Research Of Chinese System In Responsibility To Expert Of Lawyer

In recent years, more and more financial packaging cases exposure to the public inmedical malpractice and stock market. Professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountantsbrought losses to others due to the negligence in their practicing process. And this becomesthe object of legal science focus. In the legal field, lawyers were given a strong sense of trustand reliance by their people, and this will gradually deepen. Lawsuits against lawyersmalpractice in judicial practice also increased dramatically. Compared with other fields of thecivil law, the study of the lawyer expert liability is too fragmentary and lack of theoreticaldepth. So the situation is not optimistic. Based on the basic theory of civil law, focusing onthe lawyer’s special identity, lawyer expert liability is elaborated in this paper by usingcomparative analysis and empirical analysis methods. This paper focuses on the lawyer’sspecial identity, and using a variety of methods to analyze the improvement of the lawyerexpert liability system. The first part of the paper puts forward the question. It points out theshortage of our lawyer expert liability system by analyzing China’s legislative status quo oflawyer expert liability system. This mainly reflects in the following points: the lack ofprovisions of the third person responsibility, the ambiguous nature of lawyer expert liability,the non-uniform imputation principle, the lack of fault judgment standard, the unclear subjectand limitation of liability, and incomplete defenses. The second part analyzes the source andnature of the lawyer expert liability. Lawyer expert liability comes from the lawyer’s violationof the promissory obligations and legal obligation, and it has the nature of liabilityconcurrence. The third part analyzes the imputation principle and the cognizance of fault ofthe lawyer expert liability. And the author thinks that the lawyer should be responsible forhis/her fault liability to the client and the third person that can be reasonably foreseen. Afterdetailed demonstration of the criteria to judge fault and the influencing factors of fault, theauthor thinks that we should let the lawyer to undertake the duty of care above the moderatestandard. Finally, combining with the type of damage a lawyer may cause in the process ofpractice, and according to the public policy considerations and the causality theory of itsliability scope, the author thinks that we should expanding the scope of damage compensationof lawyer expert liability. Pure economic loss and mental damage compensation should bebrought into the scope of damage compensation of lawyer expert liability. Lawyer expertliability defenses are incomplete at present in our country. The author thinks that the fault ofthe client, client at their own risk, the third person’s fault and exceptions can become thedefenses of lawyer expert liability.