政府律师的管理架构

Bradley Selway 南澳大利亚副总检察长

本文探讨了适合政府律师的组织结构。专业人员可能需要与其他人不同的安排，特别是在要保持专业技能和文化的情况下。这些安排可包括：在一个专业小组内工作；由公认的专业能力的同行专业人员进行行业管理；合议决策程序。同样的原则似乎也适用于其他专业团体。

几年前，当我在南澳大利亚担任王室事务律师时，我对总检察长负有向政府提供法律服务的一般责任，更具体地说，我对王室事务律师办公室的运作负有责任。有两个管理上的问题，我必须解决，这是与这个主题相关的。

第一个涉及政府部门聘用的“内部”律师的管理。1980年代，澳大利亚政府的一些机构和部门开始雇用“内部”律师。在此之前，所有法律服务都是由皇家律师办公室提供的，但这些机构和部门正在寻求一种更直接负责的法律服务。澳大利亚其他政府和海外都知道“内部”律师参与提供这样的服务。然而，南澳大利亚的机构和部门规模相对较小，而且当时大部分法律服务都是由皇家律师办公室免费提供的，有必要的后果，没有任何机构雇用一名或两名以上的律师。为了省钱，受雇者是没有经验的初级律师。他们被相对不错的起薪吸引到了这个机构。他们通常身处本署的公司服务范畴内，并向缺乏或没有专业法律经验的公司服务主管报告。也许并不奇怪，几年后，有关机构的首席执行官们对律师们变得“憔悴”，不再提供高质量的服务表示关切。我也有同样的担心，但我也担心这些律师已经被客户“俘虏”，不再提供独立的建议。此外，这些干事自己也越来越多地反对现有的管理安排，质疑他们的主管管理这些安排的能力。

第二个问题是所有人都面临的一个问题，1980年代末，澳大利亚政府中央法官办公室，我认为，这些办公室仍在继续。这些办事处面临的困难是，私营部门的法定薪金大幅提高，使其越来越难以留住高级法律工作人员。作为一个通才，好的律师甚至不愿意管理其他的律师。他们更愿意当律师。保留资深律师的建议之一是使他们的工作更有吸引力，办法是取消他们的管理责任，将这一责任移交给准备担任管理职务的律师(如果可能找到他们的话)或非律师。与此同时，预算压力减少了可用于管理该办公室的资源。为处理这一问题而采用的各种方法，如交叉收费、计时、业绩审查等，大大增加了管理人员必须投入管理的时间和需要部署的技能。南澳皇冠律师事务所并没有足够的高级法律人员，使我们能够将法律和管理职能分开。如果要减少高级律师的管理任务，唯一真正的选择是将行政和人事管理职能下放给非律师。然而，即使是在批准许可等相对较小的事项上，在试图这样做时，似乎也引起了法律工作人员的严重关切。

这些问题不仅限于南方的澳大利亚。大多数州和联邦都在处理同样的问题。在1991年，在一份chnight奖学金的资助下，我去了英国，观察了向英国政府提供法律服务的结构和组织。同样的问题也在那里面临着。有趣的是，考虑到其法律服务的规模及其组织的多样性（见drewry1981），它为不同模式之间的比较提供了一个真正的机会。

令人惊讶的是，这些问题似乎没有在一般的管理文献中得到解决，或者至少没有在我所能得到的文献中得到解决。总的来说，文献中的假设似乎是，一种管理对策适合所有的管理问题。然而，更深入的研究使我能够找到一些社会学和管理研究，涉及由专业人士组成的部门或办公室的组织和文化，这些研究既符合我的经验，也有助于解释正在发生的事情。

从这些研究可以看出，人们普遍接受以下建议：在一个半自治的专业办公室或部门，构成一个更大的组织的一部分，服从首先是对在会期办公室承认的专业规范，而不是更广泛的组织承认和提倡的规范（见Satow等人1975：156）。专业人士倾向于对组织或管理层施加的约束保持较低的容忍度，他们认为这些约束会危及他们自己的价值观。他们“可能适应组织生活；但他们仍然希望在没有明显影响的情况下，对自己的离散责任进行判断”（Davis 1990：65）；这些专业规范是高度内化的，通过专业培训教授，通常是在办公室内(见Etzioni1975:53;索伦森和索伦森1979:103-105;霍尔等人1968:137;布鲁尔和道森1994:282-83,286-87)。在专业组织内，权力取决于上级专家公认的专业能力，而不是由于上级职位或职位而产生的任何指挥权力。（参见布拉乌1968：455）；一个专业组织的管理层很可能是合议的。即使专业人士在行使其管理特权时有监督FUNC----也由合议制度所规定的同桌斯坦----达兹管理(见Blau和Meyer 2nd 1975:76-77)；3.黄连、褐连和绿连1991:376;霍奇和安东尼1988:412;拉林1985:112-13);控制专业人员的主要手段是仔细挑选和培训这些工作人员,从而使该处的专业规范内化(见Etzioni1975:52-53);4.拉埃林1985:179-82,204-206;辛克莱1991:323,327)。考虑到这些研究和我自己的经验，我当时和现在一样，认为可以就政府律师的管理结构得出明智的结论。

在我看来，如果要在各部门和机构内设立法律小组，那么法律小组就必须由具有足够专业知识的律师来管理，以便得到客户和小组成员的尊重。 为了维持法律团队的专业标准，组织的其他部门必须承认律师的专业知识和专业化，特别是法律管理人员（例如参见Davis 1990：64-65; Thornton 1970：424 ; Hall 1968：97; Engel 1970）选择合适的法律经理是创建一个成功的法律团队的基本先决条件，该团队可以向客户提供合适的“内部”服务，最终被将需要。

在我看来，律师控制新成员加入法律团队至关重要，甚至他们对新法律经理是否具备适当的法律技能也有重要意见。此外，法律团队需要足够大，以支持专业标准和专业知识，并保持适当的专业文化。为此目的需要多大尺寸取决于具体情况。如果律师与更大的法律团队保持密切联系（例如，他们外派中央法律事务所的律师，并且预计每两年回到主要办公室），团队可能非常小，例如两个或三个。但是，如果团队是一个独立的法律团队，那么至少需要五个团队。否则，最好建议代理机构承担短期合同的高级企业法律顾问两年或三年（谁将来自他/她的任何地方带来他/她的专业标准）的额外费用，然后向大多数中央法律事务所或私人公司的工作。

这些结论并不令人惊讶。他们至少在过去的60年中有许多研究和轶事证据证实了这一点（例如参见Woodhall 1973; Dow等1978）。他们通过我在南澳大利亚官方律师事务所的经验以及我对澳大利亚和英国其他律师事务所和部门的观察得到证实。成功保留优秀律师并为其政府提供高质量法律服务的政府法律办公室向新成员传授自己的规范行为。他们发展和保持自己的文化。这些部门的成员与私人律师和其他人区分开来（通常由他人区分）公务员。他们有许多规范，包括对公共服务的态度，对作为政府律师的适当或不适当的任务的态度，对如何恰当履行检察官，律师等职责的态度。就此而言，可以说在政府法律服务中成功履行专业职责涉及将专业标准和规范与其他法律所采纳和应用的标准和规范相结合，甚至有所不同专业甚至其他公共服务。当然，这是假定在公共服务中保留政府律师的专业文化是可取的。职业价值观通常被认为是不妥协的，资源无知的观点，这种观点破坏了整体组织的利益，并使管理者的工作变得困难“（Sinclair 1991：326）。

就我而言，我毫不怀疑保留这种文化是可取的。我以前曾经主张，代表政府的律师的职责与其他客户所承担的义务至少在一定程度上不同。如果仅仅因为总检察长的特殊宪法地位，这要求政府律师行使专业独立性和公正性，他们与其他公务员的差别至少在一定程度上不同（见Selway; Tait 1987：65-66 ，但对比Merrill 1998：87-93，他认为美国在政府律师的独立性和公正性方面失去信心）。教授和加强这些职责的一种方式是培养和促进代理政府的律师的适当文化。一旦认识到法律部门或办事处可能有自己的专业规范，那么就有可能确保这些规范加强了单个政府律师的组织和职业责任（参见Bloor and Dawson 1994：291; Sherman 13 ff）

政府律师受制于许多与公共服务的其他部分相同的压力。在面对竞争加剧的同时，他们也面临维护道德标准和职业责任的问题（见经合组织，执行摘要）。他们也面临客户的要求，即他们提供的服务必须与私人行业提供的服务相当。这些压力和只有有适当的文化使政府律师能够做出回应，才能充分满足要求。如果专业价值观不被维护，政府律师有可能不履行其职责，或者不提供政府要求的服务，或者未能提供政府有权享受的服务。为了让这些律师在履行职责时提供适当的服务水平，必须保持专业文化。

未能保持专业文化可能会导致部门或机构感到失望。这也会导致律师感到沮丧。这是一个不小的时刻，公共部门的工资明显低于外部工资。 “组织专业依赖于官僚主义 - 就业和定义。然而，一个无法持有和吸引技能的官僚机构无法发挥其作用“（戴维斯1990：73-74）。维持专业文化不仅仅是为了维持适当的服务标准的直接目的，而且也是为了保留熟练的专业人员的长期目的。

因此，政府律师应该考虑到其工作的专业性质，以适当的结构进行组织。我假设其他专业学科也是如此。

外文文献出处：Australian Journal of Public Administration,2000,59(2).

附外文文献原文

Management Structures for Government Lawyers

Bradley Selway QC

Solicitor-General for South Australia

This paper explores the appropriate organisational structures for government lawyers. Professionals may require different arrangements than are applicable to others, particularly if professional skills and culture are to be maintained. These arrangements may include working within a professional group; line management by fellow professionalis of accepted professional competence; collegiate decision-making processes. The same principles would seem to be applicable to other professional groups.

Some years ago when I held the office of Crown Solicitor for South Australia I had a general responsibility to the Attorney-General for the provision of legal services to the government and more particularly for the operation of the Crown Solicitorrsquo;s Office. There were two management problems that I had to address that are relevant to this topic.

The first related to the management of lsquo;in- housersquo; lawyers employed in government departments. A number of agencies and departments of the South Australian government had commenced to employ lsquo;in-housersquo; lawyers during the 1980s. Previously, all legal services had been provided by the Crown Solicitorrsquo;s Office, but these agencies and departments were seeking a more directly accountable legal service. The engagement of lsquo;in-housersquo; lawyers to provide such a service was well known in other Australian governments and overseas. However, the relatively small size of the South Australian agencies and departments, and the fact that at that time most of the legal services were provided by the Crown Solicitorrsquo;s Office without cost, had the necessary consequence that no agency employed more than one or two lawyers. To save money the lawyers that were

Australian Journal of Public Administrationbull; 59(2):105–108, June

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

PROFESSIONALPERSPECTIVES

Management Structures for Government Lawyers

Bradley Selway QC

Solicitor-General for South Australia

This paper explores the appropriate organisational structures for government lawyers. Professionals may require different arrangements than are applicable to others, particularly if professional skills and culture are to be maintained. These arrangements may include working within a professional group; line management by fellow professionalis of accepted professional competence; collegiate decision-making processes. The same principles would seem to be applicable to other professional groups.

Some years ago when I held the office of Crown Solicitor for South Australia I had a general responsibility to the Attorney-General for the provision of legal services to the government and more particularly for the operation of the Crown Solicitorrsquo;s Office. There were two management problems that I had to address that are relevant to this topic.

The first related to the management of lsquo;in- housersquo; lawyers employed in government departments. A number of agencies and departments of the South Australian government had commenced to employ lsquo;in-housersquo; lawyers during the 1980s. Previously, all legal services had been provided by the Crown Solicitorrsquo;s Office, but these agencies and departments were seeking a more directly accountable legal service. The engagement of lsquo;in-housersquo; lawyers to provide such a service was well known in other Australian governments and overseas. However, the relatively small size of the South Australian agencies and departments, and the fact that at that time most of the legal services were provided by the Crown Solicitorrsquo;s Office without cost, had the necessary consequence that no agency employed more than one or two lawyers. To save money the lawyers that were

Australian Journal of Public Administrationbull; 59(2):105–108, June 2000

employed were junior lawyers with little experience. They were attracted to the agency by relatively good starting salaries. They were usually physically situated in the corporate services area of the department and reported to a corporate services supervisor who had little or no specialised legal experience. Perhaps not surprisingly, after a couple of years the chief executive officers of the relevant agencies expressed concern that the lawyers had become lsquo;deskilledrsquo; and were no longer providing a good quality service. I shared that concern, but I was also concerned that these lawyers had been lsquo;capturedrsquo; by the client and were no longer providing independent advice. In addition, the officers themselves were increasingly objecting to the management arrangements that were in place, questioning the capacity and ability of their supervisors to manage them.

The second problem was one faced by all

Australian government central law offices in the late 1980s and which, I assume, still continues. Those offices faced the difficulty that significantly higher legal salaries in the private profession were making it increasingly difficult to retain senior legal staff. As a generality, good lawyers do not wish to manage even other

copy;National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Rdo,aOxford OX4 1JF, UK, and 350Main Street, Malden 02148, USA.

lawyers. They prefer to practice law. One of the suggestions for retaining senior lawyers was to make their work more attractive by removing management responsibilities from them and devolving that responsibility to lawyers who were prepared to undertake management roles (if they could be found) or to non-lawyers. At the same time, budget pressures were decreasing the resources available to manage the office. All of the various methods which were adopted to deal with this problem such as cross charging, time keeping, performance reviews etc. significantly increased both the time that managers had to devote to management and the skills that needed to be deployed. The South Australian Crown Solicitorrsquo;s Office did not have sufficient numbers of senior legal staff to enable us to separate legal and management functions. The only real option if the management tasks were to be lessened for senior lawyers was to devolve the administrative and personnel management functions to non-lawyers. Yet when that was attempted, even in respect of relatively minor matters like the approval of leave, it seemed to cause considerable concern amongst legal staff.

These problems were not limited to South

Australia. The same issues were being addressed in most states and in the Commonwealth. In 1991, with the assistance of a Chevening Scholarship, I travelled to England and observed the structure and organisation of the legal services to the British government. The same problems were being faced there. What was interesting was that, given the size of its legal services and the variety of its organisation (see Drewry1981), it provided a real opportunity for comparison between different models.

It was of some surprise to discover that these problems did not seem to be addressed in the general management literature, or at least, the literature that was readily available to me. By and large the assumption in that literature appeared to be that one management response was suitable to all management problems. Nevertheless, closer research did enable me to find a number of sociological and management studies relating to the organisation and culture of departments or offices comprised of professionals which was both consistent with my experience and which helped to explain what was occurring.

From those studies it appears that the following propositions are generally accepted:

1. In a semi-autonomous professional office or department which constitutes part of a larger organisation, obedience is first owed to the

   剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

   ---

   资料编号：[280129]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word