On The Lawyer Investigation Order System

The key and basis for the people's court to hear and adjudication on Civil and commercial cases is evidence.Whether the evidence is sufficient or not affects the fact examination of the whole case,and ultimately affects the outcome of the court's decision.However,in the specific judicial practice,the "difficult to investigate and obtain evidence" in civil and commercial cases will continue to exist for a long time in the future.At present,according to the trend of litigation development,it is necessary to further emphasize the basic mode of "who claims,who provides evidence".If the parties want to prove their claims,they should investigate,collect,preserve and submit the relevant evidence to the court,and then cross-examine the evidence to achieve the purpose,that is to say,they should bear the corresponding proof.Responsibility.This purpose is to enhance the ability of the parties to provide evidence and the burden of proof,requesting the judge to separate from the activities of investigation and evidence collection,to ensure that the judge is truly standing in a"neutral"position to participate in the trial and make judgments,and to avoid the judge taking the initiative to form a subjective assumption of the case.In specific civil and commercial cases,more and more parties need to explain the case by applying to the people's court for investigation and evidence collection,but in practice,the parties encounter obstacles to evidence collection.Such results are not only contrary to the protection of the parties'right to apply for evidence in the court as stipulated by the Ministry of Law.Because the parties can not prove the facts of the case,the impartial trial of the case entity is affected.With the idea of ruling the country by law deeply rooted in the hearts of the people,the voice of judicial trial reform is constantly rising,the litigation mode of the people's court has changed,the authoritarianism mode dominated by judges has obviously been unable to adapt to the increasingly complex situation of handling cases.With the promotion of law popularization in recent decades,the direction of China's reform has gradually changed.Gradually transition to the adversary system.Trial is no longer imposed on objective facts,after the distribution of the burden of proof of the parties,the judge examines the legal facts according to the evidence provided,and the status in the proceedings tends to be a third-party referee.Judging from the development of judicial reform,this change is undoubtedly more conducive to the fair trial of the court.Now we have a dialectical view of the direction of the reform of the existing judicial system.Although the law expressly stipulates the right of the parties to investigate and obtain evidence,in practice the parties to apply for investigation and obtain evidence have encountered many obstacles.The parties are faced with the embarrassing situation of "having the responsibility but not the right".Sometimes they have to bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit because of proof.The negative effects are as follows:firstly,it may directly lead to the unsuccessful case,the unsupported claim can not be supported,and the justice of the case judgement can not be maintained;secondly,the distribution of burden of proof as the basis of the judgement must be cooperated with in order to carry efficient but can be guaranteed.The way of obtaining evidence is fair,otherwise the society will not be able to accept justice brought by such a case rule.Therefore,in August 2015,the Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Beijing put forward a formal trial lawyer inquiry order system,which has gone through from the exploration pilot to the formal trial.This action has a tremendous and far-reaching impact on the court and society.In this paper,the pilot and actual effect of the system are analyzed,and the specific measures to improve the system are put forward in combination with the mature evidence system outside the country,hoping to have a certain reference significance for the domestic implementation of the system.