供法律扶助優先順序並非必然是壞事。然而，現在我所要討論的是資力審查及案情審查﹝means and merits tests﹞，且二者均需謹慎地適用之以求法律扶助能實質有效。資力審查特別是一種高度技術性事宜，而大多數國家均需要相當的智識與經驗以有效適行之。經驗顯示在法院附屬模式裡，由於缺乏法律扶助相關專業人才，資力審查在適用上通常過於寬鬆，因為徹底的資力調查需耗相當大量的資源，而這已偏離了法院或律師公會主要的業務範圍。

Providers – one concept is that every lawyer is free to take on legal aid work. The basic idea behind this concept is that every citizen should be able to instruct the lawyer of his/her own choice and not a lawyer selected by someone else, for example by a Judge or a legal aid board. Systems that select lawyers are those that have been awarded with a contract or franchise because they have agreed to follow certain quality conduct or standards can do legal aid work. This system very much focuses on quality when it comes to the selection of service providers. The alternative is to regard the principle of the free choice of counsel as of the paramount importance in the lawyer-client relationship, which is a relationship based on trust and confidence, and to leave the eventual lack of quality to be rectified by the professional liability of the lawyer and to its indemnity insurance.
五、「法律扶助提供者」﹝Providers﹞─在此有個概念是，每位律師均得自由承擔法律扶助工作。隱藏在此概念後的基本想法是，每位公民應可憑其自由意志選任指示自己的律師，而非委由他人派任。舉例來說，如由法官或法律扶助委員會代其選任律師者是。而透過法律扶助制度膺選之律師得獲取一定之報酬，因其透過簽約﹝contract﹞或加盟[3] ﹝franchise﹞的方式，同意遵從某一品質管理或標準，依據此一制度便得從事法律扶助工作。這樣的制度在選擇法律扶助提供者時非常注重其品質。另一種替代選擇則是，依然將自由選擇律師的原則視為奠基於信任與依賴之上的「律師─客戶關係」﹝lawyer-client relationship﹞中具有至高無上之重要性者，而靠律師專業上的債務不履行損害賠償責任﹝professional liability﹞及其損失補償保險﹝indemnity insurance﹞補正最終的法律扶助品質缺失。

Infrastructure and access – independent board models struggle with infrastructure and access to a greater extend than adjunct models which can rely on its existing infrastructure. The court-adjunct model has access point for example in county court; and the Law Society adjunct model at each local bar with its own infrastructure. Board models tend to have fewer facilities because they have to fund them from their budgets. This can result in problems of accessibility, particularly in thinly populated regions where it is not worthwhile to provide legal aid infrastructure. The necessity of a dedicated infrastructure also highlights another problem of board models: a higher percentage of their spending goes into overheads, administration, infrastructure etc. Thus it has to be considered to what extend do the obvious advantages of board systems outweigh the additional costs.
六、「基礎組織建設與接近使用管道」﹝Infrastructure and Access﹞─獨立的委員會模式掙扎於極大化其基礎組織建設與接近使用管道，而法院附屬模式之法律扶助制度則可仰賴既有司法體系之基礎組織系統。附屬於法院之下的模式擁有接近及使用法律扶助的服務據點，諸如各縣法院；而律師公會附屬模式則藉由各地方律師公會基礎組織，串聯起其自身的接近使用法律扶助之服務據點。委員會模式傾向基礎設施簡單化，因為此制度必須由自身的預算來支應。而這將造成接近使用的困難性，特別是在人口稀少、若設置法律扶助服務據點投資使用率不高的區域。是否應投注於基礎組織建設的必要性同時也點出了委員會組織的另一項問題：委員會組織之花費有較高比例流向日常開支、管理費用、組織營運成本等。因此我們必須思考，較其額外增加之成本，委員會模式之法律扶助制度可做出何種程度之顯著貢獻，才是更重要的考量。


Arturo Fournier (Inter-American Bar Association, Costa Rica):
亞圖洛‧佛尼爾
﹝哥斯大黎加律師公會國際法及外國事務委員會會長，哥斯大黎加﹞
I heard this morning that in England, people are more or less afraid of trying to solve cases through legal aid or go to court. That’s surprising for me, because according to Costa Rican statistics, one out of four Costa Ricans is a party to a lawsuit. We have too many lawsuits, and everybody resorts to court procedures in my country, so I want to make a comparison and ask for an explanation of why this happens in England. And my second question is, why do you work only in England and Wales and not in the whole of UK?
今天上午我聽聞，在英格蘭民眾或多或少害怕試著經由法律扶助、或走進法院解決案件。這令我非常驚訝，因為根據哥斯大黎加的統計數字顯示，每四位哥斯大黎加人就有一位是法律訴訟之當事人。我們有太多的法律訴訟案件，而在我的國家大家都訴諸法院程序解決彼此間的爭端，因此我希望您能做個比較，並想請教為什麼英格蘭會有這樣的現象發生。而我的第二個問題是，爲什麼貴法律服務委員會只在英格蘭暨威爾斯提供法律扶助，而非整個大不列顛王國？

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
The second one is easy, because it is a different law system in Scotland, and they have their own Legal Services Board.
﹝譯註：在英國，「法律服務資助」（Legal Services Funding）現已取代了以前的「法律援助計畫」（Legal Aid Scheme）。以下除了原文使用Legal Aid外，均以法律服務為英國相關制度之標準譯名，合先敘明之﹞
第二個問題簡單，因為在蘇格蘭施行的是不同的法律制度，且他們擁有自己的法律服務委員會﹝Legal Services Board﹞。

The first one relates to our experiences. Our research shows that people don’t litigate. They go to a solicitor where they may only be able to resolve one of their issues. What we are trying to establish through the community legal centres is the concept of a “one-stop-shop”, where we can give all the advice clients need. There is a reluctance to do so. I think the growth in telephone services is helping us in that area, and we certainly see what we describe as the socially excluded using that service, and also through the internet. Clear evidence of that is highlighted in our research, and that’s one of the reasons why we are changing our methods of delivery and trying to make sure that access is available through many different ways.
第一個問題的解答則與我們英國的經驗相關。我們的研究顯示民眾不好興訟。他們尋求事務律師﹝solicitor﹞的協助，而他們於事務律師處可能一次只能解決其中一個議題。現今我們透過社區法律諮詢中心試圖建立的制度是，「爭端一次解決站」﹝one-stop-shop﹞的概念，在「爭端一次解決站」裡，我們可以給予受服務人需要的所有法律建議。目前推動此概念尚有阻力。然而我認為電話熱線服務的增加正幫助我們在該領域內努力，我們確實看到了為社會所排拒的邊緣社群者，正如法律服務委員會所計劃般地使用該項電話熱線服務，他們同時也透過網際網路獲得法律服務方面的建議。清晰明顯的證據於我們的研究中在在點明顯現，這也是為什麼法律服務委員會正努力改變提供法律服務方法的其中一個理由，我們並試圖確定法律服務得透過許多不同的方式接近使用之。

鄭文龍(法律扶助基金會，台灣):
我有5個問題想請教邁克‧吉卡科先生：
1) LSC為什麼要設計成非政府組織?
「法律服務委員會」﹝LSC﹞
2) 英國是屬於 “judicare”制度，這應該是一個比較高成本的制度，有沒有
「司法照護」﹝judicare﹞
考慮走向 “staff attorney”的方式？
「專職律師制[4] 」﹝staff attorney﹞
3) 會不會面臨浮濫的批評，請問要怎麼因應?
4) 警局服務的部分，能不能說明一下緊急服務的內容?
5) 你的報告裡有提到，法律上的問題沒有去處理的話，成本是20億到40億英鎊，就是說不處理的成本應該是小於處理的成本。這個不處理的成本要怎麼評估?

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
As far as budget is concerned, we do manage to spend our 2.1 billion pounds.
就預算而言，我們英國法律服務委員會確實計劃要花費二十一億英鎊[5] 。

We were set up as a non-departmental government body basically for independence, and it was felt that that was one of the ways in which we could secure that. It is also very much at the forefront of our thinking, and the Commission would very much like to be protective about that. I think most of our suppliers would suggest that it is the best way for us to maintain our independence.
我們法律服務委員會是以非政府部門形式成立之公共團體，基本上是為了獨立自主性，­而這也是令人感覺我們能夠確保法律服務品質的方式之一。獨立自主性也是在我們的思考當中非常重要的一部分，而本法律服務委員會則強烈希冀捍衛此點。我認為，我們大多數的法律服務提供者均將抱持以下論點：法律服務委員會LSC以非政府組織形式運作，對我們來說，係維繫自身獨立自主的最佳方式。

Setting up the Public Defenders Service certainly is more costly. We are trying to determine whether we could make it less costly, and we are at the end of the research program. The service has delivered very high competence solicitors and the reports that are we getting back are very positive, but we have more work to do if we were going to extend the employed service.[6] We are under pressure from family law suppliers to come into the employed service in practices where they are not deemed to be profitable. And certain family law suppliers[7] make representations to meet fairly regularly about whether they can become employed services.
採用公設辯護律師服務﹝Public Defenders Service﹞確實花費較鉅。我們正試圖決定是否可以使其成本降低，而此研究計畫已進入尾聲。本研究計畫訪問了許多能力極強的事務律師們，而我們現正回收的報告對於促進研究成果頗具積極正面之效，但是如果法律服務委員會將要拓展委員會聘雇專職律師服務的模式，我們還有許多準備工作要做。我們在受到家事法律服務提供律師的壓力催促下，將法律服務業務向轉型為專職律師制的路上推進，雖說專職律師制對法律服務委員會目前而言本益相比未必合算。而某些家事法律服務提供律師代表則主張法律服務委員會應公正地、經常性地回應他們是否能受聘為專職服務律師的期待。

Some of our staff in regional offices are responsible for co-ordinating the access of solicitors at police stations. If somebody is arrested by the police and taken to a police station, he/she will ring a central service who will allocate a solicitor, and the time set for the solicitor to arrive is within 45 minutes. That is proving to be more difficult in more remote areas, but we have 100 percent coverage in the last 12 months in getting duty solicitors wherever they are required.
有些我們在地區辦公室的職員同仁負責在警察局協調連絡事務律師。如果有人被警察逮捕並帶至警局，我們的同仁會致電中央服務系統請其分配一位事務律師，而該律師應於四十五分鐘內抵達警局提供法律協助。這個規定在某些偏遠地區已被證明極難落實，但在過去十二個月內無論何處只要有需要的話，我們法律服務委員會的當值律師均能百分之百使命必達。

林永頌(法律扶助基金會，台灣)::
我想請教邁克‧吉卡科先生兩個問題：第一，英國的法律扶助組織有1,800個員工，有什麼具體的措施能夠讓他們仍然保持這個熱誠、效率、沒有官僚？

第二個問題是，據我了解，英國的政府部門在檢討整個法律扶助的一個評估報告，在這個評估的過程，或者是在政府監督的，因為錢都是政府出的，政府在監督法律扶助的時候，政府的監督以及法律扶助的獨立性之間的界線是如何運作，而沒有失去獨立性？

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
We invest considerable amount of money in our staff, and I’ve said in the outset that we consider our staff to be one of our greatest assets. We do annual staff surveys with them to make sure that we are in tune with what they are thinking. We adopt a policy of catching them doing things right rather than catching them doing things wrong, and we try to reward our staff on that basis. When I first joined two or three years ago, we were heavily paper-based, and we turned the paper around and try to say that in each application is actually a real person. And by moving through the process as quickly as possible, we can actually help people.
英國法律服務委員會在我們職員同仁身上投資了可觀的金錢，而在開頭我已提過，我們認為職員同仁是法律服務委員會最珍貴的資產之一。我們每年均會做職員意見調查，以確保法律服務委員會所行所為，與同仁們的所思所想能合節合拍。我們法律服務委員會採取發覺其善，而非探查其惡的政策，然後在此基礎上試著獎勵鼓舞職員同仁。當我二、三年前剛加入法律服務委員會時，我們是非常倚重紙上作業的；爾後我們將紙本挪開，試著注重在每張申請表格背後，實際上存在的是真實的個人、真實的人生。而藉由盡可能快速地將法律服務觀念轉移、推進的過程中，我們法律服務委員會能夠確實地幫助民眾。

We also regularly visit clients who benefit from our services. As some of you may know, legal aid is reported in a mixed way by the press. They highlight the cases where we grant legal aid to clients who they don’t think should get legal aid, and we make great account of getting cases to people which demonstrates how effective it can be. The most up-to-date example is a member of our own staff’s brother who had mental health problems, and she did a presentation with him showing how we helped him to return to normal life. And I can assure you that there wasn’t a dry eye in the house. We spend a lot of time on these because we think it is very important to our people that they understand what difference they are making to people’s lives.
法律服務委員會也定期地訪視曾受惠於我們法律服務的受服務人。如你們有些人所知，英國的新聞媒體是以褒貶夾雜的方式報導法律援助服務。媒體高調地報導我們給予法律援助扶助、但他們卻不認為受服務人應得到協助的案件；我們則看重從需要法律服務的民眾處接案，而這彰顯了法律服務委員會的服務效能。最新近的著例是我們一位職員同仁患有心理健康問題的兄弟，她陪伴著他說明介紹法律服務委員會是如何幫助他重返正常生活。而我可以向你們保證，在場沒有一雙眼睛是乾涸無淚的。我們投注許多時間在這些事務上，因為我們認為對於我們的職員同仁來說，了解他們是如何改變了受服務人的生命、生活是非常重要的。

林永頌 (法律扶助基金會，台灣):
我的第二個問題是，因為英國政府部門正在對法律扶助做一個評估報告，而預算是政府提供的，那麼政府在監督或者是做評估的時候，法律扶助組織跟政府之間的關係怎麼維持獨立？

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
The issue of independence is a daily challenge. To be fair, I think that we are maintaining it. We sue the government on occasions, and we also work very hard at making sure that the corporate objective reflects what the Department of Constitutional Affairs[8] wants us to achieve. It can be a very tense relationship on occasions, but mainly it is a very fruitful relationship, particularly as we are trying to ring fences to the civil legal aid budget. This year we are looking to grant 650,000 acts of assistance. And given our budgetary issues, it would have been[9] very easy for the ministers to say “we can cut back in that area”, but they clearly didn’t. They’ve encouraged us to ring fence to the civil legal aid budget, because it is under enormous pressures from the criminal area that we are looking into control. Any scope changes or budgetary costs are likely to go into that area and not the civil legal aid services.[10]
獨立自主性的議題是我們每天都會面臨的挑戰。平心而論，我認為我們有捍衛住這條獨立自主的底限。我們偶爾會有代表受服務人向政府提出告訴的時候，而我們同時也非常努力地確保整體的共同目標反應憲政事務部[11] ﹝Department for Constitutional Affairs﹞希望我們達成者。有時候我們法律服務委員會與政府的關係相當緊張，但是大多時候我們之間的關係可說是成果豐碩，特別是我們正試圖逐步增加﹝ring fences﹞民事法律援助預算。今年我們預期核准通過六十五萬件法律服務案件。而在編列給我們的一定預算內，內閣大臣們很是可以說：「我們可以裁減縮編法律服務這個領域的預算」，但很明顯地他們從未如此做過。他們反而一再鼓勵我們逐步增加民事法律援助預算，因為該領域在刑事領域的預算排擠下面臨重大的壓力，而刑事領域是我們正調查管控的。任何法律服務範圍的變更、預算成本等均極有可能流入、擴張刑事領域，而非民事法律援助服務領域。

24. We have daily access to the ministers, and we take them to regional offices and visit our suppliers. Last week Bridget Prentice[12] visited the Public Defender’s Service and met a group of barristers who commented on what they would like in terms of remunerations. Our big issue at the moment with the bar agencies is how much we remunerate them. So it is a tense relationship, but we are managing to keep our independence at the moment.
我們與相關內閣大臣們進行每日會報，並邀請他們到地區辦公室參觀，以及訪視我們的法律服務提供者。上個星期憲政事務部政務次長﹝Parliamentary Under Secretary of State﹞布莉姬‧普瑞恩緹絲國會議員﹝Bridget Prentice MP﹞參訪了公設辯護服務，並與針對給付報酬的依據提出評論意見的訟務大律師群會面。我們面臨的一項與律師專業團體相關的重大議題即是，應如何給付報酬予這些事務律師暨訟務大律師的問題。這造成法律服務委員會及法律服務提供律師間彼此關係的緊張，但我們仍嘗試於此情形下努力保持我們的獨立自主性。

Unidentified:
無從識別的與會者：
I would like to ask, how do you assess that people really need legal aid and they that cannot afford to hire an attorney at law?
我想要請教，貴國法律服務委員會如何評估民眾是真的需要法律扶助，而無法負擔委請訴訟代理律師之費用？

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
We have very structured means and merits tests, and we have good connections through to work compensation agencies that may be paying benefits to individuals. We have through the internet a self-evaluation so if people aren’t sure whether they are able to benefit, they can go to our website and do a self-assessment to ensure that they are entitled to it. Merit of the cases is particularly relevant as we examine the very high cost cases.
我們英國法律服務委員會擁有體制完備的資力與案情審查制度，而且我們也在運作損害賠償／補償的機制上建立良善的聯繫網絡，以便依個案的不同情況給予法律援助服務。我們在網際網路上公布自我評量表以供民眾自行計算，因此，假如民眾對於自己是否能獲得法律援助服務沒有把握，他們可以點選參閱我們的網站，先進行自我資力檢測，以確認其是否具備申請法律服務的資格。當我們檢驗審查某些成本非常高額昂貴的申請案件時，該案件申請受服務人的資力審查對於其能否獲得法律服務將分外相關、重要。

A case that has recently been in the public agenda﹞[13] is whether we should fund the vaccine MMR. We funded it to 15 million pounds. There was no clinical evidence to suggest that the vaccine created issues, so we’ve had to pull out of that. We’re constantly reviewing our merits tests. But there are a means and a merit test, which are well established, and can be accessed by both the clients and suppliers.
最近出現於公共議程﹝public agenda﹞的法律服務案件，為我們是否應該資助麻疹、腮腺炎及德國麻疹三合一混合預防疫苗﹝Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccine, MMR﹞相關醫療糾紛。我們撥列了一千五百萬英磅作為此項專款。但最後並沒有明確慎重的醫療證據顯示，三合一預防疫苗造成了相關醫療傷害，因此我們必須取消這項計劃、終止此案的法律服務。我們正不斷地、經常性地重新審視我們所訂定的案情審查標準。不過我們已妥善建立及發展目前既有的資力及案情審查標準，受服務人及法律服務律師均可利用此審查標準評估是否符合法律服務的資格。

Wilhelm Joseph, Jr. (Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, USA):
威爾漢‧喬瑟夫二世﹝馬里蘭州法律服務局執行長，美國﹞
Mike, you said that 1 percent of the cases consume 49 percent of the resources. I have two questions. Question one, what are some of the explanations you use to justify this allocation as being effective, rational, and fair? Number two, could you provide examples of those cases within the one percent, particularly civil cases?
邁克，你曾提及所有法律扶助案件中的百分之一需索消耗了全部法律服務資源的百分之四十九。我有兩個問題。問題一，你們用以正當化如此的資源分配、認為這樣分配是有效、合理並公平的理由為何？問題二，你是否能提供這些百分之一案件內的例子，特別是民事案件？

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
We’re clearly focused on the one percent of the cases that consume the 49 percent of the budget, and that’s why we set up the Very High Cost Cases Unit and the Criminal Case Unit to bring those cases under contract. In the recent case that I was talking to you about, our bill was 8 million pound. It fell at the first hurdle, and we asked to reclaim that. We’re working very hard in bringing contracts in that try to reduce the costs. Possible cases include the Paddington rail crash[14] , the vaccine cases, and some high profile murder cases, and they all bail in the high judiciary. We now have specialist teams that are responsible for relationship management both with the suppliers and the Commission in making sure that those cases are managed better. The hope is that the judiciary in England and Wales has caught up on this, and has started to drive from the top. We have to make sure that these cases are run properly, so case management is a real big issue. What we’re pursuing in our relationship with the Magistrate’s courts is that we’re trying to make sure that the proper processes are dealt with. That includes not just the high cost cases, but any case that go through the Magistrate courts or the Crown courts. Continually, solicitors are kept waiting while time-tables are kept to, which is a high cost to us. We recognize that the core of these issues may be about how we organize ourselves in court services and in the Magistrate’s courts. A lot of work that is going on is sponsored by the judiciary, which is of great help to us.
英國各界的關注明顯地聚焦在我們法律服務委員會佔用了百分之四十九資源的那百分之一的案件上，這也就是為何我們設立了處理極高訴訟成本案件的單位﹝Very High Cost Cases Unit﹞以及刑事案件單位﹝Criminal Case Unit﹞，以壓低成本、將上述案件置納於我們管控案件成本之簽約制度內﹝譯註：亦即與事務律師或訟務大律師簽訂個別案件契約，給予固定時薪，由法律服務委員會管控工作內容與品質﹞。在我向你提過的最近相關案件中，我們付出了多達八百萬英磅的帳單。這已成為我們法律服務委員會的頭號障礙，而我們決心改正之。我們非常努力將管控花費的簽約制度帶進亟欲樽節成本的案件中。可能採行簽約制度之法律援助服務的案件計有：帕丁頓火車撞車事故﹝Paddington rail crash﹞﹝譯註：一九九九年十月五日，兩輛火車於帕丁頓迎面對撞，造成三十一死、四百傷。詳參：http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/956887.stm﹞、 三合一疫苗案件、以及一些高曝光率的謀殺案件，目前這些案件均繫屬在高等法院上訴中。我們目前有專家小組負責聯繫法律服務委員會及法律服務提供律師，以確保這些案件均妥善處理中。我們期待英格蘭暨威爾斯的司法制度亦能跟上腳步，並開始由上至下推動之。我們必須確定這些案件的法律程序均適當地進行中，因此案件控管確實是一個大議題。對於法律服務委員會所追求的與治安法庭﹝Magistrate’s courts﹞﹝譯註：「治安法庭」為英國皇家監獄管理服務部相關文書中使用的正式中文譯名：http://www.hmprisons.gov.uk/assets/documents/100002CCpib_Women_Chinese.pdf；香港立法會法律事務部參考資料亦使用此一譯名：http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/chinese/panels/ajls/papers/ls17c.pdf。惟我外交部正式譯名為「地方法院」http://www.mofa.gov.tw/webapp/ct.asp?xItem=151&ctnode=423，併與敘明之﹞間的關係，係我們持續嘗試確保應妥善地處理適當的法律程序。這不只是包含了高成本案件，而是任何治安法庭或刑事法庭﹝Crown courts﹞﹝譯註：又有譯為「皇家法院」。刑事法庭為英國憲政事務部的中文官方文書正式用語：http://www.dca.gov.uk/family/dvchinese.pdf，其設立於一九七二年，屬英國最高法院之組成部分，取代巡迴法院和季座法院﹝Quarter Sessions﹞做為嚴重刑事案件之審判機關﹞審理中之案件均是我們關心的對象。事務律師由於排班時間表的規制，持續不斷地值班待命，這對我們來說亦是高額的人事成本。我們認知到這些議題的核心，均與我們在法院服務及治安法庭內如何自我組織、運作相關。目前進行中的許多工作是由司法機關贊助支援的，而這點對我們而言助益甚大。


Unidentified LAF staff:
無從識別的法律扶助基金會職員同仁：
Mr. Jeacock you mentioned that LSC has a program which was launched in a prison, you worked with inmates and I was impressed. It seems that it could be an empowering process for the inmates. What is your opinion on that issue? Dr. Kilian compared the different models, and it seems that the more you’re centralized, the less lawyers will be involved in helping legal aid clients. What models could engage more lawyers to participate in this profession?
邁克‧吉卡科先生，您提到了法律服務委員會﹝LSC﹞有一個計畫是於監獄中發起創辦的，而您和監獄受刑人一起工作的事令我印象深刻。這似乎是一個針對監獄受刑人而設的平權﹝empowering﹞過程。請問您對此議題的看法為何？馬提雅斯‧基利安博士比較了各種不同、可供對照的法律扶助模式，而似乎假使法律扶助組織越集中事權，則將使越少律師得以加入幫助法律扶助委託人的行列。請教您認為哪一種模式得以促使更多的律師參與、從事此項專業服務？

Matthias Kilian (Cologne University, Germany):
馬提雅斯‧基利安﹝科隆大學資深研究員，德國﹞
I think the observation is correct. For example in the model in England and Wales, highly specialized lawyers do legal aid work, and as far as I understand, there are law firms that only specialize in legal aid work, which can create problems when their contracts are not renewed.
我相信這樣的觀察是正確的。亦即，以英格蘭和威爾斯的模式為例，從事法律扶助服務的是高度專業分工的律師，而據我所理解的範圍而言，在英格蘭和威爾斯有些法律事務所專門只處理法律扶助之服務工作，因此當他們與法律服務委員會間的契約到期未續約或換約時，就會形成其事務所營運的困難。

I think the question of whether legal aid work should be done by lawyers in private practice, by staff lawyers, or by lawyers who have a contract with the Legal Aid Board, is difficult to answer. I think it to some extend depends on the country in question. For example in Taiwan, I have observed that you are densely populated, therefore a staff model probably can work because a continuous influx of cases can be guaranteed and it is justified to have somebody on your payroll. In places like Yorkshire, England, or rural areas in Germany or Montana in the United States, it would probably be difficult to justify having somebody who would sit there five days a week and wait for cases to come in, therefore the cheaper or more cost effective model is to have somebody in private practice who follows a set of standards and acts according to a quality agenda.
我認為，法律扶助服務工作究竟應交由私人執業律師、委員會聘雇之專職律師、或與法律扶助委員會簽訂契約的律師來完成，是一個很難回答的問題。我以為某種程度應依不同國家的情形各別作全方位的考量。以台灣為例，我透過了觀察認識到你們是個人口稠密的國家，因此由聘雇之專職律師從事法律扶助的工作模式或許可行，如此則源源不絕之案件均可獲得法律扶助品質的保障，且僱用受薪律師亦具正當性。而像約克夏﹝Yorkshire﹞、英格蘭、或德國的邊郊地區、或美國的蒙大拿﹝Montana﹞等地，僱請位律師一個星期五個工作天坐在那裡、等待著案件上門來，恐怕就難以證立其正當性，因此較為價廉的、或最具成本效益﹝cost effective﹞的法律扶助服務模式會是委任私人執業律師，要求其應遵守一套標準，並按照品質議程從事法律服務。

One thing that maybe seen as an ethical or a philosophical problem is that the contracting approach is very market-oriented. You select the best providers, have a business relationship with them and they provide good services, but it takes away a bit the responsibilities of the legal profession on the whole. In Germany for example, or in countries where there are more lawyers involved in legal aid work, they are paid at reduced rates so that everybody is contributing to access to justice in a way. While the centralized models to some extent take a more market-based approach, which is probably justified from a financial point of view, but the approach releases the legal profession as a whole to contribute to access to justice. That is an observation that I would make. It probably doesn’t answer you question, but as you said it’s very difficult to answer such a question.
非常市場導向的法律服務簽約制度也許會被視為倫理學或哲學上的難題。你挑選最佳法律服務提供者，與其建立商業交易關係，然後他們提供優良的法律服務，但就整體而言，如此也剝奪、帶走了一些法律專業社群所應有的社會責任感。舉例來說，在德國，或在更多律師投入於法律扶助工作的國家裡，法律服務律師是以較低的報酬水準收取費用，因此每位律師在某種意義上均是為接近追求司法正義做出了貢獻與努力。當集中法律服務事權的模式在某種程度上採行了較為市場取向的進路，這樣的做法或許可從財務控管的角度證立其正當性，但整體而言，此種進路卻豁免了法律專業社群應付出努力以追求司法正義之責任。這是我所為之觀察，或許並未回答到您的問題，但如您所說，這樣的問題是非常難以答覆的。

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
We are asking our regional offices to be more innovative in the way they approach particular issues. Prisoner population is a big issue for us, and the Citizens’ Advice Bureau[15] asked us whether they have a contract to give advice in the Stafford[16] Prison in Liverpool, which is one of our biggest prisons. Everybody thought that it would be challenging, but we did agree to a contract, and now we have prisoners who have been there for two or three years acting as advice agents. Some of the big issues when they first go into prison are issues at home, such as debt, the home, and contact with their families. In many ways, as evidenced by some of the research, prisoners go out and re-offend because these issues were not dealt with. An interesting aspect is that prisoners trust these advice people within the prison, and because some of them have been around prison services for a few years, they know the system so they can help.
我們正要求我們英國法律服務委員會的地區辦公室，在發展特定議題之法律服務上他們要更具創新的精神。監獄受刑人人數增加對我們來說是個大議題，而公民諮詢局﹝Citizens’ Advice Bureau﹞詢問我們是否能與其簽訂合約，提供位於利物浦的史塔福監獄﹝Stafford Prison in Liverpool﹞法律諮詢意見，這個監獄是我們最大的監獄之一。每一個人都認為這工作將極具挑戰性，但我們已同意了是項契約，於是現在我們有在內服刑二到三年的受刑人做為我們獄中法律諮詢服務的窗口﹝advice agents﹞﹝譯註：亦即英國皇家監獄管理服務部推行的牢友計畫Insiders scheme：http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/prison_life/peersupport/﹞。受刑人初次去到監獄時所面臨的一些重大事項，即是需要處理與家庭相關的一切事宜﹝譯註：讀者若有興趣更進一步了解，可參閱英國皇家監獄管理服務部暨非政府組織監獄改革委員會聯合編寫的囚犯資訊冊─關於女囚犯和女少年犯：http://www.hmprisons.gov.uk/assets/documents/100002CCpib_Women_Chinese.pdf﹞，例如債務錢款問題﹝領取補助金、房租或購屋貸款、地方稅、水費煤氣費和電費、國民保險稅金繳納、所得稅等﹞、家庭關係﹝安排孩子的照護、是否申請去母嬰單位等﹞、探監及與家人保持聯繫等。就許多方面來說，如同一些研究所佐證的，受刑人出獄後再犯是因為之前沒有好好處理這些事情。有趣的是，受刑人們信任這些給予建議的牢友們，因為有些牢友在好幾年間已經摸熟了監獄的服務，他們了解這套機制所以他們能提供幫助。

There are other important initiatives that we are looking at, one is in the provision of community care of mental health, very similar to the prison situation. And again, in the northwest of England, they’re mapping advice workers one on one with people with mental health problems, and the evidence so far suggests that this is a big help to them rather than having to go back into an institution. The big issue for us is that we have a new Mental Health Act going through in the next 12 months, which we think would at least travel the amount of the services that we require under legal aid. Some of that would be interesting challenges to us, because a lot of the cases need evidence from physicians, and that costs a lot of money in terms of reports, and we’re trying to work our way through that.
此外尚有其他我們正在考慮的重要法律服務創舉，其中一項是提供心神喪失或精神耗弱者心理健康的社區照護，此與上述監獄內法律服務的情況非常相似。同時，在英格蘭的西北方，他們正安排全方位的諮詢顧問工作者﹝advice worker﹞﹝譯註：advice worker更詳細的工作內容可參閱：http://careers.lancs.ac.uk/profiles/B/B5_Advice_worker.pdf﹞ 與患有心理健康問題的病友協力進行一對一的照護工作，而截至目前為止的證據顯示，這對於病友的幫助頗大，更甚於再將他們送進精神療養院矯治。在未來的十二個月內即將通過的新版心理健康法﹝Mental Health Act﹞對我們來說是個大議題，我們認為此法若通過後至少將我們認為需要的服務項目容納至法律援助服務的名目下﹝譯註：詳情可參閱東北康瓦耳基層醫護服務信托會會議說明文件：http://www.cornwall.nhs.uk/necornwall/client/home/Feb%2006%20Board.pdf，其內對於新版心理健康法有重點摘要暨詳細列表說明，請用「new mental health act」及「LSC」為關鍵字搜尋﹞。新制中的有些工作對我們而言將是相當有趣的挑戰，因為許多案件需要精神科醫師的診斷證明，而根據研究報告這將耗費為數可觀的金錢，我們正努力找出方法因應解決之。

The other big initiative we are trying to work on is witnesses in courts. We’re running a pilot in South Hampton to create an area within court services where they could be placed. Because many of the witnesses could be children, and the process could be difficult to give advice, we’re trying to make sure that due process is attended to. We’re very much focused on the client to make sure that they have the best opportunities that can be afforded through the processes.
另一項我們嘗試推動的重大創舉是服務法庭內的證人。我們正在南漢普頓﹝South Hampton﹞推行一個試驗計畫，在既有的法庭服務中創立一個領域使此計畫得以試行。因為許多證人可能是小孩，所以給予法律諮詢建議的過程可能會較為困難，而我們則正試著確保正當法律程序在這樣的過程中能被留心注意。我們非常關照我們的受服務者，確使他們在法律程序中能以最佳狀態承受之。

Julie Bishop (NACLC, Australia):
茱莉‧畢夏浦﹝全澳社區法律中心聯合會執行長，澳洲﹞
I have some questions[17] for each of the panel members. First of all, it’s not so much about the organization of legal aid as what we were reminded of as the heart of legal aid by the video at the beginning of today, and that is the issue of justice. I noticed that Matthias said in both of your speeches today about the issue in Germany is the free choice of lawyers and that’s at the heart of it. I imagine what you mean by that is that it is a bit like finding a doctor - the public doesn’t want to be assigned a doctor, they want to choose a doctor. However, as we know what happens with doctors is that people go to the nearest doctors, it’s not a free choice. But, in some sense, you have the average citizen who has some means of judging what the service of the doctor is like. So my question to you is, is the decision to allow free choice of lawyers to citizens probably about the lack of comprehensive legal aid services in Germany, or is it more just an ideological point that you need free choice? I question whether or not the average person who has no contact with the law has any means to freely choose, or whether they, just end up with any odd person and they wouldn’t have a clue whether they were any good or not.
我有些問題想請教本議題討論的主談人及與談人。首先想聲明者，第一個問題與今天開頭影片所提醒我們的「組織型態是法律扶助的心臟」並非如此相關，這個問題是有關司法正義的議題。我注意到在今日二位的演講中馬提雅斯您提及的議題，亦即在德國是自由選擇律師，且該原則是法律扶助的核心價值。我從您所說的內容想像其意，覺得這有點像找醫生看病─公眾不喜歡被指定醫師看診，他們想要自己選擇醫生。然而，如我們所知看病的情形，是民眾多半習慣性地前往最近的醫生處看診，實際上這並不是自由意志的抉擇。但是，就某種意義來說，貴國公民頗具一般水準，其普遍擁有某些方法、知識，能夠判斷辨別醫生的服務如何。因此我想請教您的問題是，請問允許公民自由選擇律師的決定是否可能是因為在德國缺乏全面性、整體性的法律扶助服務？或者這比較只是意識型態上的論點，亦即在思想體系上你們需要自由意志的選擇？也就是說，我有疑問的是，究竟一般從未碰觸過法律的民眾是否擁有任何方法使其得以自由地選擇？或者他們單單只是片面接受任何怪異的法律扶助律師提供服務，而根本搞不清楚這個律師究竟是好是壞？

My second question is in the area of justice as well. The vaccines case in which you stopped legal aid brings up the issue of the merits test, and the debate in Australia about the merits test is: are we running a case and judging a case prior to its getting to the court, whereas surely the purpose of going to the court is to have the evidence fully examined, and justice done at the court and not in the legal aid office beforehand?
我的第二個問題也是關於司法正義的範疇。英國法律服務委員會停止法律扶助的三合一疫苗案件，引發了案情審查標準的相關討論，而在澳大利亞有關案情審查標準的辯論是：我們是否在案件進入法院之前，即已未審先判：先行瀏覽略閱、並鑑別評判此案？而進入法院解決紛爭的目的不就正是為了使證據能充份受到檢驗、正義能在法庭上﹝而非事先就於法律扶助辦公室裡﹞獲得伸張嗎？

Matthias Kilian (Cologne University, Germany):
馬提雅斯‧基利安﹝科隆大學資深研究員，德國﹞
I agree with you that to some extent this idea of free choice is an ideal, and quite often it is difficult to make it work in real life, because a lot of legal aid clients are one shot players. If they are repeat players there is some convincing argument that they should be able return to a lawyer they have used before and not to be forced to go to someone else they have never seen and just been told to go to, but I agree that a lot of them are one shot players.
我同意您所說的，自由意志選擇法律扶助律師這個觀念，在某種程度上只是個理想，而且相當多時候在現實世界裡難以落實，因為大部分的受扶助人都是初次、一次使用法律扶助服務。如果他們是再次、多次使用法律扶助服務，有一個某種程度具有說服力的論證是，他們應該可以指定之前的律師為其服務，而不是只因為被告知如此就被迫接受他們從未見過的其他律師，不過我同意，絕大部分的受扶助人都是法律扶助一次使用者。

I think that in general, this is a trend that we have at least in the European Union. For example, there is a European directive[18] on legal expenses insurance where we would have the same problem. You can expect for example, that an insurer has told the insured to see a lawyer with whom the insurance company has a contract with because of quality standards or because of cost reasons or whatever reasons, and there is a European directive on legal expenses insurance, which explicitly requires insurance companies to provide free counsel, so they’re not allowed to tell their insured to see a specific lawyer.
我認為一般來說，自由意志抉擇是我們所認同的思潮，至少於歐盟如此。舉例來說，歐盟法律費用保險指令﹝European directive on legal expenses insurance﹞所處理的議題於我們德國也適用。您可以預期，舉例來說，保險人會告訴被保險人去找特定的律師，而這個律師是保險公司因為品質標準、或是成本因素、或其他任何理由考量與其簽訂契約的。而歐盟法律費用保險指令則明確地要求保險公司必須提供自由選擇法律顧問的權利，所以他們不可以指定其被保險人去委聘某特定的律師。

It is also a general trend that we have here at the European Union that at least when we talk about deregulation in general. This is an important cornerstone of the deregulation concept that we see at the moment in Europe. There should be an informed consent of the citizens, so that you shouldn’t over-regulate and you should try to provide as much information as possible so that the final choice should rest with the consumer. I think this is part of our broader agenda, and I think that we could very well argue whether or not it works in every single case, which I would doubt, but I think it is a general trend that we see at least within the European Union.
一般我們會提及的「解除管制自由化理論」﹝deregulation﹞，這也是我們歐盟國家至少所共有的普遍思潮。此時於歐洲，我們認為「自由意志抉擇」是「解除管制論」概念重要的基石。對公民的「告知後同意」﹝informed consent﹞是必定要的，如此方才不會犯了過度管制的大忌；且應該試圖盡可能地提供資訊，如此最終選擇權方才能掌握在消費者的手上。我認為這是我們更廣泛的法律扶助議程的一部分，且我想我們是可以非常詳細地論辯，在每一件單一個案中自由意志選擇權是否均徹底貫徹之，其結果我也存疑，但我認為至少在歐盟內，自由意志抉擇確實是我們認定具普世價值的思潮。

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
You’ve highlighted an issue which is a huge debate for the Commission. We have a limited budget, and that means we have to make decisions. One of the things that we do have access to is some of the best legal minds that are available, so we can consult with them as to whether we can take cases forward. But there aren’t many days go by when we don’t get issues raised in terms of the merits of cases. I think it’s an issue that will continue to be with us. We do get a lot of cases, and unfortunately we’re not able to fund them all, so we try to make sure that we fund cases which we think we have a fair chance of getting results for. In essence I agree with you that the issue is difficult, and our staff find it very difficult too.
您適才已點明了一個在我們英國法律服務委員會亦掀起波瀾萬丈、討論熱烈的議題。我們的預算有限，而這意味著我們必須做出抉擇。我們確實有方法獲致結論，其中之一即是我們擁有一些世上最優秀敏銳的法學心靈，因此可以與之商談關於某案我們是否進行法律服務的資助。但過沒多久，關於案件之案情審查的議題又會再度被炒熱起來。我認為這個議題將會持續與我們長在。我們確實接獲許多案件，然很不幸的是我們無法全部資助之，所以我們試著確保我們所資助的案件均有合理的機會獲致勝訴結果。本質上來說，我同意您認為此議題相當困難的論點，而我們的職員同仁也認為它非常的困難。

Matthias Kilian (Cologne University, Germany):
馬提雅斯‧基利安﹝科隆大學資深研究員，德國﹞
Can you let us know what the overhead is for the Legal Services Commission? How much money goes into legal services and how much goes into administration.
請問您能讓我們知曉英國法律服務委員會的日常開支為何嗎？有多少經費提供法律服務，又有多少經費支應行政管理費用？

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
We have 2.1 billion pounds to spend on legal aid. Administration is currently 92 million pounds, but we have reduced that by 3 million. That would be one of the pressure points for us in the following years as the Treasury and the DCA look to reform how we approach legal aid. We are looking to develop methods of delivery with that in mind, and we look to do things that are more cost effective. Not surprisingly, telephone service is much more cost-effective to us, and I think we are being encouraged to do that.
英格蘭暨威爾斯每年有二十一億英鎊花費在法律援助上。行政管理費用通常是九千兩百萬英鎊，但我們已刪減了三百萬英鎊。英國皇家財政部﹝Treasury﹞及憲政事務部﹝DCA﹞預期對我們如何達致法律援助的目標進行改革，而樽節行政成本將會是未來幾年內對我們施壓的重點﹝pressure points﹞之一。我們將試著發展時時刻刻將省錢牢記在心的提供法服方法，且我們希望能將錢花在刀口上。並不令人意外地，電話服務對我們而言是最具成本效益的服務，而且我認為此項工作令我們頗受鼓舞。

On the agenda for us for the next couple of months is the prospect of setting up what we call a family help line, which is specifically for clients with family problems. The current estimate is that we will take 2 million phone calls per year. We have to find a method of delivering that service in a way that is cost effective and gives value for money. We’re no different from other government agencies in being able to do that, but the budgets are under pressure, certainly the administration budgets. We think that if we can reduce the amount of bureaucracies and enable people to deliver in business channels, that would significantly help us in doing that. So, it is an ongoing challenge. I’m sure that the ﹝Lord﹞Chancellor will come back shortly and say can we do it any cheaper.
英國法律服務委員會接下來幾個月的議程，是建構一個我們稱之為家庭協助熱線﹝family help line﹞的願景，這是專門提供給有家庭問題的受服務人之服務。目前預計每年我們會接獲兩百萬通電話求助。我們必須找出方法以最具成本效益的方式提供此項服務，並使每一分錢都花得有價值。就達成此點目標而言，我們與其他政府機關並無二致，然而我們更有節約預算的壓力，特別是行政費用相關預算。我們認為如果我們可以裁減人事，並鼓勵大家以商業方式提供法律服務﹝譯註：此處應是指「優先合作之法律服務提供者」﹝Preferred Suppliers﹞等相類計畫，即英國法律服務委員會擬與評定優良的法服提供者合作，將法律服務業務移轉之﹞，將成效卓著地幫助我們達成節約行政經費的目的。所以，這是一個現在進行式的挑戰。但我很確定當我們達成目標後，很快地司法大臣﹝Lord Chancellor﹞又會再回來，並說我們是否可以再節省一點。

鄭文龍:
我想請教邁克‧吉卡科先生，如何讓偏遠地區比較貧窮的人知道有這樣的服務，而且讓他得到好的扶助？

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
We call them advice deserts, or the popular press calls them advice deserts. We monitor those very carefully. One thing that we should bear in mind is that the population in these remote areas is remarkably resilient and innovative in how they go about doing things, because there’s no legal aid, and there’s not usually a doctor, a bank or that sort of organization. We do outreach programs where we ask our suppliers to go and visit these areas and we have clinics and surgeries. One of the great things I will be remembered for in the Commission I suspect is that I would like an advice bus that visits various locations to give out those services. They do have access to telephones, and our telephone service is well worth the effort to enhance. Within Britain, we have what we call the National Health Service Direct, which is a triage service so if you ring up with a particular problem, they would try to talk your way through it before you are pushed onto a doctor. We think that’s where CLS Direct can be in the future, and we try to do as much advice and information as we possibly can and then hopefully pass the client on to a Preferred Supplier. It is a challenge for us, but we have internet services as well, and we get over 70,000 hits a month at the moment. We haven’t really publicized the CLS Direct, and we’re still getting 40,000 calls. That’s why we are confident that we will get half a million phone calls per year within the next 12 months. We hope to publish in the next 3 to 4 months where our CLS Telephone Direct Service is going. We are trying to work in an innovative way in which we can deliver those services.
我們英國法律服務委員會稱呼偏遠地區較為貧窮者為「法律諮詢沙漠」﹝advice deserts﹞，或是大眾媒體稱其為法律諮詢荒漠﹝譯註：相關詳情可參見英國國會報告：http://www.blogger.com/www.publications.parliament.uk/%20pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmconst/391/39103.htm；以及公民諮詢服務﹝citizen’ advice﹞邊遠地區事務國會遊說運動說帖：http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/campaigns/social_policy/parliamentary_briefings/pb_ruralaffairs/the_government_s_rural_strategy_delivery﹞。法律服務委員會非常審慎仔細地監管這些地區。有件事情我們必須謹記在心的是這些偏遠地區的人民處理事情的方法和態度令人驚異地有彈性、極富大膽創新的精神，因為那裡沒有法律扶助機構，且通常連一位醫生、一間銀行或相類似性質的機構也沒有。我們有所謂的延伸服務計畫﹝outreach programs﹞，要求我們的服務提供者前往訪視這些偏遠地區並提供諮詢，且英國有﹝第一線基層醫療網─在社區駐診的一般家庭醫師﹝General Practitoners, GP﹞之﹞保健中心和診所﹝，為方便民眾接近使用諮詢服務，我們也會在這些地方提供法律服務﹞﹝譯註：主談人之語意補充係參考公民諮詢服務：http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/aboutus/inside-a-bureau-outreach-advice.htm﹞。我猜將來在法律服務委員會我會被記得的好事之一是，我希望有輛法律諮詢巴士造訪各個不同的地點以提供這些服務。偏遠地區人民確實可以接觸到電話，而法律服務委員會的電話熱線服務是值得我們努力宣揚的好制度。在大不列顛，我們擁有稱之為英國國家健康服務網﹝National Health Service Direct, NHS Direct﹞的服務；這是一種緊急自我優先處理的服務﹝triage service﹞，因此如果你打電話詢問某特定健康問題時，他們會試著告訴你在去看醫生之前，你可以如何自行照護處理之。我們認為這就是社區法律服務直撥專線﹝Community Legal Service Direct, CLS Direct﹞未來可以採行的模式，亦即我們試著盡其可能地提供法律諮詢建議及資訊，然後希望能將受服務者之案件轉給「優先合作之法律服務提供者」﹝Preferred Suppliers﹞處理。這是我們的挑戰，然而我們也有網際網路服務，且現在每個月本服務網站有超過七萬次的點擊率。我們並未真的為社區法律服務直撥專線CLS Direct做廣告，可是我們依然接到四萬通電話。這是為什麼我們相當有自信在未來的十二個月裡每年我們將接獲五十萬通電話詢問法律服務相關事宜。我們希望在接下來的三到四個月內公開宣布CLS電話直接服務﹝CLS Telephone Direct Service﹞的走向。我們正試圖以前所未有的創新方式提供法律服務委員會的所有服務。

I think what we have to do is going into the communities and say “how best can we help you”? And that is what we are focused on at the moment. From a previous life in banking where we had to offer mortgage advice to clients in remote islands off the coasts to Scotland, we used video-conferencing facilities in our branch offices or in the community centres. I’d be quite interested in thinking that it is something we may do in the future, making sure that clients do have access to quality advice. But it is something we get challenged on a regular basis.
我認為我們應該做的是走進這樣的社群詢問：「我們可以怎樣幫助你們最好？」而這就是此刻我們正努力專注在做的。我之前的工作是在金融界，銀行必須提供抵押評估建議給居住在蘇格蘭沿岸以外偏遠島嶼的客戶們時，我們會使用銀行分行辦公室或社區中心的視訊會議設備﹝video-conferencing facilities﹞。我對我們未來或許會採用類似的方式提供服務、以確保受服務人確實有管道接近取得有品質的法律諮詢建議的想法感到相當興味盎然。但這也是我們在既定的常態基礎上所面臨的挑戰。

Arturo Fournier (Inter-American Bar Association, Costa Rica):
亞圖洛‧佛尼爾
﹝哥斯大黎加律師公會國際法及外國事務委員會會長，哥斯大黎加﹞
I’m going to ask you the same question regarding the students. How do you control the quality of their advice through the telephone? Do they have to identify themselves or do you have an automatized system of telephone control or something like that?
我將要請教您同樣與學生相關的問題。貴國法律服務委員會如何掌控學生透過電話所提供的法律建議？請問他們是否必須明示自己的身分？或是你們有自動電話監控系統？還是其他相類似的機制？

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
Yes, we do. We operate through advice agencies with people who have legally practiced, and we make sure that they are legally qualified. The other thing that we are keen to do is awarding training grants to our suppliers. We’re spending a lot of money now in training grants on people coming out of college to put them into practice. We do control the advice, and we regulate and listen to the phone calls to make sure that the advice that is given is correct, and we do seek feedback from all clients who used the telephone service to make sure that we have spent in that service properly. Again, it is a high quality standard.
是的，我們的確有此機制。法律服務委員會透過諮詢機構做品質控管，這些諮詢機構人員均有法律工作之執業經驗，且我們確保他們的法學素養合格並具一定的品質。另外一件法律服務委員會積極從事者，是以培訓津貼﹝training grants﹞獎勵我們的法律服務提供者。我們目前正在剛踏出大學的社會新鮮人身上花費大筆金錢，作為他們實習時的培訓津貼。我們確實有控管法律諮詢建議，且我們規範並接聽電話以確定給予的法律建議正確無誤。我們也確實從所有使用過電話熱線服務的受服務人身上尋求回饋，以確保我們適當地花費投資在此項服務上。再次強調，我們法律服務委員會的電話服務具有高品質水準保證。

Junius Ho (Duty Lawyer Service Council, Hong Kong):
何君堯﹝當值律師服務理事會主席，香港﹞
I have a question for Mike. Earlier this morning, I mentioned the conditional fee arrangements (CFA). Just out of my curiosity, what sort of correlation and implications have been brought up in UK’s legal aid system after its introduction in 1996? This is something of great value to a country like SARS where we’re also discussing and considering introducing the CFA.
我有個問題想請教邁克。今晨稍早，我提到「按條件收費協議」﹝conditional fee arrangements, CFA﹞﹝譯註：可參照香港法律改革委員會按條件收費http://www.blogger.com/www.hkreform.gov.hk/chinese/reports/conditional-c.pdf﹞。純粹出於我的好奇，在按條件收費制度於一九九六年引進英國後，為英國的法律援助制度帶來了什麼樣的交互作用與意蘊涵攝？對一個國家來說，這如同嚴重急性呼吸道症候群SARS﹝Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome﹞般具有重大價值，我們香港也正討論並思考引進按條件收費協議制度。


Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
The issue has been a significant challenge to us and is under review from pressures from various agencies. I think I would be better able to answer that when that research is complete. It is a challenge for us in the conditional fee area, and it’s something we are keen to develop or take on, but it’s got its challenges for us.
這個議題對我們而言一直是個意味深遠的挑戰，且來自各方不同的機關團體的壓力促使我們再三檢閱、審視此一議題。我想最好在相關研究完成後我會較有能力完整地回覆您的問題。對我們來說，按條件收費的領域一直是個挑戰，也是我們熱切地希望發展或採行的制度，然而這個制度對我們而言有其挑戰性存在。

Junius Ho (Duty Lawyer Service Council, Hong Kong):
何君堯﹝當值律師服務理事會主席，香港﹞
Do you think it is viable for the government to take up this concept when it seems that the global trend tends to accept that the user-pay concept is a right and is becoming a norm nowadays? Whoever uses this service should pay for it, even though people in the less fortunate class may not have the money to fund the service, but at the end of the day when there’s fruit of the litigation, that fruit has to be shared out and put back in the community fund, and that is what we have done and is now doing in Hong Kong, the SARS. We are tightly controlling it and carefully monitoring the use of this fund for the conditional fee and the contingency fee arrangements. Do you think that this should be better done by the government rather than leave it to private practitioners?
當全世界風潮傾向接受使用者付費﹝user-pay﹞是正確的概念且正成為今日之常模規範時，請教您是否認為由政府來採行按條件收費的概念是可行的？不論是誰使用服務就應該為此付費，雖然來自較不富裕階層的民眾或許沒有錢來資助是項服務，但是訴訟結果出爐的那天，其所得的損害賠償／補償金必須分享出來，並將該金額投注回社群基金內，而這就是我們香港從SARS期間開始採行，現今仍如此運行的制度。我們持續嚴格控管此基金，並審慎監督基金使用於「按條件收費」暨「按判決金額收費」﹝contingency fee﹞﹝譯註：即按法庭判決金額的某個百分比而計算的律師費用，此為美國採用的準則﹞協議的流向。您是否認為此制度應由政府來推行，而非委由私人執業律師來計算？

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
I think you’ve encapsulated the whole debate that has taken place. It is a challenge for us in the sense that this government is committed to make sure that legal advice is available to everybody regardless of their means, and their commitment continues to be evidenced by the budget we put out. But I think it is a very topical debate at this moment in time, and rather than giving you a second guess answer, I think we should wait for the research to be completed, and that is eagerly awaited for by many people.
我認為您方才的見解已畫龍點睛地整理了與此議題相關的所有討論。這對我國來說是挑戰的原因是，英國政府對於人民有承諾，基於此承諾政府必須確保每個人不論其資力為何均能獲得法律諮詢建議，而此項承諾持續由我們編列的專款預算印證落實中。不過我想在目前英國這個議題正熱烈討論中，而與其給予您一個二手臆測的答案，我認為我們應該等候該研究完成方下定論。很多人都正急切地等待研究結果出爐。

Unidentified:
無從識別的與會者：
我想問英國的執行長，那天他跟我們談服務品質，我個人認為是一種作為而不是口號。請問他們如何去界定服務品質的內涵，以及如何能貫徹服務品質的掌控?

Mike Jeacock (Legal Services Commission, UK):
邁克‧吉卡科﹝法律服務委員會服務部門執行長，英國﹞
The easy answer to that is that we have very tight measurements. We measure all our processes, and we managed to change the time needed from 8 weeks from two years ago down to 5 days. We measure our staff through “mystery shopping” in telephone calls to make sure that we’re offering customer service. We measure in terms of how quickly we answer complaints, which is 3 to 5 days. These are closely monitored and are targeted for each of our regional offices. We implement and award through a staff reward scheme, which is given at staff conferences, and we measure it very closely. Every month each regional office gets a regional report on how they are doing, and if they have issues we go and help them address those issues. We also take it as an opportunity to promulgate best practices.
對於您的問題最簡單的答覆是我們對於服務品質有非常嚴謹的評量標準。我們評量所有的法律服務進程，且我們打算從兩年前設定的八個星期案件處理工作日縮短至五個工作日。我們透過「神秘﹝客﹞購物」﹝mystery shopping﹞市調法安排隱藏身分的研究人員打電話諮詢法律服務，並完整記錄整個服務流程，以評量我們職員同仁之服務品質、工作態度，如此方能確保我們提供給消費者最佳的服務。法律服務委員會的職員同仁能多快處理消費者的投訴亦是我們評量的項目；申訴處理時間通常是三到五天。我們時時嚴密監控這些評量項目，並要求我們每一個地區辦公室必須時時鞭策自己達成這些評量標準。我們實施職員獎勵計畫﹝staff reward scheme﹞，在職員會議上鼓舞獎勵員工，而且我們非常徹底嚴格地執行、評量之。每個月每一個地區辦公室均會收到地區報告，上面記載著他們這個月的表現如何；而如果他們有議題或面臨困難，我們會去幫助他們處理之。我們同時也視每月地區報告為公布地區最佳表現、提升競爭力的絕佳機會。

Our staff are very interested in making sure that they meet those targets. In the last couple of years, they helped us improve customer services measurably. We now have a customer service rating of 90 percent where our target was 85 percent. It’s keenly contested amongst the regions on the delivery of customer services. And they’re rightly proud of those achievements when you measure them against other government agencies. We think we have the best. We were talking to our Minister about that last week, and she indicated that we indeed have the best customer service.
我們的職員同仁對於能夠努力達成所有評量目標的自我肯定十分熱中。近兩三年來，他們顯而易見地為我們法律服務委員會增進了服務顧客的效能。目前在我們評量表內的顧客服務成績到達九十分，超越了我們所設定的八十五分之目標。各地區辦公室間在提供顧客服務的項目上競爭得異常熱切激烈。而當你將之與其他政府部門相較，他們確實有理由為自己的成就感到驕傲自豪。我們認為自己有絕佳的顧客服務品質。上個禮拜我們正與主管機關憲政事務部政務次長布莉姬‧普瑞恩緹絲國會議員﹝Bridget Prentice MP﹞提及此點，而她指出我們法律服務委員會確實擁有最好的客戶服務。

We think we have much more work to do on suppliers and we want to interact much better with them. We have a lot of management information about our suppliers which we share through our Account Managers[19] . As we move to Preferred Suppliers, we are going into relationship management, which is much less about auditing and much more about helping the suppliers in developing the businesses, which will enable us to take legal aid forward for hopefully the next 50 years.
我們法律服務委員會認為，對於法律服務提供者我們尚有許多工作需做，且希望與其互動關係能更加良好。透過法律服務委員會之專案控管經理﹝Account Managers﹞的分享，我們擁有大量關於與法律服務委員會簽約之服務提供者的相關處理資訊。當我們進展到「優先合作之法律服務提供者」制度時﹝譯註：詳情請參閱http://www.lscappointments.co.uk/content.asp?page=8 ﹞，我們正進入關係管理﹝relationship management﹞的時代，也就是較少監督稽核、較多幫助服務提供者能獨立作業、提供具高品質的法律服務、並發展其法律服務事業，這將有希望在未來的五十年內使我們帶領法律援助事業大步向前邁進。

There are lots of areas in which we are looking to develop customer service. When I first joined the organization, it was about moving bits of paper. Now we see those bits of paper as people, and that helped us develop customer services. We think that it is very important to turn something around in 3 to 4 days and not in another 8 weeks, and clients get better services in 3 to 4 days rather than in 8 weeks. Some of the cases we do range from domestic violence to child abuse, and we focus on making sure that they understand the difference good customer service can make towards our business. We are a business because we operate 2.1 billion pounds, and our staff recognized that through staff surveys. They keep reminding us of the things we do and how we can do things better. We operate a ministry of silly practices within our operational area where our staff tell us the silly things that we ask them to do, and then we take those things away to make sure that we can be more efficient. You would be surprised how many silly practices we have within our operational process. Some of them are historic which we have been operating for 5 to 10 years, and nobody has challenged them. We take those silly practices out of our systems and that is supposed to give back better customer service.
法律服務委員會正期許自己在許多領域發展我們的顧客服務計畫。當我剛剛加入這個組織時，法律服務是仰賴紙上作業的機關。現在我們視所有紙上申請文件為每位需要法律協助的個人，而這樣的想法幫助我們發展顧客服務。我們認為在三到四個工作日內讓一個案件上軌道是非常重要的，而非需要另外八個星期；受服務人在三到四個工作日內即能獲得更好的服務是非常重要的，而非拖到八個星期。我們服務的案件從家庭暴力事件﹝domestic violence﹞到虐待兒童事件﹝child abuse﹞，而且我們著重於確保每位法律服務委員會的職員同仁均能理解良好完善之服務顧客的心意，可以為我們的法律服務志業披荊斬棘開天闢地。我們法律服務委員會是個事業體，也是項志業，因為我們手握二十一億英鎊的營運預算，且透過員工稽核制度，我們所有的職員同仁均能認知體察肩上所承擔的重責大任。他們持續提醒著我們從事此一志業的重要，以及我們如何將工作做得更好。在法律服務委員會的工作領域裡我們常幹了些傻事，而法律服務委員會的職員同仁則向我們回覆報告，說明我們要求他們幹了哪些傻事，然後法律服務委員會就會改善避免再做那些事情使我們的服務系統更加有效率。你或許會驚訝地發現在我們提供法律服務的過程中，法律服務委員會究竟做了多少徒勞無功的事情。其中有些甚至歷史久遠，是我們已運行了五到十年而從來沒有人質疑過的。我們將那些愚蠢的手續從法律服務系統內剔除，而這應有助於使我們法律服務委員會的顧客服務更臻完善。

[1]譯者思考再三，決定比照日本國會議上相關外國人名、地名等均以片假名標示徹底本土化的方式，以中文字貼切標示與會討論者的姓名。
[2]參考香港律師會之譯法。"common law jurisdiction" (普通法司法管轄區)means a jurisdiction in which the law is substantially based on the common law, and "non-common law jurisdiction" (非普通法司法管轄區) shall be construed accordingly;.... http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_c/professionalguide/volume2/default.asp?cap=6
[3]請參照管理契約與管理加盟之不同。http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1306050907813
[4]﹝財﹞法扶基金會官方正式譯名。詳見〈考察美國法律扶助報告書〉。www.enpo.org.tw/uploadfile/2006125155715584.DOC
[5]雖然billion英制與美制不同，英制為「兆」，美制為「十億」，因此美國的billion=英國的thousand million。經譯者查證，此種用法也確實於英格蘭政府官方文書中出現：Assumed funding for further education allocated to the LSC is £4,732 million in 2003-04, £5,174 million in 2004-05 and £5,579 million in 2005-06.等文字、數據──英國教育技能部﹝Department of Education & Skill﹞官方相關文書www.dfes.gov.uk/deptreport2004/uploads/chapter2.doc，韋伯字典英美制數字表中亦如此說明：http://www.webster.com/mw/table/number.htm 。但再經查證，英國首相Harold Wilson
於1974年向下議院表示，此後政府文書統計數字billion=10^9，同美國用法。
[6]這句英文宜再斟酌。原未刪節本主格是It，後刪除添上The service。但譯者懷疑應指The research program，亦即該研究計畫搜羅了律師的意見云云。且”the reports that are ‘are’ we getting back ‘are’ very positive,…”或許應為：”the reports that we are getting back are very positive”.
[7]http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:TKpBIspJ95YJ:www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/birmingham/finalwestmidlands1.pdf+%22family+law+supplier%22+employed+service&hl=zh-TW&gl=tw&ct=clnk&cd=1
可能要再多讀一些相關官方資料，才能確定真意。
[8]正式名稱應為Department “for” Constitutional Affairs。但一般新聞用語、口語仍可使用”of”。 http://www.dca.gov.uk/
[9]與過去事實相反的假設語氣
[10]對照原未刪節版，此處或有小誤。根據Mike Jeacock之意，宜將criminal area後之「，」刪除，或甚至將「which is the area」刪除，直接用that修飾criminal area﹝因為which is the area that….是用來修飾criminal area，而後面一句Any scope changes….則是指criminal area，這樣和and not the civil legal aid services一句邏輯才能前後一致﹞。
looking to control改為looking “into” control，否則將會有語意前後全不矛盾之處。今用追蹤修訂修改之。
[11]香港皇家起訴當局之譯名為「政制事務部」，此應為當時之正式中文官方名稱：http://www.blogger.com/www.cps.gov.uk/publications/%20docs/decision_prosecute_chinese.pdf；惟本部專職處理司法正義、人權及民主相關事宜，故譯名為憲政事務部以其望文生義。
[12]應為Bridget Prentice之誤。詳見英國內閣名單：http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page2988.asp%20另可參見2005年版11月2日版，其時Prentice仍為憲政事務部政務次長：http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:OYjuAcGBKZ4J:www.annual-report.gov.uk/output/page2988.asp+%22this+is+a+full+list+of+her+majesty%27s+government%22+2005+%22Bridget+Prentice%22&hl=zh-TW&gl=tw&ct=clnk&cd=1
[13]採用行政院青年輔導委員會之譯法。www.nyc.gov.tw/chinese/03rd/knowledge_detail.php?ID=167
[14]應為Paddington “rail” crash之誤。已用追蹤修訂更改之。
[15]英國官方文書正式中文譯名有三：「公民諮詢局」、「市民諮詢局」與「公民指導局」，今從就業及退休保障部之譯法。請參：http://www.blogger.com/www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/%20dwp/2005/rre05/other-lang/chinese.pdf
[16]我國外交部將歐洲教廷之James Francis Cardinal Stafford譯為聖座特赦法院史塔福。今仿外交部之音譯。參閱：http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ty-9rHdjGGMJ:www.mofa.gov.tw/webapp/ct.asp%3FxItem%3D162%26ctnode%3D423+Stafford+site:gov.tw&hl=zh-TW&gl=tw&ct=clnk&cd=51&lr=lang_zh-TW
[17]根據上下文脈，這位發問者對與談人及主談人各自提了一個問題。因此，若做如是修改，或較貼近原意。今試用追蹤修訂更動之。
[18]目前我國學術著作或政府官方文書多譯為「歐盟﹝行政﹞指令」。
[19]The Account Managers ...work with contracted service providers to ensure that there is adequate quality marked access to legal services….See, http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions/nottingham_information.asp