Since the 1990s, township legal service offices have begun to enter a stage of review and rectification, and the construction of grassroots legal service offices has entered a new stage of upgrading, improving quality, and increasing efficiency. The Ministry of Justice has promulgated the "Interim Provisions for Township Legal Service Offices" and the "Business Rules for Township Legal Service Offices", confirming that grassroots legal service offices have a broad business scope similar to that of lawyers; the Ministry of Justice has also issued a unified "Township Legal Worker Certificate" , as the qualification certificate or practice certificate of a legal service worker (but the review power has actually been handed over to the county-level judicial bureau); the State Council Price Bureau issued the "Regulations on the Release of the Second Batch of the "Administrative Charge Management Catalog of Relevant Departments of the State Council" Notice", which lists the business charges of grassroots legal service offices as allowable charges. In general, the rectification and reform in the 1990s strengthened the construction of the grassroots legal service system. In 1992, the number of township legal service offices across the country that had been reorganized and canceled, merged with unqualified acceptance, and newly built increased by 1,087 compared with before the rectification; after the rectification The number of legal service personnel who were dismissed or dismissed for being unqualified, including new personnel, increased by 10,467 compared with before the rectification; 13% of the national legal service personnel in townships have a college degree or above. "Office conditions and material equipment have also been improved. Official documents at the time unanimously affirmed that grassroots legal service offices played an important role in assisting grassroots governments to promote governance according to law, resolve conflicts at the grassroots level, popularize legal knowledge, and rectify hot legal issues. They are An important auxiliary force in the grassroots work of the political and legal system.
However, the turn of the century seems to be a turning point in the fate of grassroots legal service centers. Suppressing (either overtly or covertly) the development of grassroots legal service centers has become an official attitude. In March 2000, the Ministry of Justice promulgated the "Measures for the Management of Grassroots Legal Service Offices" and the "Measures for the Management of Grassroots Legal Service Workers". , stipulating that "grassroots legal service offices are managed and operated in accordance with the institutional legal person system" and "the government affairs and township government judicial offices are merged". In August of the same year, "Guo Ban Fa (2000) No. 51" and "Qing Ban Han (2000) No. 9" were issued. "The document points out that legal service offices" no longer belong to administratively affiliated agencies or institutions, and implement a self-disciplined operating mechanism of independent practice, self-financing, self-management, and self-development, and become a partnership practice that complies with the rules of the legal intermediary service industry. Form". Become a partnership practice organization form that complies with the rules of the legal intermediary service industry."
Subsequently, the spirit of the "Measures" was implemented in depth across the country, and grassroots legal service offices were comprehensively cleaned up and rectified, requiring grassroots legal service offices to be decoupled from judicial offices and restructured in accordance with the above provisions. Since then, the number of grassroots legal service offices across the country has sharply declined from a continuous upward trend. As of the end of 2000, there were 34,219 grassroots legal service offices nationwide, 1,164 fewer than in 1999; but perhaps due to inertia, the total number of grassroots legal service workers nationwide was 121,904, still 2,182 more than at the end of 1999; Business The number of cases handled has also increased, with an increase of 6.3% in civil, economic and administrative litigation cases compared with the previous year. The number of permanent legal advisers to grassroots people's governments, village (neighborhood) committees, enterprises and institutions increased by 5.9% compared with the previous year, and other businesses also increased. However, by 2001, the number of grassroots legal service offices across the country had dropped sharply to 28,647 (a decrease of 5,572 from the previous year), and the total number of grassroots legal service workers decreased by 13,919 from the previous year. Except for a slight increase in litigation agents, Other businesses have significantly decreased. In 2002, the number of grassroots legal service centers and service personnel continued to decrease. Compared with 2001, there were 1,758 fewer service centers and 9,444 fewer service personnel.
2. The role of grassroots legal service institutions in the grassroots legal service system
The role of grassroots legal service institutions in the grassroots legal service system is mainly through its relationship with other entities. positioning in this system. From these relationships, we can also understand, explicitly or implicitly, the reasons for the different opinions on the current evaluation and future design of grassroots legal service offices.
1. The establishment of grassroots legal service centers and grassroots judicial bureaus - "one set of people, two brands".
As a first-level judicial administrative agency, grassroots judicial offices emerged in the mid-1990s, about 10 years later than grassroots legal service offices. However, the functions of grassroots judicial offices and legal service offices emerged almost at the same time.
In November 1981, the Ministry of Justice's "Interim Provisions on the Work of Judicial Assistants" stipulated that full-time judicial assistants should be set up in people's communes (towns) and sub-district offices to serve as judicial administrative work for grassroots people's power. personnel. In November 1981, the Ministry of Justice's "Interim Regulations on the Work of Judicial Assistants" stipulated that full-time judicial assistants should be established in people's communes (towns) and sub-district offices. Work is carried out under the leadership of the bureau (section) and the guidance of the grassroots people's courts. Office) handles civil disputes on behalf of the township people's government (subdistrict office). In September 1991, the Ministry of Justice's "Township Legal Service Work Regulations" also stipulated that the legal service work of the township legal service office shall be carried out under the leadership of the township people's government and its judicial assistants (judicial offices). The resulting relationship between grassroots legal service offices and grassroots judicial offices is that grassroots judicial offices are national grassroots judicial administrative organs, and grassroots legal service offices are social organizations. The two are the relationship between management and being managed, guidance and guidance; grassroots justice The funds of the institute are borne by the state, and the staffing is approved by the state. The grassroots legal service offices are self-funded and responsible for their own profits and losses, and have no fixed staff. The grassroots legal service centers can charge fees for providing services to the parties, while the grassroots judicial offices cannot charge for providing legal aid. However, from the literature, we cannot see the basis for "two brands, one set of people" between judicial offices and legal service offices. Combining the information obtained from the empirical investigation, we learned that in the early days, the director of the legal service office was a judicial assistant, and later a judicial assistant served as the director of the judicial office, thus forming the combination of two directors into one, two offices into one, A situation in which the work functions of the two institutes are integrated into one, and the work functions of the two institutes are integrated into one. In this way, the two offices are unified into one director, one staff member, and one job function.
2. Grassroots legal service offices and law firms - the enemy of "continuous cutting and chaos".
More than ten years ago, law firms became independent from administrative agencies and gradually decoupled themselves from the administrative agencies and completely moved towards the market (but in many rural grassroots, state-run law firms are still the main or only local law firms). Nowadays, grassroots legal service offices relying on towns and streets are also following the same idea and beginning to decouple from their administrative and judicial organs and move towards the market. According to the relevant documents in 2000, after the grassroots legal service offices are completely decoupled and restructured, they will not be much different from the current law firm system. Their rights and obligations in the practice process are not the same as those of lawyers in the Lawyers Law. There is not much difference, including the right to participate in litigation activities of civil, economic, and administrative cases, to review case-related materials from the people's court, and to operate grassroots legal service offices that are not law firms according to the needs of the matters being undertaken. When necessary to handle matters, we should conduct investigations based on the "Grassroots Legal Service Certificate" and "Legal Service License", inquire and provide materials to relevant units and individuals, etc. Their obligations also include "maintaining legal dignity and social fairness and justice" and conscientiously fulfilling their responsibilities. Safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties concerned and perform legal aid obligations in accordance with regulations. However, there are also obvious differences between grassroots legal service offices and law firms: (1) geographical scope. The service targets of grassroots legal service offices are mainly grassroots units and individuals in rural areas and urban streets in the region, while law firms are not subject to this restriction. ; (2) Business scope: grassroots legal service offices cannot handle criminal cases and related businesses, while law firms can handle all litigation and non-litigation business, including criminal cases; (3) Business scope: grassroots legal service offices cannot handle Criminal cases and related business; (4) Business scope: Grassroots legal service offices cannot handle criminal cases. (3) Practicing qualifications: Practitioners in grassroots legal service offices must obtain a professional legal service worker qualification certificate and pass the examination uniformly organized by the Ministry of Justice for qualification certification; practitioners in law firms must pass the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme People’s Court, and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. Organized national unified judicial examination; (4) Income and expenditure system: Legal service workers must be charged uniformly by the provincial legal service office in accordance with the provisions of the Price Bureau. Legal services are handled uniformly, assigned and charged uniformly by the legal service office. The charging standards are biased. Low, many cases only charge cost fees, and some even require no fees according to legal aid standards; law firm charging standards are relatively high. Legal service workers and legal service offices only need to pay a very low annual inspection fee and do not need to pay taxes; lawyers and law firms must pay personal income tax and management fees in accordance with specific standards.
3. Grassroots legal service offices and people’s mediation committees – cross-functional service entities affiliated with the same judicial office.
According to the "Organizational Regulations of People's Mediation Committees" promulgated by the State Council on June 17, 1989, People's Mediation Committees are mass organizations under villagers' committees and residents' committees that mediate civil disputes. Work is carried out under the guidance of the People's Court and is specifically represented by a judicial assistant. Members of the People's Mediation Committee are elected by the masses, with the exception of members of village committees or residents' committees, who are also members of the People's Mediation Committee. The People's Mediation Committee does not charge fees for mediating civil disputes, and its working expenses and people's mediator subsidies are settled by the village committee or residents' committee (it stipulates that appropriate fees can be charged if the mediation is successful); after the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court was promulgated in September 2002, the people's mediation agreement The effect is of the nature of a civil contract. However, the mediation agreement reached under the auspices of grassroots legal workers is not binding and can only be voluntarily performed by both parties. If one party refuses to perform without reason, legal practitioners may inform, assist or entrust the other party to file a lawsuit in the People's Court. However, since the legal responsibilities of a judicial assistant as the director of a judicial office include guiding and managing people's mediation work, and participating in the mediation of major disputes between suspects, in judicial offices with only one judicial assistant, there are often "three brands, one set" "People and horses", the director of the judicial office also serves as the director of the legal service office and the director of the mediation committee. Therefore, in specific cases, the significance of the above distinction is not obvious. In specific cases, the above distinction is of little significance.
We cannot imagine how "public welfare" and "non-profit" legal services can adapt to the market-oriented system/management model that is driven and leveraged by profit. We also cannot imagine a legal service that has neither government support nor market funds. How do grassroots service organizations realize their "public welfare" functions. How can grassroots service organizations without government support or market funding sources achieve their "public welfare" goals? Is there reason to speculate that grassroots legal service institutions may rely on social donations to become public welfare and non-profit legal service institutions? In any case, there are currently no official documents or speeches about the future of rural grassroots legal services, but officials, scholars, and media who are close to lawyers in large and medium-sized cities are all envisioning government-funded legal aid institutions and government-funded legal aid agencies based on different positions and goals. "Group autonomous organizations" controlled by the government. "