{"title":"荣誉对职业道德执行的影响分析","authors":"A. Pramono","doi":"10.36356/ulrev.v2i2.924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to analyze the legal counselors' advocacy against the enforcement of advocate professional ethics. An advocate Honorary Board as aninstitution formed by a functioning Advocate Organization and authorized to oversee the implementation of the Advocate's code of ethics. This is so that every advocate as a profession holder remains in professional values, is responsible and upholds the profession he holds, considering that the Advocate's status as Law Enforcement is one of the instruments in the judicial process which has an equal position with other Law Enforcement. This study uses a normative juridical approach, and secondary data as the main data supported by primary data. The secondary data in the form of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials are analyzed qualitatively. Based on the analysis revealed that in Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Advocates, stated that Peradi was the sole forum for advocacy organizations but with the presence of KAI coupled with divisions in Peradi's body which finally issued a Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 73 KMA / HK.01 / IX / 2015 the application or xecution of decisions against violations of the code of ethics by advocates is difficult to implement.","PeriodicalId":259996,"journal":{"name":"UNTAG Law Review","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ANALYSIS OF RASIOLEGIS OF HONORS AGAINST ETHICS ENFORCEMENT ADVOCATE PROFESSION\",\"authors\":\"A. Pramono\",\"doi\":\"10.36356/ulrev.v2i2.924\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper aims to analyze the legal counselors' advocacy against the enforcement of advocate professional ethics. An advocate Honorary Board as aninstitution formed by a functioning Advocate Organization and authorized to oversee the implementation of the Advocate's code of ethics. This is so that every advocate as a profession holder remains in professional values, is responsible and upholds the profession he holds, considering that the Advocate's status as Law Enforcement is one of the instruments in the judicial process which has an equal position with other Law Enforcement. This study uses a normative juridical approach, and secondary data as the main data supported by primary data. The secondary data in the form of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials are analyzed qualitatively. Based on the analysis revealed that in Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Advocates, stated that Peradi was the sole forum for advocacy organizations but with the presence of KAI coupled with divisions in Peradi's body which finally issued a Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 73 KMA / HK.01 / IX / 2015 the application or xecution of decisions against violations of the code of ethics by advocates is difficult to implement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":259996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UNTAG Law Review\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UNTAG Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36356/ulrev.v2i2.924\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UNTAG Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36356/ulrev.v2i2.924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文旨在分析法律顾问对律师职业道德强制执行的辩护行为。一个倡导者荣誉委员会,作为一个由一个运作的倡导者组织组成的机构,并被授权监督倡导者道德准则的实施。这是为了使每一位律师作为专业人士保持专业价值,负责并坚持他所从事的职业,同时考虑到律师作为执法人员的地位是司法程序中的工具之一,与其他执法人员具有平等地位。本研究采用规范的司法方法,以二手资料为主要资料,辅以一手资料。对一级、二级、三级法律资料形式的二手资料进行定性分析。根据分析显示,在2003年关于倡导者的第13号法律中,规定Peradi是倡导组织的唯一论坛,但由于KAI的存在加上Peradi机构的分歧,最终发布了印度尼西亚共和国最高法院第73 KMA / HK.01 / IX / 2015号通函,针对倡导者违反道德准则的决定的申请或执行难以实施。
ANALYSIS OF RASIOLEGIS OF HONORS AGAINST ETHICS ENFORCEMENT ADVOCATE PROFESSION
This paper aims to analyze the legal counselors' advocacy against the enforcement of advocate professional ethics. An advocate Honorary Board as aninstitution formed by a functioning Advocate Organization and authorized to oversee the implementation of the Advocate's code of ethics. This is so that every advocate as a profession holder remains in professional values, is responsible and upholds the profession he holds, considering that the Advocate's status as Law Enforcement is one of the instruments in the judicial process which has an equal position with other Law Enforcement. This study uses a normative juridical approach, and secondary data as the main data supported by primary data. The secondary data in the form of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials are analyzed qualitatively. Based on the analysis revealed that in Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Advocates, stated that Peradi was the sole forum for advocacy organizations but with the presence of KAI coupled with divisions in Peradi's body which finally issued a Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 73 KMA / HK.01 / IX / 2015 the application or xecution of decisions against violations of the code of ethics by advocates is difficult to implement.